Tuesday, July 27, 2010

City and County Government Associations: Obama Economy Will Create or Save, Eh, I Mean Destroy or Eliminate 500,000 Public Sector Jobs

A report by a consortium consisting of the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties doesn't beat around the bush. It's title: "Local Governments Cutting Jobs and Services: Job losses projected to approach 500,000".

...just as families are increasingly turning to local governments for support, local governments are facing their own fiscal crisis. The effects of the Great Recession on local budgets will be felt most deeply from 2010 to 2012.1 In response, local governments are cutting services and personnel. This report... reveals that local government job losses in the current and next fiscal years will approach 500,000, with public safety, public works, public health, social services and parks and recreation hardest hit by the cutbacks...

...In May and June of 2010 NLC, NACo and USCM conducted a survey of cities and counties across the country for the purpose of gauging the extent of job losses. The survey was emailed and faxed to all cities over 25,000 in population and to all counties over 100,000 in population. The survey results presented below are based on 270 responses, 214 responses from cities and 56 responses from counties.

The surveyed local governments report cutting 8.6 percent of total full-time equivalent (FTE) positions over the previous fiscal year to the next fiscal year (roughly 2009-2011). If applied to total local government employment nationwide, an 8.6 percent cut in the workforce would mean that 481,000 local government workers were, or will be, laid off over the two-year period. Projected cuts for the next fiscal year will likely increase...

After lamenting the awful state of the economy, the Democrat-dominated organizations recommend -- you'll never guess -- more federal bailouts. Yes, even after the hundreds of billions in "Stimulus" dough that stole money directly from red states and deposited it into the coffers of blue states, a model that represents obvious fiscal suicide.

To secure economic recovery, Congress and the Administration must act now to create jobs quickly and help stabilize local government economies. An immediate opportunity exists in the Local Jobs for America Act (H.R. 4812/S. 3500), which would provide $75 billion in targeted and temporary fiscal assistance over two years to local governments and community based organizations to save and create local jobs. Other opportunities include investing in infrastructure through targeted spending to local governments and ensuring that small businesses and local governments can obtain access to credit. Federal investment that helps save local jobs and preserve local services will help stabilize communities across the country and ensure that all of America’s families are able to participate in the economic recovery.

Candy-gram, Mr. and Mrs. Mayor: the federal government is broke. Democrats stole all of the money and then some. We're letting our kids, grandchildren and great-grandchildren enter the world decades from now owing the principal and interest on Joe Schmoe's 99-week unemployment extensions.

99-weeks of unemployment isn't a safety net. It's welfare.

At some point soon, the public sector union membership will come to the uncomfortable realization that the bosses and their sycophants in the Democrat Party sold them down the river.

While John Kerry enjoys his wine selection on the Isabel and Andy Stern puffs on his massive Cuban cigars, the hard-working cops, teachers, firefighters and emergency personnel will be suffering. And they can thank the unholy marriage of incompetent Democrat politicians and greedy public sector union bosses who have conspired to defraud the taxpayer.


Evolution of the cell phone -- and the antenna

PC World offers us an excellent view into the history of the cell phone. In my view, the most noteworthy of the milestones were:

SRA/Ericsson MTA (Mobile Telephone System A) - Year: 1956

In the days before cellular phone networks, the world's mobile phones lacked a unifying standard. Instead, they used varying communication methods defined on a company-by-company basis.

The 88-pound MTA phone, shown here, is typical in size and weight of early mobile phone systems from the pre-integrated-circuit era. Most were so heavy and power-hungry that they required permanent installation in a car or other vehicle. Very few people owned, used, or even encountered such devices; for example, the service for the model shown here existed in only two Swedish cities and served a mere 125 subscribers from 1956 to 1967... [it was the] first automatic mobile telephone system (it didn't require a human operator to manually connect the user to an outside phone line).


Motorola DynaTAC 8000X - Year: 1983

Though Motorola announced the world's first handheld mobile phone--a prototype of the DynaTAC 8000X you see above--in 1973, it took ten years for the DynaTAC to reach the market... Upon its release in 1983, the DynaTAC 8000X became an instant cultural icon, both as a status symbol for the rich (thanks to the $3995 retail price--$8657 in 2009 dollars) and as an almost miraculous wonder-phone that a person could use anywhere. With the DynaTAC, the cell phone revolution had finally begun...


Motorola MicroTAC - Year: 1989

After the success of the DynaTAC, Motorola followed up with the much smaller and lighter MicroTAC phone in 1989. The MicroTAC included a novel space-saving idea: Motorola engineers placed part of the phone's hardware in a hinged section that could fold inward or outward as needed, thus reducing the phone's size when it wasn't in use. The flip concept lives on in many cell phones today...


