Posted on

Deblasio gives workers 10% raise – increases borrowing to pay

[preamble]What more can we say! Raise borrowing, raise taxes, supposed savings on yet “undetermined savings” meaning no savings. Speed bumps? Failure upon failure upon failure – my god!!!!
No mention about job creation[backtopost]
Andrew J. Hawkins
May 8, 2014 1:48 p.m.
Mayor Bill de Blasio unveiled his $73.9 billion budget plan Thursday, including a projected 10% raise for the city’s workforce over the next seven years and an 8% decrease in small-business fines.

Mr. de Blasio described his budget as both progressive and “fiscally prudent,” a stance that he said would allow his administration to spend on programs that serve his liberal agenda of more affordable housing and expanded prekindergarten, among other programs.

“This is a cautious document on purpose,” Mr. de Blasio said at the end of his hour-long budget presentation at City Hall, adding that his budget takes “a careful stance to protect against future disruptions,” such as another economic downturn.

But one major business group intimated that the spending plan is more aggressive than cautious.

“The executive budget lays out aggressive commitments to housing, education and labor contracts that will require maintaining economic growth at an annual rate of at least 3%,” said Kathryn Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City. “This can be achieved, but it will require close cooperation between City Hall and the business community.”

The budget also contains more details about the contract agreement the city reached with the United Federation of Teachers last week, as well as how much the administration estimates it will cost to settle the remaining labor contracts. The mayor expects to take on $13.4 billion in new costs from labor contracts, but expects to offset all but $5.5 billion of that through health care savings and other measures.

The savings will be achieved in several ways: $3.4 billion will come from as-of-yet undetermined health care cost-cutting that Mr. de Blasio says is “guaranteed” to happen, $1 billion from a health “stabilization fund” that is controlled jointly by the Municipal Labor Council and City Hall, and $3.5 billion from a “labor reserve” fund.

In a statement, Harry Nespoli, president of the Municipal Labor Council, an umbrella group of city unions, said Mr. de Blasio’s budget will “provide a sound financial basis for the city to move forward.”

Mr. de Blasio promised a big reduction in fines handed out to restaurants and other small businesses, projecting an 8% decrease in the expected revenue to $789 million in fiscal year 2015, from $859 million in fiscal 2012. The reduction will help “stabilize” small businesses and allow them to create more jobs, the mayor said.

There was also significant funding allocated to Mr. de Blasio’s “Vision Zero” traffic safety plan. The mayor is proposing to spend $28.8 million on speed humps, red-light cameras and intersection redesigns.

The city will increase its borrowing to help pay for Mr. de Blasio’s plan to build and preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing. The four-year capital plan for the years 2014-2018 totals $48.9 billion. (The city will present a 10-year capital plan next January.)

Now that he’s released his budget, Mr. de Blasio will enter into negotiations with the City Council. Several items sought by the council, such as hiring an additional 1,000 police officers and waiving school lunch fees for all students, were not included in the mayor’s budget, setting the stage for negotiations with the council. The mayor said he supports the idea of free lunch but adopting such a policy would result in a substantial loss of federal funding.

A spending plan for the year beginning July 1 must be adopted by the end of June.

Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito largely praised the budget plan, but criticized it for lacking transparency.

“We are disappointed to see that while the executive budget addresses skyrocketing overtime costs for the NYPD, it does not include funding to hire the additional 1,000 police officers needed to reduce understaffing at city precincts and provide support for Vision Zero,” she said in a statement.

Mr. de Blasio answered a question about transparency by noting that he is still negotiating the budget with the City Council.

Posted on

False Global warming claims allows administration to control more

Scientifically unproven – false claims and another crisis! More energy control – the inevitable creep of socialism

CNN today
Flooded rail lines, bigger and more frequent droughts, and a rash of wildfires are predictions in a White House climate change report released Tuesday.

“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” the National Climate Assessment says, adding that the evidence of man-made climate change “continues to strengthen” and that “impacts are increasing across the country.”

Posted on

White House Attacks Cancer Patient For Speaking Out Against Obama Care

Cancer patient wrote an article complaining that she CANT keep her doctor and her plan is cancelled.
The white house response?
Attack Her! – Evidently she is not smart enough to understand insurance and what is “good” for her
This Is not a democracy to the white house – its OBAMALISM!
When this folly ends!

