Public employees get one heck of a raise

It’s official. Public workers make more in salaries and benefits than private sector employees. Here’s another way to look at it: We employers are basically paying our employees more than we make.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, “federal civilian workers with no more than a high school education earned about 21 percent more, on average, than similar workers in the private sector.”

Public workers with higher degrees still earned about 23 percent less than their private-sector counterparts. Here’s a more in-depth breakdown:

“Among employees with a high school diploma or less education, total compensation (wages and benefits) costs averaged 36 percent more in the federal sector. Among people whose education culminated in a bachelor’s degree, the cost of total compensation averaged 15 percent more for federal workers than for similar workers in the private sector. By contrast, among people with a professional degree or doctorate, total compensation costs were 18 percent lower for federal employees, than for similar private-sector employees, on average.” – CBO director’s summary

Of course, this news isn’t all that new. The power shift from private to public has been taking place for years.

In 2009, government workers earned on average $47,552, compared to private employees, who made on average $45,155. And in 2008, the public-private wage disparity for some jobs – accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors -- was even more pronounced. On average, taxpayers paid $67,681 for those positions in 2008; private employers, meanwhile, paid $60,046.

Don’t Vote for Obama: Reason No. 9

Number 10 in a top ten list of reasons not to vote for Obama was Solyndra. Continuing the countdown toward one, No. 9 is: Having a wife who keeps telling us what to eat.

In February 2010, first lady Michelle Obama announced her “Let’s Move” campaign to end childhood obesity. “Eat smart. Play hard. Live well,” was her opening salvo in the call to America to get off the couch and onto the track, according to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, which apparently recorded the historic event here. That announcement coincided with the creation of the website, www.LetsMove.gov – a sort of ground zero drop zone for all the latest goings-on in the world of health where fat America could see, at a click of the mouse, how best to solve “the challenge of childhood obesity within a generation.” Excellent plan. Website, check. Famous spokesperson to mention website before adoring audiences, check.

Had “Let’s Move” stayed a simple first lady mantra, all would be well. No complaints here. But what government program is complete without some funding? And it sure didn’t take long for that circle to be made complete.

“USDA announces $5.5 million in grants for Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign,” rang a March 3, 2011 announcement on Obama Foodorama,  the “blog of record about White House food initiatives, from policy to pie.” The grant dollars, also known as taxpayer dollars, are used to reward states and schools that meet certain goals for regular physical activity, as set forth in the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (cost to taxpayers for this piece of legislation: $4.5 billion).

With so much money invested in the health of our kids, perhaps it’s only logical then to expect that someone is going to be in charge of making sure the cost justifies the expenditure. And this is where it gets really annoying. How many times do we have to listen to the first lady admonish our eating habits? From planting gardens in downtown D.C., to taking the veggie message on the late night talk show circuit with Jay Leno, one thing is sure: America is a bit fed up with the lecture -- along with the push to effect national policy change on school menus. Especially from a mouth that still holds traces of a 1,700 calorie Shake Shack meal.

EPA infiltrates the Boys & Girls Clubs

You have to hand it to the Environmental Protection Agency: It sure is thorough. Hardly a stone goes unturned, or a group of young minds unnoticed, in its push to bring the green message to as wide an audience as possible. The latest find?

The Boys & Girls Clubs of America.

“EPA is partnering nationally and locally with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America to introduce children’s environmental health information into the youth service organization’s educational programs,” according to a Jan. 27 release from EPA.

And of course, the endeavor starts with taxpayer dollars.

“A $100,000 grant from the EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection is funding the national development and implementation of the curriculum,” the release continues.

(Insert groan here). Here’s an idea. How about a few of us taxpayers band together and provide, say, $200,000 for EPA not to bring its particular brand of environmentalism – complete with climate change horror stories of dying polar bears and  melting icebergs and starving populations in South Africa – to our youngest and most impressionable? Seems a fair trade. EPA gets funding -- not only $200,000 in hush funding, but also the original $100,000 grant -- and can continue trouncing constitutional and private property rights to regulate land, water and air use as always. In return, EPA backs off the boys’ club and lets our kids play basketball. Win-win?

Win-win.

Besides, don’t the kids already get this message in the schools – from EPA, no less? There, the federal agency promotes such programs as clean drinking water, healthy indoor air quality, Smart Growth policy, and a host of nebulous-sounding topics: Environmental Education. Protect the Environment at School – Information for Students. Managing Your Environmental Responsibilities: A Planning Guide for Construction and Development.

Enough already. We get it. The kids get it. Pollution bad; polar bears good. Now how about a game of hoops?