Motorola StarTAC - Year: 1996

In 1996, Motorola further shrank its line of pocket cell phones, producing the 3.1-ounce StarTAC--which immediately proved popular and influential. The StarTAC expanded on the partially collapsible design of its precursor, the MicroTAC, by allowing users to fold the phone in half when they weren't talking on it. We now call this design "clamshell," for its resemblance to the way a clam opens and closes. The StarTAC's general design was widely imitated, and a large percentage of mobile phones still use it today...


RIM BlackBerry 5810 - Year: 2002

The BlackBerry brand began in 1999 as a simple two-way pager, but it morphed into a line of full-fledged smartphones in 2002 with the BlackBerry 5810, the first of the series to include integrated cell phone support. Thanks to top-of-the-line mobile e-mail and text messaging (the QWERTY keyboard didn't hurt either), BlackBerry phones soon became indispensable tools for businesspeople and other professionals... [it was the first] BlackBerry with an integrated voice cell phone [and] push e-mail support...


Sanyo SCP-5300 - Year: 2002

Who would want a camera in their cell phone? When news of such combination devices trickled over from Japan in the early part of the decade, the idea seemed silly and excessive to some people. In 2002, Sprint and Sanyo released the first American cell phone with a built-in camera, the SCP-5300--and the public went crazy for it.

The camera phone became a bona fide cultural phenomenon, allowing the average Joe to quickly and personally share both mundane and earthshaking events with the rest of the world. Today, camera phones are so common that we don't call them "camera phones" anymore...

Meanwhile, over at Bloomberg's BusinessWeek, a brief history of cell phone antennae complements the picture (PDF) -- the context being, of course, the iPhone 4's ill-fated aluminum foil wrapper.


Hard to believe how far we've come in such a short period of time.

Pity the geniuses in Washington haven't figured out that all of this innovation is due solely to the free market, not government mandate.


Charlie Rangel -- 'Statement of Facts in Support of Alleged Violations' -- the Compleat Text (Part Deux)

4. Pursnant to House Rule X, cl. 1(1)(8), the House Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over tax exempt foundations and charitable trusts.

5. Pursuant to House Rule X, cl. 1(t)(2), the House Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over reciprocal trade agreements.

6. Pursuant to House Rule X, cl. 1(t)(3), the House Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over revenue measures generally.

7. During the relevant period, issues before Congress affecting foundations included, inter alia, private foundation payout rules, excise tax rates on investment income, potential caps on foundation executive pay, IRA charitable rollover provisions, unrelated business income tax, and other charitable contribution and charitable governance issues.

8. During the relevant period, Nabors Industries lobbied members of the House of Representatives on tax issues, including retroactivity of corporate inversion tax treatment.

9. During the relevant period, Verizon lobbied members of the House of Representatives on numerous Issues, including, inter alia, tax Issues related to telecommunications.

10. During the relevant period, AIG lobbied members of the House of Representatives on numerous issues including, inter alia, subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code, treatment ofincome received by partners for perfol1ning investment management services, treahnent of mortgage insurance premiums as interest, deferral of income on executives' domestic income, and several treaty and free trade agreement issues.

11. During the relevant period, New York Life Insurance Company lobbied members of Congress on numerous issues including, inter alia, intemational trade agreements, tax treatment of long term care insurance, tax treatment of estate assets and lifetime aI111uities, tax on insurance products, aI1d executive compensation.

II. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS FILED IN CALENDAR YEAR 2009 BY OR ON BEHALF OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES B. RANGEL

93. Respondent filed an annual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 1998 on May 17,1999.

94. Respondent filed an almual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 1999 on May 26, 2000.

95. Respondent filed an almual Financial Disclosure statement for calendal' year 2000 on May 16,2001.

96. Respondent submitted a letter, dated June 5, 2001, amending his Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2000.

97. Respondent filed an annual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2001 on May 15, 2002.

98. Respondent filed an almual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2002 on May 14, 2003.

99. Respondent filed an annual Final1cial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2003 on May 13, 2004.

100. Respondent filed an almual Final1cial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2004 on June 15, 2005. Respondent was graJ1ted aJ1 extension to file his Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2004 beyond the May 16, 2005 deadline, and filed within that extended deadline.

101. Respondent filed an amendment to his FinaJ1cial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2004 on May 12, 2006.

102. Respondent filed all annual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2005 on May 12, 2006.

1. Respondent filed an atumal Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2006 on June 15, 2007. Respondent was granted an extension to file his Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2006 beyond the May 15, 2007 deadline, atld filed within that extended deadline.