How Low Can They Go?

The White House attacks a cancer patient.

By            James Taranto     November 4, 2013
It’s been just over a month since ObamaCare’s disastrous launch, and it’s just over three years until the scheduled election of Barack Obama’s successor. It’s going to be a long three years. The exposure of Obama’s signature “achievement” as both incompetent and fraudulent (with its economic inviability yet to be realized) is also showing the administration’s true face. It is an ugly one, and we can expect to see a lot more of it while Obama remains in office.

This morning the White House went on the attack against a cancer patient who is also a victim of ObamaCare. Edie Littlefield Sundby of San Diego explains in today’s Wall Street Journal that she’s been managing a case of stage 4 gallbladder cancer, an affliction whose five-year survival rate is just 2%. Having survived the diagnosis by seven years so far, she beat very long odds–and she did so with the help of an excellent insurance plan that covered care at three hospitals, two in California and one in Texas.

In touting ObamaCare, Obama asserted at least two dozen times (in slightly varying language) that if you like your health plan, you can keep it. As Sundby explains, she is a victim of Obama’s fraudulent sales pitch:

Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.

But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.

Covered California is the state ObamaCare exchange, one of those that, unlike the administration-built federal one, has some degree of technical functionality. Thus Sundby was able to log in and check out her options, which–contrary to Obama’s “new and improved” sales pitch, that people whose policies are canceled will get better insurance–were unsatisfactory. No plan available to her would cover both her primary-care doctor at the University of California, San Diego, and her oncologist at Stanford.

Sundby asks: “What happened to the president’s promise, ‘You can keep your health plan’? Or to the promise that ‘You can keep your doctor’? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.”

This morning Dan Pfeiffer the fast-talking flack tweeted out a piece from, a leftist propaganda outfit. Titled “The Real Reason That the Cancer Patient Writing in Today’s Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance,” the piece, by one Igor Volsky, claims that “Sundby shouldn’t blame reform.” Volsky instead blames United Healthcare, which, he writes, “dropped her coverage because they’ve struggled to compete in California’s individual health care market for years and didn’t want to pay for sicker patients like Sundby”:

“The company’s plans reflect its concern that the first wave of newly insured customers under the law may be the costliest,” UHC Chief Executive Officer Stephen Helmsley told investors last October. “UnitedHealth will watch and see how the exchanges evolve and expects the first enrollees will have ‘a pent-up appetite’ for medical care. We are approaching them with some degree of caution because of that.”

Get that? The company packed its bags and dumped its beneficiaries because it wants its competitors to swallow the first wave of sicker enrollees only to re-enter the market later and profit from the healthy people who still haven’t signed up for coverage.

Sundby is losing her coverage and her doctors because of a business decision her insurer made within the competitive dynamics of California’s health care market.

All this may be true, but it begs the question. The addition of a phrase to that last sentence shows why: Sundby is losing her coverage and her doctors because of a business decision her insurer made within the competitive dynamics of California’s health care market under the regulatory structure established by Obama’s comprehensive “reform.”

Obama did not qualify his pitch by stating that if you like your health plan, you can keep it unless your insurer makes a business decision to the contrary within the competitive dynamics of your state’s health care market.

Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto on how ObamaCare is defrauding consumers. Photo credit: Associated Press.

To the contrary, he represented ObamaCare as protecting consumers from precisely that sort of cruel business decision, and he has not backed away from that fraudulent promise: At a speech last Wednesday, he asserted that the only policies being canceled were “substandard” ones offered by former “bad-apple insurers” whose practices ObamaCare reformed.

Over the weekend a New York Times editorial parroted that line, claiming that “insurers are not allowed to abandon enrollees” and that “people forget how terrible many of the soon-to-be-abandoned policies were.” But even the Times editors can’t quite defend the if-you-like-your-plan-you-can-keep-it fraud. The best they can do is equivocation: “Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that.”

To misspeak means to express oneself imperfectly or incorrectly. It implies either a careless choice of words or an unintended candor (as in a “Freudian slip”). Obama did not misspeak. As The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend, the slogan was the result of careful deliberation. Whereas “some White House policy advisers objected to the breadth of Mr. Obama’s ‘keep your plan’ promise,” “political aides” insisted upon it. The latter prevailed. In an interview with the Journal, one unidentified former official “added that in the midst of a hard-fought political debate ‘if you like your plan, you can probably keep it’ isn’t a salable point.”

