by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
In Obama’s Keystone recent veto message to Congress, our President cited the ongoing State Department review as the basis for his decision. He stated, “And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest — including our security, safety, and environment — it has earned my veto.”
How incredibly obnoxious and incompetent is the President to say that after SIX years, the State Department has failed to complete its review. Nothing else at all needs to be said as to why the economy is still deplorable. The Keystone saga encapsulates the entire failure of the “shovel ready jobs” schtick, if it takes six years and counting for the federal government to make a decision on one pipeline project.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, NEW YORK, OBAMA, POLITICS
According to the LA Times, Hillary Clinton has revealed that aides “deleted more than 30,000 emails that she deemed personal.”
In fact, Clinton herself breaks down the email numbers: there were 62,320 total messages. 30,490 of these were provided to the State Department, and 31,830 were private records that were destroyed.
That’s right, she wrote more personal emails than professional ones during her tenure as Secretary of State.
Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State from March 2009 to February 2013. That’s four years minus one month. 4 years is 1460 days, plus minus 30 days, totaling 1430 days as Secretary of State. If she sent 31,830 private mails, that averages roughly 22.2 personal emails each day, 365 days a year, the entire time she was Secretary of State.
Does your employer tolerate that many personal emails a day?
It’s even worse if you don’t factor in weekends and federal holidays, just strict federal government working hours. The government calculates that federal employees work 2,087 hours a year. For Clinton’s term as Secretary of state, 2087 hours x 4 years is 8348 hours. Subtract a month (174 hours) and you get 8174 hours.
If she was able to delete 31,830 personal emails over her term, she sent 3.89 personal emails an hour, or one about every 15 minutes, racking up 31 personal emails over an 8 hour work day. On taxpayer money. On taxpayer time. Hillary Clinton was paid $186,600 a year as Secretary of State.
At least we now know what she was probably doing during Benghazi.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
During oral arguments of the Burwell Obamacare case before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, a possible resolution seemed to rear its ugly head when Chief Justice Roberts questioned U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli over the contested ambiguity of the application of Obamacare subsidies. Verrilli made the case that the “court should defer to the interpretation of the Internal Revenue Service, which said the tax credits apply nationwide.” This reasoning is absolutely the worst possible solution — but of course not entirely unexpected from the federal government.
The idea of “deference” refers “ to “Chevron deference,” “a doctrine mostly unknown beyond the halls of the Capitol and the corridors of the Supreme Court. It refers to a 1984 decision, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and it is one of the most widely cited cases in law. Boiled down, it says that when a law is ambiguous, judges should defer to the agency designated to implement it so long as the agency’s decision is reasonable.”
Given the current catastrophic state of the Internal Revenue Service, the courts must run from this idea as quickly as possible. The IRS has proven overwhelmingly in the last few years that no decision it makes is “reasonable” and therefore cannot be trusted as an unbiased, independent agency capable of carrying out a professional opinion on this or virtually any manner. IRS officials engaged in targeting of conservatives, “lost” official emails, mislead Congress and investigators about their existence, and corresponded with agencies such as the FBI, the House Oversight Committee, the DoJ, and the White House in 2509 documents over a multi-year period.
No wonder the federal government requests deference to the IRS to sort out the language and spirit of Obamacare subsidies. It’s like the fox guarding the hen house!
The IRS is no more capable of making such a determination in the first place as the FCC was in implementing net neutrality or the EPA rules changes on limiting carbon dioxide emissions. Agencies have repeatedly exceeded their statutory jurisdiction. SCOTUS would be wise to ignore this suggestion to put the onus back on the IRS to sort out the mess. The IRS has never answered satisfactorily for its repeated scandals, and therefore cannot be considered non-partisan or capable of any prudent judgment, via “deference”, at this time.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The Wall Street Journal had an excellent article a couple weeks ago calling out the egregious prosecutorial misconduct of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. In this farce of a case, Schneiderman is hell bent on going after Hank Greenberg (formerly with AIG) in an attempt to discredit his name in a state civil lawsuit. The manner in which Schneiderman is conducting himself is a disgrace to his position as prosecutor and reflects a trend of prosecutorial abuses that has grown alarmingly in recent years.