2. Respondent filed an atnendment to his Financial Disclosure statement for the calendar year 2006 on December 26,2007.

3. Respondent filed an annual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2007 on May 14, 2008.

4. Respondent filed an annual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2008 on August 12, 2009. Respondent was granted an extension to file his Financial Disclosure statement for calendat' year 2008 beyond the May 15, 2009 deadline, and filed within that extended deadline.

5. Respondent's Financial Disclosure statements contained numerous errors and omissions, including failure to disclose rental and other unearned income, understating rental income and other unearned income, failure to disclose earned income, failure to disclose tratlsactions, failure to disclose cancellation of debt income, and failure to disclose a reportable position.

6. Respondent's Financial Disclosure statements were prepared by members of his congressional staff.

109. Respondent personally signed each ofhis Financial Disclosure statements.

11 O. Respondent failed to ensure that the infonnation repOlied on the Financial Disclosure Statements was accurate or complete.

111. Respondent filed amended Financial Disclosure statements for each of calendar years 1998 through 2007 on August 12, 2009.

112. Respondent personally signed each of his amended Financial Disclosure statements.
113. Respondent owned a brownstone rental unit, located at 74 West 132nd Street in New York ("Brownstone"). The Brownstone was sold in 2004.

1. Respondent disclosed ownership of the Brownstone on his original Financial Disclosure Statements for the calendar years 1998 through 2004.

2. Respondent failed to disclose his rental income from the Brownstone on his original Financial Disclosure Statements for calendar years 1998, 1999,2000, and 2004.

3. For Respondent's original Financial Disclosure statements related to calendar years 1998 and 1999, the box for "none" under "amount of rental income" was checked. For calendar year 2000, the boxes under amount of rental income were left blank.

4. Respondent's original Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003 each listed the amount of income derived from the Brownstone rental in the range of $2,501 -$5,000.

5. Respondent's original Federal tax returns reported income from the Brownstone rental as follows:

Brownstone - Original Tax Returns
1998 $29,852
1999 $20,449
2000 $28,938
2001 $21,416
2002 $19,603
2003 $23,036
2004 $3,406

119. Respondent purchased a rental villa at the Punta Cana Yacht Club in the

Dominican Republic in March 1987. The purchase price of the Punta Cana villa was $82,750. Respondent made a down payment of $28,962.50, and financed the remaining portion of the purchase price.

1. Respondent financed the purchase through a mortgage. The mortgage was payable over 7 years at 10.5% interest.

2. Respondent repOlied the purchase of the Pmlta Cana villa on his initial Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 1987, although he assigned an incorrect value to the property. Respondent submitted an amendment to that Financial Disclosure statement on June 10, 1988, re-categorizing the purchase.

3. Respondent issued a statement on Febrnary 2, 1989, regarding the incorrect valuation on his original Financial Disclosure statement for the Punta Cana villa, as well as the associated mortgage and distribution from his retirement account used to finance the down payment. Respondent stated that he "amended my Financial Disclosure to include these items as soon as the oversight was brought to my attention."

4. Respondent received income from a Punta Cana rental pool. The rental pool was detennined by taking all revenues fi'om the gross rentals of all the units. From that amount, deductions were made for agent commissions, Dominican Republic taxes, and a 10% maintenance fee. From that balance, 53% was paid to Punta Cana and 47% was paid to the owners in the rental pool. Each owner's share of the rental pool payments was determined on a point system, with a 3 bedroom beach villa receiving 3 points. All of the owner's points were totaled, and each owner's share of the rental pool income was based on that owner's number of points as a percentage of all points.

124. No later than February 1993, management of the Punta Cana Yacht Club informed Respondent that it was forgiving any remaining interest due on Respondent's mortgage.

1. Respondent failed to repoli the forgiveness of interest on his Financial Disclosure statements.

2. In January 1993, Respondent wrote to the Punta Cana Yacht Club requesting infoTInation about his unit. In that letter, he stated, "As I mentioned to you, the House Ethics Committee requires the disclosure by members of Congress of any assets and lU1earned income and while I enjoy a good relationship with the Committee's Chairman it certainly would be politically embalTassing if I were unable to provide an accurate accounting of my holdings."

3. Respondent did report ownership of the Punta Cana villa on his original Financial Disclosure statements for each of calendar years between 1998 through 2008.

4. Respondent failed to report any rental income from Punta Cana on his original Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998, 1999,2000,2006, and 2007.