Don’t Vote for Obama: Reason No. 10

Today kicks off a countdown of the top 10 reasons not to vote for President Obama. The hard part, no doubt, will be the massive inventory from which to choose. But who doesn’t like a challenge? So in that spirit, and with a resolve to stay true to the task at hand, Reason Number 10, in a countdown toward one: Solyndra.

In rapid fire timeline, according to The Center for Public Integrity: In 2005, Christian Gronet founded Solyndra Inc. Company headquarters opened in California in 2006; by December of that same year, executives had requested a loan from the Department of Energy. Shortly after, Solyndra started making solar rooftop panels. Interestingly, at the same time DOE is supposedly vetting the loan application, “Fitch Ratings assigns the company a less than stellar B+ credit rating, and Dun and Bradstreet assesses its credit as fair,” CPI reports. No matter: DOE approves a $535 million loan in March 2009. That’s a government loan – meaning taxpayer money. With much fanfare, and plenty of kudos from VP Biden and P Obama, and their environmental cronies, Solyndra boosts production and files with the Securities and Exchange Commission to go forth with an Initial Public Offering.

Moving on.

It’s 2010 and Solyndra has canceled its IPO and let go hundreds of employees. Why? Well, it’s a cash flow problem – meaning, nobody’s buying. The green roof is caving. Solyndra says, ‘oh no,’ members of Congress start to investigate, and the White House refuses to release documents that would help clarify who knew what and when. Where’s the stimulus money anyway? A little yada yada here, yada yada there, and taxpayers are stiffed to the tune of half-a billion. No worries. In early 2011, Solyndra finds $75 million more financing from George Kaiser’s family foundation – that’s George Kaiser of corporate fame, George Kaiser of oil billionaire fame, and oh yes, let’s not forget, George Kaiser of Obama campaign donation bundling fame. Solyndra goes forth with a loan restructuring using the $75 million, with the stipulation that failure means investors get their money before taxpayers. See where the story’s headed here? Yep, by mid-2011, the company closed shop and filed for bankruptcy. Investors will get theirs; not so, that taxpayers.

As The Washington Times editorialized on Jan. 26: “The loan was rushed through despite warning flags that it was a risky investment. When failing Solyndra sought to restructure the loan, investors such as Mr. Kaiser were put ahead of taxpayers for recouping their investments. … Never in modern history has the U.S. government been used so extensively as a vehicle for benefiting political cronies at the expense of the rest of us.”

Half-a-billion bucks. And I didn’t even see one solar panel from it. Did you? For pushing such a lousy investment on an unsuspecting America, and blowing so much for so little in return, Obama doesn’t deserve re-election.

Another chip off Amendment Five

AP headline Jan. 24, 2012: Judge says Wheeling can take 3 parcels for park.

What else need be said? That, in a nutshell, is a perfect illustration of where America stands in regards to constitutional private property rights – on shifty, sandy ground.

Recall Amendment Five, denying government the ability or authority to take private property “for public use, without just compensation.” Or, Samuel Adams, 1772, on The Rights of the Colonists: “The supreme power cannot justly take from any man, any part of his property without his consent, in person or by his representative.”

And yet, in West Virginia, Ohio County Circuit Judge Arthur Recht ruled that yes, the city can take private landowners’ properties via eminent domain to use for an athletic field and park project for the Wheeling Central Catholic High School because – here it comes – it’s public use.

The case, of course, is headed to the state Supreme Court for appeal. At issue is the fate of at least three homeowners who don’t want to sell. But this case represents yet one more mind-boggling interpretation of the Constitution’s “public use” clause to favor government over individual – a dangerous trend that will no doubt continue as our nation continues its 180-degree turn from all-things-Founding Father.

More on Wheeling: http://www.castlecoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=466

Cheryl K. Chumley: Too many darn debates

Cheryl K. Chumley: Too many darn debates: Chris Wallace on FOX News this morning: "There are too many darn debates. ... And it's the fault of the Republican Party." And moreover, th...

Barney Frank gets hitched

Long-term congressman Barney Frank is set to "marry" his long-time partner Jim Ready in a Massachusetts ceremony.

Where's our money?

We taxpayers are still owed nearly $133 billion -- that's billion with a 'B' -- in bailout funds for companies like General Motors.

Hey, remember the days when private companies had to actually compete and face the consequences of financial decisions? Oh well, what's a billion here, a billion there. Tomato-tomahto, potato-potahto.

Latest news is $12 billion of this $133 billion has already been written off. Translation: Taxpayers lose.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71995.html

Anyway, just keeping tabs on what's owed.