In the Schneiderman-Greenberg case, Eric Schneiderman has been pursuing civil charges against Hank Greenberg related to an “allegedly fraudulent reinsurance transaction” some years ago while disgraced Eliot Spitzer was the Attorney General. Mr. Greenberg was the defendant in a prior, failed criminal prosecution involving this particular transaction several years ago; in preparation for this upcoming civil case, it came to light that the “federal government has been hiding potentially exculpatory evidence” from the prior trial of Mr. Greenberg. The key witness for the government in that case, a Mr. Napier, who never had any direct communication with Mr. Greenberg about the deal in question apparently provided such “compelling inconsistencies” that an Appeals judge wrote “Napier may well have testified falsely.” Yet, Napier’s testimony is the very piece of evidence upon which Schneiderman has built his civil case.
For several years, and as recently as January, the federal government continued to claim that the notes and evidence collected during the first case should be kept under seal. It was only recently, under pressure, that the prosecutors relented and provided that notes and memos which showed the blatant inconsistencies of Mr. Napier. Had that release not occurred, however, Mr. Schneiderman would have been allowed to pursue the civil case against Greenberg relying “on a Napier deposition conducted years before the appeals court cast doubt on his testimony and before Mr. Greenberg’s legal team uncovered the notes.” What’s more, Mr. Greenberg was denied a trial by jury, and because “it’s a civil case and Mr. Napier doesn’t live in New York, he cannot be compelled to appear.” Thankfully, in light of the new exculpatory evidence, the trial has been stayed to decide whether or not to continue with the farce.
It is clear that Schneiderman’s decision to doggedly pursue this case for years even in the face of tainted, unreliable evidence is abusive. Schneiderman himself should be under investigation for malicious prosecution, going after a “big name” for his own political and personal gain.
This unprofessional prosecutorial behavior is unfortunately not limited to Eric Schneiderman. The nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, who also hails from New York has an egregious record of abuse particularly relating to civil asset forfeiture while she was the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. In the most outrageous case during her tenure, her offices colluded with the IRS to seize nearly $450,000 from the bank account of two businessmen known as the Hirsch Brothers in May 2012, for “suspicion”, not actual charges, of criminal activity.
For nearly 3 years, the brothers were never charged with any crime, and Lynch’s office wholy ignored stringent deadlines regarding forfeiture cases. Prosecutors were compelled by law to file a court complaint within a certain amount of days following the seizure, but that never actually happened at any time, and the Hirsch brothers never had the opportunity to appear before a judge. In fact, there was never any case presented against them at anytime; Lynch’s office just sat on the seized money, all while offering to cut a deal with the brothers to keep some of the funds in return for dropping the matter. The brothers turned down every offer made to them.
Suddenly, a week before the Lynch’s confirmation hearing, in late January 2015 — two years and eight months after the case began — Lynch’s office returned all the money to the brothers. Lynch’s office clearly violated the law in the manner by which her prosecutors ignored forfeiture rules and denied due process to the Hirschs while going after the “big money”.
In a similar manner, NBC has covered another practice of Lynch’s office: using the “John Doe” alias in an overwhelmingly high amount to keep witness and court information from becoming public information. “Federal prosecutors in New York’s Brooklyn-based Eastern District pursued cases against secret, unnamed “John Doe” defendants 58 times since Loretta Lynch became head prosecutor in May 2010.” In comparision to others, “none of the nation’s 93 other federal district courts has charged more than eight “Does” during the same time period, and the national average is under four.” National Review has also covered the specifics of some of these cases, calling out Lynch’s “secret docket”. The repeated use of such secrecy invites Lynch’s office to the criticism that such practice undermines the right to a public trial guaranteed by our Constitution.