5. Respondent failed to report any rental income from Punta Cana on his original Federal income tax retums for calendar years between 1998 through 2006.

6. For Respondent's original Financial Disclosure statements related to calendar years 1998, 1999, 2006, and 2007, the box for "none" under amount of rental income was checked. For the year 2000, the boxes under amount of rental income were left blank.

7. In June 2001, Respondent wrote a letter to the Standards Committee amending his Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2000. In that letter he stated, "Thank you for calling to inform me of the omission in my recent Financial Disclosure Statement of information concerning the income derived during the year 2000 fi·om the two propeliies in New York City

and the Dominican Republic jointly owned by my wife and me and the New England Mutual Life Insurance policy listed by me as assets in the repOlt. There was no income detived by us from these assets during the year 2000 and that fact should have been noted in my Financial Disclosure Statement."

1. Respondent did report income from Punta Cana on his original Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 2001 through 2005, but the amounts reported were incorrect.

2. Respondent reported income from Punta Cana on his original and amended Financial Disclosure statements, as well as his original and, where applicable, amended Federal income tax returns as follows:

3. Respondent failed to report earned income from IRA disttibutions on his original Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998 through 2007.

Charlie Rangel -- 'Statement of Facts in Support of Alleged Violations' -- the Compleat Text (Part Troix)

Original Financial Disclosure Original Tax Returns Amended Financial Disclosure Amended Tax Returns
1998 None Not repOlted $5,001 -$15,000 N/A
1999 None Not reported $2,501 -$5,000 N/A
2000 None per letter amendment Not reported $2,501 -$5,000 N/A
2001 $5,001 -$15,000 Not repOlted $2,501 -$5,000 N/A
2002 $5,001 -$15,000 Not reported $2,501 -$5,000 N/A
2003 $5,001 -$15,000 Not reported $1,001 -$2,500 N/A
2004 $2,501 -$5,000 Not reported $5,001 -$15,000 $5,030
2005 $2,501 -$5,000 Not reported $5,001 -$15,000 $6,280
2006 None Not repOlted $5,001 -$15,000 $8,467
2007 None $7,800 $5,001 -$15,000 $7,800 "

135. Respondent earned income from IRA disttibutions in the following amounts:

Year Source Amount
1998 Congressional FCU IRA $13,333
2000 Congressional FCU IRA $6,144
2001 Congressional FCU IRA $8,693
Menill Lynch IRA $4,235
2002 Congressional FCU IRA $4,177
2004 Congressional FCU IRA $4,438
2005 Congressional FCU IRA $4,486
2006 Congressional FCU IRA $4,187
2007 Congressional FCU IRA $5,509
2008 Congressional FCU IRA $4,893

136. Respondent failed to disclose numerous assets and sources ofunearned income on his original Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998 through 2007, including,

inter alia: 1) Respondent failed to disclose his holdings at Congressional Federal Credit Union ("CFCU") for calendar years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Respondent disclosed his holdings for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003, but estimated the value of the accounts in the range of $15,001-$50,000. The holdings at CFCU were, in fact, valued in the range of $100,001 -$250,000 for calendar years 1998 through 2006, and valued in the range of $250,001 -$500,000 for calendar year 2007. Respondent reported eamings related to the CFCU accounts on his Federal income tax retums for each ofcalendar years 1998 through 2007. 2) Respondent failed to report holdings of stocks in corporations in various years including, inter alia, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Verizon Communications, PepsiCo, and Yum! Brands. Respondent reported earnings related to certain stock transactions on his related Federal income tax returns. For example, Respondent reported a capital gain associated with the sale of stock in BellSouth

Corporation on his 1998 tax retUTIl. Respondent's amended Financial Disclosure statements repolted the following valuations for the stocks listed above:

Bell Atlantic BellSouth Niagara Mohawk Holdings Verizon Comm PepsiCo Yum! Brands
1998 $15,001 -$50,000 None (sold in 1998) $1,001 -$15,000 N/A N/A N/A
1999 $15,001 -$50,000 N/A $1,001 -$15,000 N/A $1,001 -$15,000 N/A
2000 N/A N/A $1,001 -$15,000 $15,001 -$50,000 $1,001 -$15,000 N/A
2001 N/A N/A $1,001 -$15,000 $1,001 -$15,000 $1,001 -$15,000 N/A
2002 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,001 -$15,000 N/A
2003 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,001 -$15,000 N/A
2004 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,001 -$15,000 N/A
2005 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,001 -$15,000 N/A
2006 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,001 -$15,000 $1,001 -$15,000
2007 N/A N/A N/A N/A $15,001 -$50,000 $1,001 -$15,000