The story closes by quoting a “policy expert” who shrugs off the deception:

Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the law’s impact on existing insurance arrangements was “a social policy decision the government made” and the president’s description of it was “pretty low on the totem pole of political overstatements.”

Suppose the deliberations the Journal describes had taken place in a corporate suite rather than a government one and had concerned a commercial rather than a political advertising slogan. In that case, we’d be talking about a criminal conspiracy to defraud consumers.

Yes, it’s unrealistic to expect politicians to be held to the same standard of honesty as corporate executives. But what does astonish us about the Obama administration is the relentlessness and aggression of its efforts to blame others and evade political accountability. The tone is set at the top by a president who, at age 52, retains an adolescent’s aversion to adult responsibility.

Still, you’d think a political professional would recognize that Edie Sundby’s story calls not for an attack but for a show of compassion, even if one lacks the capacity for the real thing.

Posted on

Directive 10-289

Sound Familiar – its the failed European nation and soon to be ours in one form or another

Directive 10-289 said that all workers and wage earners shall be attached to their jobs under penalty of jail and reporting to the Unification Board.  It also said that all businesses shall remain in operation. All Patents and copyrights shall be turned over to the government.  All income shall be frozen.   There were other parts of the directive also.  As readers of Atlas Shrugged remember this plan instead of helping the economy instead accelerated the collapse of the economy and government.  There are certainly some parallels to our current state.

Posted on

ObamaCare is greed sanctified through politics

[preamble]What more can you say – the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. socialism – Obama – who voted for him? [backtopost]

By: John Hayward  |
October 22nd, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Money gets a bad rap from some people, because it’s supposed to be the instrument of greed.  Wanting more money is said to be crass.  Indeed, in our modern political culture, wanting to keep your own money is treated as “greed.”  The noble and virtuous demands of the collective, as interpreted by a priesthood of politicians, completely trumps individual self-interest.

But it’s easy to be greedy without demanding money.  The ObamaCare debate provides a great example of this.  We are incessantly told that the needs of the people President Obama believes will benefit from his health-care scheme outweigh the needs of everyone else.  The relative size of these two groups doesn’t change argument, even when Obama tacitly admits – as he did during his speech yesterday – that only 15 percent or less of the populace stands to benefit from the program.  Higher premiums, exploding out-of-pocket costs, lost coverage, and enormous levels of inconvenience visited upon the rest of us are of absolutely zero concern to the President.  He didn’t even mention those people in his speech.  He never does.  He has nothing to say to them, and evidently no one in the mainstream media intends to ask tough questions on their behalf.

The President’s political team is having a very hard time finding any happy ObamaCare purchasers – none of his human props at yesterday’s Rose Garden event had actually bought a policy.  This seems like a significant data point, over three weeks into the launch of a multi-trillion-dollar program with a $500 million website whose use is mandated upon a formerly free population by law, with the IRS standing by to enforce stiff fines against the disobedient.

But let us stipulate that some happy customers will eventually come forward and declare themselves happy with the cost, deductible, benefits, and restrictions of the policies they have purchased.  Why is their satisfaction supposed to completely outweigh the higher prices and poor service encountered by millions of others?  Are they not greedy for insisting on benefits for themselves, without concern for the price paid by others?  They’re pursuing their own naked self-interest in a way that damages the lives of other people, and they’re worse than most of the people liberal culture routinely characterizes as greedy or selfish, because they are using huge amounts of compulsive force to get what they want.  Nobody on the fuzzy end of this lollipop is allowed to say “no.”

Last Sunday, blogger Matt Walsh  solicited testimonials from those who feel shortchanged by ObamaCare.  He reports receiving hundreds of emails within 24 hours.  (Those who got a raw deal from ObamaCare certainly seem to be much easier to find than ordinary Americans who endorse it!)  Walsh summarized his review of the responses as follows:

This is about people. People with kids, and bills, and health problems. This is about people who can no longer afford their health coverage, their mortgages, their lifesaving medication. This is about doctors and nurses leaving medicine behind, driven away by destructive bureaucratic interference. This is about moms and dads losing their jobs so that their employers can compensate for the financial burden of Obamacare. This is about people without insurance because of Obamacare, now being fined for not having insurance because of Obamacare. This is about business owners driven to the edge of bankruptcy. This is real. We heard a lot of fantasies about what Obamacare was “supposed” to accomplish, now it’s time to talk about what it’s actually doing.