The conduct of Schneiderman and Lynch is unacceptable. The fact that Schneiderman is and will remain the Attorney General for New York and Loretta Lynch is poised to become the next Attorney General for the United States is disconcerting. It is not the first and it certainly won’t be the last, but it is increasingly brazen. This type of behavior undermines the integrity of our justice system when the nations leading prosecutors can’t be bothered to follow the rules and conduct themselves in an unbiased, professional manner. How can citizens protect their liberties in the face of such prosecutorial abuse?
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, QUICKLY NOTED, TAXES
Bernie Sanders recently advocated for President Obama to raise $100 billion in taxes by the old “closing corporate loopholes” schtick. The difference this time, is that Obama is actively exploring his abilities to do so via Executive Order. Townhall has the scoop:
“White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed Monday that President Obama is “very interested” in the idea of raising taxes through unitlateral executive action.
“The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans,” Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action.
“Now I don’t want to leave you with the impression that there is some imminent announcement, there is not, at least that I know of,” Earnest continued. “But the president has asked his team to examine the array of executive authorities that are available to him to try to make progress on his goals. So I am not in a position to talk in any detail at this point, but the president is very interested in this avenue generally,” Earnest finished.
Sanders sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew Friday identifying a number of executive actions he believes the IRS could take, without any input from Congress, that would close loopholes currently used by corporations. In the past, IRS lawyers have been hesitant to use executive actions to raise significant amounts of revenue, but that same calculation has change in other federal agencies since Obama became president.
Obama’s preferred option would be for Congress to pass a corporate tax hike that would fund liberal infrastructure projects like mass transit. But if Congress fails to do as Obama wishes, just as Congress has failed to pass the immigration reforms that Obama prefers, Obama could take actions unilaterally instead. This past November, for example, Obama gave work permits, Social Security Numbers, and drivers licenses to approximately 4 million illegal immigrants.
Those immigration actions, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will raise federal deficits by $8.8 billion over the next ten years.”
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
Yes, yes — I never thought I’d write something positive about Eric Holder, but from the looks of today’s news in the Washington Post, Eric Holder has done something about which I (cautiously) agree. Today, Holder announced that he has “barred local and state police from using federal law to seize cash, cars and other property without warrants or criminal charges. Holder’s action represents the most sweeping check on police power to confiscate personal property since the seizures began three decades ago as part of the war on drugs.”
The Washington Post published a piece in September which detailed the breadth and depth of asset-seizure forfeiture: $2.5 billion in cash seizures, without warrants, in the 13 years since the September 11th attacks. Additionally, the use of a system called “Equitable Sharing” since 2008 has netted nearly $3 billion in cash and property from Americans. “The program has enabled local and state police to make seizures and then have them “adopted” by federal agencies, which share in the proceeds. It allowed police departments and drug task forces to keep up to 80 percent of the proceeds of adopted seizures, with the rest going to federal agencies.” The monies typically gained padded budgets and allowed for purchases of special weapons, luxury cars, and other expensive items by local police forces.
The new rule goes into effect immediately; the only items that are excluded from the seizure ban are “illegal firearms, ammunition, explosives and property associated with child pornography”. It comes on the heels of a letter written by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, signed on January 9th, requesting an end to the “Equitable Sharing” program. There is also legislation being worked on to reform this practice.
To be sure, police departments who have grown to depend on the extra monies will not be happy with the change. It has been estimated that asset forfeiture funds up to 20% of police budgets in recent years; opponents are sure to argue that the loss of money will make it more difficult to help fight terrorism, drugs, and crime. So be it. Unquestionably, the practice of civil asset forfeiture and the lack of due process has been an assault on civil liberties for years.
….now, if we could just do the same to the IRS asset seizure program. You can read more about its egregious practices here.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The practice of asset forfeiture by the IRS has been highlighted in recent months due to a high-profile case involving a woman who had roughly $33,000 of her money seized by the IRS. The IRS claimed her “pattern” of depositing the money she earned from her restaurant — typically cash and often in sums under $10,000 — was suspicious enough to warrant the plundering of her account.