3) Respondent failed to report holdings of mutual funds in various years including, inter alia, Alliance MWlicipal Income Fund, Rochester Municipal Fund, ING Principal Protection Fund, and iShares Dow Jones Select Dividend Income Fund. Respondent reported eamings related to certain mutual fund holdings on his cOlTesponding Federal income tax return. For example, Respondent repOlted a capital gain related to his holdings in the ING Principal Protection Fund on his 2007 tax return. Respondent's amended Financial Disclosure statements reported the following valuations for the mutual funds listed above:

Alliance Alliance Rochester ING iShares
Municipal Municipal Municipal Principal Dow
Income Income Fund Protection Jones
Fund! Alliance Fund (B) Fund Select
Bernstein (A) Dividend Income Fund
1998 N/A $1,001 -$15,000 $15,001 -$50,000 N/A N/A
1999 $1,001 -$15,000 $1,001 -$15,000 $15,001 -$50,000 N/A N/A
2000 $1,001 -$15,000 $1,001 -$15,000 $15,001 -$50,000 N/A N/A
2001 $1,001 -$15,000 $15,001 -$50,000 $15,001 -$50,000 N/A N/A
2002 $50,001 -$100,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $15,001 -$50,000 $50,001 -$100,000 N/A
2003 $50,001 -$100,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $15,001 -$50,000 $50,001 -$100,000 N/A
2004 $100,001 -$250,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $15,001 -$50,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $15,001 -$50,000
2005 $100,001 -$250,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $1,001 -$15,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $15,001 -$50,000
2006 $100,001 -$250,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $15,001 -$50,000 $50,001 -$100,000 None
2007 $100,001 -$250,000 $50,001 -$100,000 $15,001 -$50,000 $50,001 -$100,000 N/A "

4) Respondent failed to disclose his holdings in Merrill Lynch Allianz Global Investors Fund for calendar years 2006 and 2007. The holding was purchased in 2006 with a value in the range of$250,001 -$500,000.

5) Respondent failed to disclose his ownership of vacant lots in New Jersey for calendar years 1998 through 2007. Respondent's amended Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998 through 2007 reported the lots with a valuation in the range of$I,OOI -$15,000.

137. Respondent failed to disclose numerous transactions on his original Financial

Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998 through 2007, including, inter alia: 22

1) Respondent failed to disclose the sale of holdings in BellSouth in the amount of $6,709 in 1998. Respondent did report a capital gain in the amount of$2,738 related to that transaction on his Federal income tax retunl for 1998.

2) Respondent failed to disclose the purchase in 2002 of holdings in ING Principal Protection in the range of$50,001 -$100,000.

3) Respondent failed to disclose the purchase and sale during 2004 of Calve1i Tax Free Reserves, Eaton Vance Insured New York Municipal Bond Fund, and Nuveen New York Quality Income Municipal Fund. Each of those transactions was valued in the range of$50,001 -$100,000.

4) Respondent failed to disclose the purchase and sale in 2006 of Men'ill Lynch Institutional Tax-Exempt Fund in the range of$250,001 -$500,000.

1. In September 2008, Respondent filed amended Federal income tax returns for tax years 2004 tln'ough 2006.

2. Respondent snbsequently filed a second amended Federal income tax return for 2006 and an amended Federal income tax return for 2007.

3. Amendments to Respondent's Federal income tax returns were necessary to correct errors in the original income tax returns, including failure to report the income related to Punta Cana and failure to report other items of income.

4. Respondent disclosed that he was a member of the Board of Directors of "the Kheel Foundation" or "the Atm Kheel Foundation" on his Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998 through 2007.

5. Respondent did not disclose on his original Financial Disclosure Statement for calendar year 2008 that he was a trustee of the Ann S. Kheel Charitable Trust for calendar year 2008.

143. Respondent remained a trustee ofthe Aml S. Kheel Charitable Trust during 2008.
144. Respondent has not filed an amended Financial Disclosure Statement for calendar
year 2008.

III. RENTAL OF LENOX TERRACE APARTMENT UNIT IOU FOR CAMPAIGN PURPOSES

1. The Olnick Organization ("Olnick") is a developer of residential, commercial and hotel properties in New York City.

2. The Olnick Organization's properties include the Lenox Terrace apartment complex and other properties in Respondent's congressional district and elsewhere throughout New York City.

3. The Hampton Management Company ("Hampton") is the propeliy management company for Lenox Terrace. Hampton is an affiliate of Olnick.