So when they say you are “heartless” for opposing Obamacare, show them why it’s heartless to support it.

Walsh has published dozens of the responses he received, with plans to post more as he finds time to read them all.  Some of them talk about disruptions in their work and personal lives caused by ObamaCare’s endless maze of mandates, while others lay out hard numbers about the higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs awaiting them because of the “Affordable Care Act.”  A few examples from the latter group:

Jess, Oklahoma:

We are losing our current health insurance at the end of this year. My husband’s employer is getting rid of it due to Obamacare. Our insurance currently covers my husband, myself, and our two daughters. My husband’s employer is having to replace our current insurance with a policy that is $400 more a month and an added $3000 deductible. The worst of it is that it will now cost him $100 more a month to cover me, his WIFE! Disgusting.

Nick, Florida:

My current health insurance policy for my family of four is $375/month. The cheapest I can find for relatively similar coverage is $784/month. I can “save” money by going with a high deductible plan and pay $630/month. How is that saving? I can’t afford health insurance at these prices, and my employer doesn’t provide insurance

There are many, many more of these stories at Matt’s blog.  Are we to understand these people don’t matter?  Their higher costs and damaged lives are irrelevant, as long as a few of President Obama’s favored constituents get something they like?  But don’t you dare call those people greedy or selfish!

Furthermore, we are supposed to disapprove of “divisive” politics.  What could be more divisive than pitting people against each other in a gladiatorial contest to see who can claim victory and cut benefit trophies from the hides of the losers?  How are the people suffering under ObamaCare supposed to feel when the White House finally manages to put together a few chipper testimonials from satisfied Obama voters?  This is a generation-spanning formula for conflict and division… in which one side is supposed to meekly submit, or face the wrath of the Ruling Class for daring to resist.  The sheep will be castigated as selfish for wishing to keep their wool.

Statism thrives by spreading the belief that selfishness is sanctified through the application of compulsive force.  The State decides which ambitions are valid, and which can be discarded.  ”Greed” is re-defined as resistance to these judgments.  Selfishness becomes a virtue by official proclamation, while independence is viewed as theft.  No one may refuse demands that have been politically consecrated.

In truth, self-interest only becomes truly destructive when compulsive force is involved.  In a lawful, minimal government where every individual’s right to property is equally respected, and all forms of theft are outlawed, self-interest is pursued mainly through hard work and persuasion.  Everyone enjoys the fruits of voluntary commerce, which includes the sale of our labor at mutually agreeable prices.  It’s not a utopian state, and it takes much effort to preserve – there will always be robust debate about the needs of society, and the mandated cost of providing for those needs.  But generally speaking, it is a constructive environment, in which ambition fuels the growth of general wealth.

And it is an environment in which the dignity of all citizens finds roughly equal official respect.  They might waste some energy insulting each other’s dignity in various ways, but at least no one is told he must submit to the morally superior demands of a preferred dependency class… or that his survival can only be ensured through parasitic dependency on people better able to provide for themselves and their families.  How can you respect someone’s human dignity without having full respect for their ambitions, and their ability to fulfill them?

Instead, ObamaCare is one of many arenas in which we are told to squabble and steal from one another, in a battle no one can fight alone.  You’ve got to organize politically and win elections to gain the power you need to extract desired benefits from your vanquished enemies.  President Obama spoke explicitly in those terms when he chided his Republican critics for not winning enough elections to prevail in the shutdown conflict.  We are not allowed to withdraw our consent from what the Ruling Class imposes upon us, unless we band together and win enough election battles over the coming years to change the Ruling Class.

And if you’re not happy with the way the commissars of ObamaCare are treating you… well, you missed your only chance to escape from the system in the last election.  You know, the one in which Barack Obama and his allies relentlessly lied to you about what would happen when their health-care scheme went live.  But even if you’re looking at thousands of dollars per year in inflated premiums… even if you lost the health care coverage Obama swore you would be able to keep… you are not permitted to express the smallest bit of righteous anger at the people who are using a political victory to raid your paycheck.

