Ryan Budget Aims to Help a Nation of Government Addicts Recover

Ryan has taken the budget debate to a whole new level. He is addressing the actual issues our Country is facing. Entitlement spending has been ouot of control for a long time and no politician has been willing to touch it. In the past, any mention of cutting entitlement spending was he kiss of death for a politician, but the time may be right for it. Millions of people are realizing that we are headed for disaster.

If something doesn't change now, there won't be money for ANY entitlements for ANYONE...

by Gary Bauer - Human Events

I’m glad Republicans, led by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), are having “an adult discussion” with the American people about the kind of sacrifices needed to avert economic collapse. We are a nation of adults who appreciate candor and boldness from our elected representatives.

But we are also a nation of addicts hooked on government largesse. Breaking our deep dependence on government will take patience and perseverance.

To a nation of government addicts, Rep. Ryan has taken on the role of addiction interventionist. His budget is rooted in a sobering reality: that without fundamental change, America faces “economic collapse.”

It would slash federal spending by $6.2 trillion over 10 years, cutting the federal budget deficit from 9% of the gross domestic product (GDP) to 1.6% by 2021. It would freeze government spending at 2008 levels, end corporate welfare, and reform the tax code and health care.

Ryan’s is the first legislative attempt to address the major source of our long-term fiscal imbalance: entitlements. Ryan doesn’t tackle Social Security, but he does propose fundamental reforms of Medicaid and Medicare.

Any former addict will tell you that the first step to recovery is to admit that there’s a problem. But many Democrats won’t even do that, and are blasting Ryan for his bold proposal. In unveiling his budget plan, Ryan himself acknowledged that he was handing the Democrats a “political weapon.”

And they’ve been firing that weapon with typical abandon. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) claimed that the Ryan budget would “deprive seniors of meals” and amounted to a “war on women.”

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the new head of the Democrat National Committee, said Ryan’s plan was a “death trap for seniors.”

Another liberal critic claimed that the proposed budget cuts amount to a “repeal [of] the 20th century.”

I support Ryan’s goal and admire his courage. But let’s not forget just how many Americans benefit from some form of government assistance, and therefore how many Americans we can expect to resist budget cuts.

Call it government mission creep. Over the last century, government has taken over large segments of the economy that the Founders never intended. Economist Gary Shilling estimates that 58% of Americans are dependent on the government for “major parts of their income.” These include scores of millions of teachers, bureaucrats, entitlement recipients, government contractors, those who live in public housing, and much more. Shilling predicts that the share of Americans highly dependent on government will grow to 67% by 2018.

Polls show most Americans understand that government spending has gotten out of control. A recent poll found that most Americans oppose raising the debt ceiling.

But other polls find that most Americans don’t want cuts to the programs they benefit from. The most recent Gallup poll shows that two-thirds of Americans oppose cutting Social Security benefits, and that a clear majority is against cutting Medicare.

I have heard from a lot of conservatives frustrated over what they consider Republican unwillingness to make substantial budget cuts. Their impatience is understandable. The last time Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, they did not win high marks for budget responsibility.

Read the rest at the link above...

1,500 Teachers Paid to Do Union Business While Missing Class

Does this seem right to anyone? I mean, anyone who isn't in a union. Even to union people this should be wrong. Why does a teacher make their entire salary to do only a small portion of their duties? And another teacher has to be paid their full salary to do those duties? Holy crap, what a mess. And it can all be laid at the feet of unions and democrats.

The State of New York is in dire straits financially. The State could be facing $50 billion in budget deficits in 2012. The $9 million that paying teachers not teach is only a drop in that bucket, but damn, you have to start somewhere. If the government of New York took all of these $9 and $10 million dollar wastes of tax dollars and added them up, they would probably be surprised what the total is.

It's the same on a National level. Our Country wastes more money on stupid bullshit every year than they can even count. Matter of fact, I doubt they do count it. There is no accountability at all, none, zip, nada. Of course, when you jump past the BILLIONS and into the TRILLIONS, it's a little more difficult to close that gap, but still, you have to start somewhere...

New York Post

In New York City's funny math, you get only one teacher for the price of two.

The Department of Education pays about 1,500 teachers for time they spend on union activities -- and pays other teachers to replace them in the classroom.

It's a sweetheart deal that costs taxpayers an extra $9 million a year to pay fill-ins for instructors who are sprung -- at full pay -- to carry out responsibilities for the United Federation of Teachers.

With Mayor Bloomberg calling for thousands of teacher layoffs to balance the 2012 budget, critics say it's time to halt the extravagant benefit.

"In these tight fiscal times, it defies common sense to pay two different people to do one job," said Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a government watchdog. "It's a waste of money."

That $9 million would cover the salaries of 198 new teachers at the current annual $45,530 starting pay.

The DOE lets 40 experienced teachers collect top pay and fringe benefits, but work just one class period a day.

Under a contract agreement since 2003, the DOE excuses these veterans to work for the UFT -- currently 38 as district representatives and two as union vice presidents. The UFT pays them another salary, plus expenses.

English teacher Tom Dromgoole, for instance, collects top teacher pay, $100,049 a year, from the DOE for his slot at Leadership and Public Service HS in downtown Manhattan. But he is relieved for most of the day to serve as a UFT high school rep. The UFT supplements his salary by $50,461, records show.