4. In November 1988, Respondent signed a lease for the use of apartment 16N-P in the Lenox Terrace apartment complex.

5. In January 1997, Respondent signed a lease for the use of apartment 16M in the Lenox Terrace apaJiment complex.

6. Respondent signed an application for the use of apartment IOU in the Lenox Terrace apaJiment complex ("apartment IOU") indicating that his son, Steven Rangel, would occupy the apaJiment.

7. In October 1996, Respondent signed a lease for the use of apartment IOU in the Lenox Terrace apartment complex.

152. Apartment IOU was a rent stabilized apartment unit.

153. The lease for apartment IOU states, "You shall use the Apartment for living purposes only."

154. Steven Rangel never occupied apatiment IOU for living purposes. ISS. Respondent never occupied apartment IOU for living purposes.

1. Respondent's principal campaign COllli11ittee, Rangel for Congress, and leadership PAC, National Leadership PAC, occupied aparhnent IOU as at1 office £i'om November 1996 until October 2008.

2. Respondent did not enter into any written sublease with Rangel for Congress or National Leadership PAC.

3. No individual occupied apatiment IOU for living purposes from November 1996 tln'ough October 2008.

4. There is no evidence that the management of Lenox Tenace permitted the use of any other rent stabilized apatiments in the complex for solely non-residential purposes above the first floor.

5. In 2004, Olnick increased the number of legal actions it brought against tenants on primary residency, including those who improperly sublet their rent stabilized apartments.

6. Olnick brought no action against Respondent for the non-residential use of apartment IOU.

7. Respondent was included by Olnick on a "special handling list" on which he was identified as a Member of Congress.

8. Respondent's congressional office received complaints from constituents living in Lenox Terrace regarding legal actions brought against them by Olnick based on primary residency.

9. Respondent's staff, including his District Director, James Capel, worked with Lenox Terrace management to resolve constituent issues related to primary residency.

10. Lenox Terrace tenants discussed going on strike by refusing to pay rent until certain conditions were satisfied.

166. Capel met with a Lenox Terrace official regarding the potential rent strike.

167. In 2005, Respondent and his staff met with Olnick executives at least once regarding proposed construction projects for Lenox Terrace and other Olnick developments.

Click here for Part II

Attention, College Students: Paul Krugman Will Write Your Economics Essay for Cash!

Not that you'll get a good grade, mind you, for reasons that should already be clear to anyone right of Dana Milbank.

Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman delivers the good news that 2010 is "the year in which all hope of action to limit climate change died." Needless to say, he thinks this is bad news, but that's not why we're highlighting his column in yesterday's New York Times. Instead, it is for this passage:

You've probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers--allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of "Climategate," and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media.

Now, it would be one thing for Krugman to argue--wrongly, in our opinion--that the "supposedly damning e-mail messages of 'Climategate' " were not actually damning. But no one has denied that they are genuine. Krugman's description of them--and every other accusation "leveled against climate researchers"--as "a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action" is flatly false.

Nor is this the first time such a statement has appeared under Krugman's byline in the pages of the Times. You may dimly recall this passage of his Aug. 17, 2009, column:

In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false.

Again, a categorical statement: not "some of these stories are false" (which is probably true) or "these stories paint a misleading picture; although the British health-care system has its shortcomings, on the whole it is vastly superior to America's" (which, as a statement of opinion, is at least defensible). If even a single scare story about Britain's National Health Service is true, Krugman's assertion is false.

James Taranto is too kind. Krugman is an economic illiterate -- yes, I said it! -- who has all the emotional stability of a prepubescent girl with a crush on Obama.

He's apparently never learned the one common-sense principle every business owner quickly discovers: Government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.


* Do not read Krugman if you take nitrates for chest pain. Don't drink alcohol in excess while reading Krugman. If you find yourself dumbfounded by the sheer partisan tomfoolery of Krugman, contact a medical professional immediately.

Larwyn's Linx: The Post-Racial Sherrod -- 'We Must Stop The White Man And His Uncle Toms'

Have a great link you'd like me to review? Drop me an email. You can also install a Larwyn's Linx blog widget.

