The Oregonian has a disheartening story proving once again why public employees unions should be outlawed.
Here we have a case of a criminal fireman who ripped off the city through a false claim of being injured and unable to work, he admits his guilt and doesn’t press the city for more benefits, yet the union DOES take the city to court to get undeserved benefits for this layabout fireman!
For 12 years fireman Tom Hurley ripped off the city of Portland’s fireman’s disability fund by receiving monthly checks of $3,200 at the taxpayer’s expense despite that he really wasn’t disabled. In fact, he took the city’s money and put himself through cooking school and then went to work in the food service industry. All paid for by the taxpayers.
And when the city finally wised up and cut him off from the honey pot, even Hurley didn’t appeal the decision. He just shrugged his shoulders and moved forward with his new career as a chef.
But the union would have none of this “end of benefits” business. No, the union wouldn’t move on. The union took the City of Portland to court to force the city to keep paying this former fireman scam artist. The union wants the city to pay this layabout fireman $103,000 in “lost” disability payments.
The city is claiming it wants to “go to war” over this whole thing. Let’s hope they do and let’s hope they win. This union ripoff of the taxpayers is unconscionable.
Democrats are considering using a complicated process to avoid a direct vote on the Senate-passed bill, which is unpopular with House Democrats. Instead, they would declare the Senate bill passed once the House votes to approve changes it wants.
Republicans said the strategy was designed to protect Democrats in November’s congressional elections by camouflaging their vote. “There is no way to hide from this vote,” House leader John Boehner said. “You can run but you can’t hide.”
Democrats noted Republicans used the process when they controlled the House and accused them of trying to change the subject. “If you don’t want to talk about substance, talk about process,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of Republicans.
Let me ask you something, Nance. Can I call you Nance? If the substance is so utterly, wildly, madly awesome, then why are you having to go through this process? Why not just call for an actual vote, as “deemed” by the Constitution? What’s that? You don’t have the votes, and you want attempt to protect elected Democrats from the backlash? Strange.
Representative Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic House campaign committee, said the procedure was “perfectly appropriate” and he was not concerned about a political backlash.
“At the end of the day, what the American people are going to look at is what this bill does to affect their daily lives,” he told reporters.
If that was the case, Chris, Democrat House leaders would just call for an up or down vote. But, you are correct: what the American People are going to do is look at how badly this legislation affects their lives. Sucks to be you.
Here are your St. Patrick’s Day Patriotic Pinups
I’m not sure who created the first one. There are about 5 different pinup painters it could be. The second is by Peter Dribben. For those not aware, every Sunday for years now I have been posting a Patriotic Pinup post, plus on special holidays, at my personal site, Pirate’s Cove.
No, that is not a typo in the headline. I seriously doubt that The Smartest Man In The World Ever!!!!!! meant to say 3,000. I Blame Bush. Or Secretary Teleprompter. Just image had Bush made this claim, even by accident
Now, so let me talk about the third thing, which is my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for families, for businesses, and for the federal government.
So Americans buying comparable coverage to what they have today — I already said this — would see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent — that’s not my numbers, that’s what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says — for Americans who get their insurance through the workplace.
How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now?
Raise your hands.
All right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it’s estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent [sic], which means they could give you a raise.
(Applause.)
And probably quite a few people giving those types of tentative claps accompanied by the thought “WTF did he just say?”
Also, I wonder if The Smartest Man In The World Ever!!!!!! understands the difference in the cost of health care and health insurance. Based on that little exchange, I’d say not.
Big payoffs to unions, free healthcare to illegal aliens, death panels for Americans, limits and rationing to Americans… it’s ALL in the bill (HR 3200).
And remember, folks. We get taxed immediately but none of these wonderful “benefits” actually kick in for FOUR YEARS! So even if you liked this communist paradise you won’t get it for almost half the decade. It makes you wonder… how many dead people will Democrats be responsible for since this bill doesn’t kick in for so long, eh?
These are the things that Democrats want in a nationalized healthcare bill. These are the things that WILL end up passed if ANY part of Obamacare is passed.
This will materially alter the relationship between citizen and government and will put a tombstone over what was the United States of America. If Obamcare passes, the U.S.A. is dead.
Here’s one from a few days ago I ran across, which already has garnered over 840 comments, most of them seemingly taking the writer, Peter Gleick, to task for his climahysterical article. Let’s see, shall we?
Here is the best argument against global warming:
. . . .
Oh, right. There isn’t one.
There is no good argument against global warming. In all the brouhaha about tiny errors recently found in the massive IPCC report, the posturing by global climate deniers, including some elected officials, leaked emails, and media reports, here is one fact that seems to have been overlooked:
First, it is not an argument against global warming. It is against man caused (anthropogenic, man induced, whatever you want to term it) global warming, or, as you folks call it, climate change, since you, in such a self-described scientific manner, link everything into it. Hot, cold, wet, dry, snow, tornadoes, hurricanes or lack thereof, frogs dying, species being found, allergies, etc and so on. Second, it is not incumbent upon us “deniers” to prove our theory, based on 4 billion years of history. You have to prove yours.
Third, those “tiny” errors are not actually tiny. Many of them are primary points within the UN IPCC, used to “prove” their whole position.
Those who deny that humans are causing unprecedented climate change have never, ever produced an alternative scientific argument that comes close to explaining the evidence we see around the world that the climate is changing.
I’ll leave that to the professionals at this moment, but, I did notice something, Pete. Do you mind if I call you Pete? Nowhere in you article do you provide a scientific argument that explains how the current warming period is caused “most likely,” to us, in the IPCC vernacular, by Mankind. Sucks to be you. Oh, hey, can you explain the “no statistical warming over the last 15 years,” or that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, as told by Phil Jones? How about all the “missing” data? Or that temperature upticks precede CO2? Or…..well, we all know the reality. Can we move Peter from stage 1 of the 5 stages of grief?
Here is the way scientists think science works: Ideas and theories are proposed to explain the scientific principles we understand, the evidence we see all around us, and the mathematical models we use to test theories. Alternative theories compete.
Gore, the self-anointed climate change alarmist-in-chief, told supporters on a March 15 conference call that severe weather in certain regions of the country could be attributed to carbon in the atmosphere – including the recent rash of rainy weather.
There’s your “scientific” theory, Pete. If everything can be blamed on global warming, it is no longer science, it is tautology.
Scientists are used to debating facts with each other, with the best evidence and theory winning. Well, this is a bar fight, where the facts are irrelevant, and apparently, the rules and tools of science are too. But who wins bar fights? As the Simpsons cartoon so brilliantly showed, bullies. Not always the guy who is right.
Al Gore is not a scientist, Pete. Nor is Barack Obama, nor are the Democrats (and Lindsay Graham) who are pushing this. Nor are a good chunk of those who wrote the IPCC. Hmmph. Strange, huh?