Such feelings would challenge the right of the Ruling Class to sanctify greed, in a process that also bleeds away the freedom conferred through cash prizes.  Accepting the notion of money as the vile symbol of greed concedes the freedom we gain by spending our fortunes as we see fit, and also allows greed to be concealed by hiding the dollar signs.  The “prize” in these political contests is scrip – benefits which the Ruling Class can re-evaluate whenever it wishes, or even take back for use as a prize in future contests.  The only permanent winners are the overlords of the arena.

Posted on

Deblasio – Socialist

Free Pre-K tax the rich
End Charter Schools – panhandle to the failed teachers union
Now  – tests are not a good measure for getting kids into schools because the rich are favored

Not everyone is equally smart – no one deserves anything

Europe has failed on these same lines – who is voting for these people?


Posted on

Dianne Feinstein’s Husband’s Co., A Real Estate Broker, is Exclusive Seller of Closing Post Office Branches

[preamble]A state senator’s husband has an exclusive deal to sell millions of dollars of real estate for the USPS service. The audacity and perversity of these people is beyond even what I can imagine. If this was any of us, we would have been in jail. The rules seem to not apply to anyone anymore.
Simply stating “there was nothing sinister about this deal” is a blatant lie and does not preclude the fact that a states senators husband was given exclusive preferential treatment, At the least for decency, they should have declined the deal.
When this folly ends[backtopost]

By on

Feinstein cc

You have to respect just the blatant disregard for anything decent exhibited by Dianne Feinstein. Her in-your-face entitlement is breathtaking and yet at times oddly amusing. For instance check out this little gem from last year when she’s asked why she wouldn’t debate her Republican challenger for the US Senate.

Oh my, I could watch that a couple more times.

Anyhoo…Now comes word that Ms. Feinstein’s husband’s real estate company is doing all the sales of decommissioned post offices around the country. The USPS used to use multiple brokers, but not anymore. The senator’s husband must be really good.

And doubly advantageous for the US taxpayer also is that such a good broker would be married to someone who regularly votes on postal issues. I mean, what are the chances! We the American tax payers really lucked out on this one.

(From The Independent Institute)

The US Postal Service is selling hundreds of properties in prime locations across the country to help them deal with their financial difficulties. In the past, the USPS has used multiple real estate agents to sell their properties, but in 2011 the USPS signed a contract with CBRE Group to be the sole provider of real estate services, nation-wide, for their sales.

The Chairman of CBRE Group is Richard Blum, the husband of California Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Posted on

Doctors Prescribe Fruit for children – city pays for it – parenting is ended

Our beloved city now pays for fruit for our children. Seems parents are “concerned” about the diabetes disease and their fat kids who only eat at McDonalds. Hence, they need a doctor to prescribe fruit and “we” the people of NY pay for subsidies. HMMM – what happened to parenting? They have money for McDonalds BUT NO money for an apple? Is this a joke? Parenting skills are gone and we need our government to help us. Of course this is prevalent in the inner cities – low income, black and Latinos – sorry its the truth the numbers don’t lie. Of course these parents are “so happy” that the city now pays for their food. Reduces even more their responsibility.

Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this? You cannot defend this. You cannot defend giving free housing, free food, free education free clothes free cable add.. nausea – To people and expect NOTHING in return.

Idea – anyone in public housing has top spend 2 day a week maintaining the property and if its not maintained they have to pay for repairs – watch how fast things get better. Idea – anyone going to the Emergency room has to pay $20 – watch how fast you clear out the emergency room and end the “crisis”. ACCOUNTABILITY – RESPONSIBILITY.

Posted on

IRS steals 60,000 medical records

Lets say you are a doctor and lose a laptop with your patient files on it – did you know you can be charged $1000 per patient file for breaking HIPPA rules? Did you know you must contact each patient stating their medical data may be compromised? Well you do.

Of course this does not apply to our government. The IRS STOLE 60,000 medical files from individuals. Now what does the IRS need with medical data? Why are not they held accountable for the theft? Are they ignoring or exempt from our rules?

I will tell you what they are doing – they are secretly comiling a lis tof al medical records from every American so they can tell us what procedures we can and cant have and trend our behavior to penalize us.
Wake up people – this is not fantasy – this is realty.

Its happening faster than you are aware yet you are unaware of it.
The inevitable creep of socialism brought about by our president. We can only blame ourselves.
Wait in 15 months all i say will be realty.

Its almost tooo late – MAKE THIS FOLLY END!