Nation

Sherrod: 'We Must Stop The White Man And His Uncle Toms': Riehl
The Calculus of Racism: Doc Zero
Holder's DOJ Stands Firm Against Civil Rights: Caller

The Underfunded Twenty: NRO
Primary Target in Washington: AT
Obama's White House is 'Too White'?: AT

Economy

How to bankrupt a country in three easy steps: Kimball
Indeed, Fascism is Happening in America: RWN
Obama empathizes with the common man: GWP

Governor Christie, Your Country Is Calling: RWN
The Losers' Congress: NRO
You know you're in a depression when...: Insider

Climate & Energy

Who Cooked Paul Krugman's Brain: BlogProf
Left-wing Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Depot
Tell Me Whose Side The Red Estate Is On: CBullitt

Media

Our Phone-Callin', Fact-Checkin' Leftist Media At Work: Ace
Journolist Trig Emails - All About The Story Line: LegalIns
More Racial Healing: Jesse Jackson Wants Black National Anthem: GWP

E.J. Dionne, a flagrantly dishonest left-wing hit-man: AmSpec
Final Report: RightOnLine 2010: RWN
Mr. Kurtz, when did you stop waxing the dolphin?: Blogmocracy

Warning: Do NOT link to these newspapers: RWN
“Objective” News Journalists: Let’s Coordinate For Obama: RWN
Paul Ryan Schools Chris Matthews: NewsBusters

World

Liars: Lockerbie release: So much for 'smart diplomacy.' So much for 'surprised.': Malkin
Man Jailed for 2 years For Ripping Veil From Muslim Woman’s Face…: WZ
Hayden on Deterring Iran: PJM

The Brothel Named Iran: Ledeen
Israel's Pressing Matters: Bussel
Protests of AZ Immigration Law Promised: CSM

Iran - The Existential Race Between Nukes & A Revolution: Wolf
The Web of Socialist "JournoListas": NewZeal
A Wish List for WikiLeaks: Rosett

SciTech

Facebook Friends: Ace
Top Five Advertising Trends: Nielsen
Words and Expressions The Internet Revived, And Shouldn't Have: Ace

Cornucopia

I Write Like... Everybody!: MOTuS
Obama snubs Boy Scouts' 100th Anniversary for... ABC TV's The View: CNS
Dawn of a New Epoch: FSM

Images: Gateway Pundit.
Today's Larwyn's Linx sponsored by: Conservative GOP House Challengers Who Need Your Help

Monday, July 26, 2010

Now that Bell's $800,000 City Manager has resigned, perhaps San Francisco can examine its 10,000 or so six-figure city workers

Bell is one of the poorest cities in Los Angeles County and was paying its city manager around $800,000 annually. And that was just the start of the abuse.

A defiant Bell City Council defended the hefty compensation awarded to City Manager Robert Rizzo and two other officials just hours after the three agreed to resign amid a public outcry.

In the city's first formal statement on the salary issue, Bell released a letter from Mayor Oscar Hernandez in which he praised Rizzo's service to the city and said his nearly $800,000 annual salary was justified.

...As part of the resignations, Rizzo, Police Chief Randy Adams and Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia will not receive severance packages. Rizzo will step down at the end of August and Spaccia will leave at the end of September. Adams also will leave at the end of August after completing an evaluation of the Police Department...

Rizzo earns nearly $800,000 a year, believed to make him the highest-paid city manager in California and possibly the nation. Adams makes $457,000 — 50% more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck — and Spaccia makes $376,288, more than the top administrator for Los Angeles County...

...The decision was announced at midnight to a crowd of angry Bell residents that had been waiting anxiously since 4:30 p.m. when the City Council began its meeting. None of the administrators attended the session. The crowd erupted in applause after the announcement but immediately yelled out questions about what would happen to the council members. Four of the five are paid close to $100,000 annually. When residents' questions were not answered, they shouted, "Recall!"

What other local governments have abused the taxpayer in California? Remember that there are at least 350,000 members of the massive public sector union -- the SEIU -- alone.

Perhaps taxpayers in San Francisco could take this opportunity to examine the salaries of their city workers. In 2007, 8,000 city employees were making six figures or more. Now that number is close to 10,000, despite the meltdown of the private sector economy.

In 2007, those employees included a $350,000-a-year "special nurse" and a police sergeant ($261,915) who was making more than the chief ($256,617).

Now the situation is even more outrageous.

Leading 2009's ...Club was the Police Department's Charles Keohane, a deputy chief who retired midyear... His total payout was $516,118, city records show, the bulk of which came from cashing out stored-up vacation, sick days and comp time...

The average city worker salary in San Francisco is $93,000 before benefits, according to Deputy City Controller Monique Zmuda. The data take into account everyone from park gardeners and street cleaners to attorneys and technology specialists.

Almost 100 city employees made $200,000 or more in 2009; six bumped past $300,000 when overtime and other cash-outs were included...

...In years past, the $100,000 Club included large numbers of Muni operators, transit supervisors, firefighters, police officers and sheriff's deputies who padded their paychecks with hundreds of hours of overtime, paid out at a rate of time-and-a-half.

San Francisco's budget deficit is roughly half a billion dollars and idiocy like uncontrolled salaries and benefits are a central reason.

Given the unmitigated economic ruin brought about by California's unholy union of Democrat government hacks and public sector unions, a painful reckoning is all but inevitable.


For the love of --- I just ate!

Score that on Hot or Not


Via: New York Daily News.

John 'D-Student' Kerry Handles Reporters' Questions on his $700,000 Yacht Tax Dodge With His Usual Grace and Aplomb: He Runs Away

Boston's WBZ television reports that John Kerry confronted reporters' questions on his $700K tax dodge with his usual courage and composure.









Senator John Kerry found himself answering questions Monday about his new $7 million yacht and the controversy about where he's docking it.

"There's nothing more to say about it," he told reporters at an event at the former South Weymouth Naval Air Station Monday... "Let's get this very straight, I've said consistently we will pay our taxes, we have always paid our taxes. It's not an issue period," he said.

...When asked "Did you berth the boat in Massachusetts?" he replied, "That depends on who owns it."

Then, he said to his driver, "Can I get out of here please?"

If you missed the original story, it turns out that Kerry docks his yacht in Rhode Island rather than in his home state of Massachusetts. This interesting gambit saved Kerry $500,000 in MA state taxes and $70,000 annually in excise taxes.

Last week, when the Boston Herald broke the story, Kerry's office released a statement saying, "The boat was designed by and purchased from a company in Rhode Island, and it's based in Newport at the Newport Shipyard for long term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes, not tax reasons."

"It's being worked on. It's under warranty down there. It's being worked on and it will come to Massachusetts and I look forward to that," Kerry said Monday.

Of course, like all elitist Democrats, Kerry lovingly decided not to volunteer the tax payments to his home state.

After all, although he and his wife are worth somewhere around a billion dollars, it's apparently not liquid. Liquid, get it? I guess he can't rustle up the cash to pay the taxes on his 76-foot yacht with two master cabins and a pilot house complete with wet bar and wine cooler.

The Nantucket Boat Basin [in Massachusetts] confirmed to WBZ on Monday that the Isabel has been docked at the marina "numerous" times this summer.

A spokesperson with the Department of Revenue who did not want to comment specifically on Kerry's case said ownership by an out-of-state corporation wouldn't matter. And, the law states if you bring the purchased property into the state within six months of buying it, you would be subject to the sales tax.

Coast Guard registration records show the vessel is owned by Great Point LLC, a limited liability corporation based in Pittsburgh, Heinz's longtime home.

So Kerry appears to have used the vessel repeatedly in Massachusetts, yet keeps it docked in Rhode Island "for maintenance" reasons.

And while he likely owes Massachusetts $700,000 in taxes, he hasn't paid them a dime.

Don't you just love the fact that these Democrat control-freaks never -- never -- voluntarily pay the higher rates they want you to pay? That's because they're hypocritical Statists who hate America -- and I hear that's the phrase they prefer.


Hat tip: Drudge. 'D-Student' Kerry Nickname: Mark Levin.

Stunning photos: Janet Napolitano heralds border drug bust as proof that US-Mexico security is 'as secure now as it has ever been'

This delightful missive appears to have circulated on the inter-tubes for a few weeks and I was struck by two things. First, the fact that Janet Napoli-Reno believes that our border is as secure as it has ever been.

The second thought -- after the intermission.

And here you have an industrious Mexican national, just simply on her way to visit friends and relatives across the international border in Arizona, all the while passing through the port of entry at Nogales, Arizona probably daily.

After all, she's only 94 years old, so what harm could this Mexican do. Well, I'll be dipped. What's all that padded stuff affixed to her body, underneath her dress. Well, after the dress was removed, loooookeeee here at what we have. Why it's only 10.45 pounds of marijuana strapped to her body.

Can we blame her? After all, she's probably just supplementing her Social Security check she gets monthly at her P.O. box on the American side. And one can't help but wonder how many of these such trips has she already made across the border, toting 10.75 pounds of marijuana daily.

Hang it up lady, as it's time for you to retire permanently in Mexico.

Okay, the second thought struck me like a lightning bolt.

Imagine the desperation and/or viciousness that inspires nonagenarian drug smugglers. In either case, sealing the border is the one damn thing the federal government is supposed to do -- and yet, our Democrat leaders can't be bothered with that. They're too busy putting up Stimulus road signs and nationalizing health care.

Oh, and lastly, if these are the kinds of folks our dramatically understaffed and overworked Border Patrol is catching, just who in the hell is getting through? On the other hand, I'm not sure we want to know.