Several weeks after the public outcry about this woman’s plight, the IRS dropped the case and agreed to return her funds. But here’s the problem. It’s not enough to just give the money back. The IRS needs, at the very least, to pay civil damages. They took assets from a woman who committed no crime, who wasn’t even charged with any crime.
More importantly, the IRS needs to investigate how this case even came about. There was no preponderance of evidence that any crime occurred. There was virtually nothing. The case occurred because an IRS representative watched her accounts over a period of time, and decided – with no basis, investigation, or even inquiry with the taxpayer – that her method of deposits (for which she had a perfectly valid reason in connection with her perfectly legal, decades-owned business) violated a law typically meant to catch money launderers and drug dealers. That is reprehensible.
A few days after the article came out about the case, the IRS issued a policy change over the practice. The IRS stated, “the agency will no longer pursue asset forfeiture in cases in which the source of the funds is legal except in exceptional circumstances and only with the approval of the director of field operations.” This means nothing and changes nothing — because someone higher up on the IRS food chain can still sign off on cases, or when someone within the IRS deems it “an exceptional circumstance”. It’s not good enough.
If the IRS is sincere about regaining the public trust, it needs to clean house, starting with the agents involved in this and other similar forfeiture cases.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, TAXES
The White House released its latest regulatory agenda for the fall. This current amount contains 3,415 items for consideration. Did you miss the list? Most people did; the White House released the massive agenda on the eve of Thanksgiving. The Daily Caller notes that this latest document dump marked “the fifth time the Obama administration has released its regulatory road map on the eve of a major holiday”. It follows the footsteps of last spring’s agenda, when it was released right before Memorial Day.
The 3,415 regulations “includes 189 rules that cost more than $100 million.” These include several controversial EPA rules and regs, such as the redefinition of the “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. Likewise, several educational proposals, which seem to expand federal reach into education, have raised eyebrows.
Center for Progressive Reform Executive Director Matt Shudtz remarked that “it’s a shame that the Obama administration goes about intentionally releasing such important agendas in stealth at times when Americans are the most distracted, especially when its wide range of rules and regulations touch virtually every American both here and abroad.”
To view the entire list, called the “Unified Agenda for Fall 2014” go here.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Is Executive Amnesty is inexplicably tied to Obamacare?
On Monday of last week, the New York Times reported that Health and Human Secretary, Sylvia Burwell, projected 9.1 million enrollees in Obamacare by the end of the year. This is in stark contrast to the original projections by the Congressional Budget Office, which “had estimated that 13 million people would be enrolled next year, with the total rising to 24 million in 2016”.
The New York Times also noted that, “in the past, the White House has used the budget office numbers as a benchmark for success under the Affordable Care Act.”
Currently, enrollment stands at 7.1 million, down from the 8 million touted last year by Obama. This reduction stems from persons who failed to pay premiums or could not prove their identity and therefore considered ineligible.
Additionally, HHS curiously forecasted that “most of the new marketplace enrollment for 2015 is likely to come from the ranks of the uninsured,” and less likely from persons who had already been paying for their own insurance without the marketplace.
If enrollment is lagging so badly behind expectations, how could Obama possibly salvage numbers for Obamacare so that it could show a modicum of “success under the Affordable Care Act”?
Answer: Executive Amnesty.
Early estimates have put those who might benefit from Obama’s amnesty plan to be 3-5 million, a number that would neatly fit the amount necessary to bolster the fledgling Obamacare, which was Obama’s signature policy.
Now, if one goes to the healthcare.gov website, and hovers over the “Get Answers” tab, it opens up a tab which includes the section, “Coverage For…” Guess who is first on the list? Immigrants. Immigrants are listed ahead of “Young adults, Self-employed people, Unemployed people, People with disabilities, People with job-based coverage, Military veterans, American Indians & Alaska Natives, Pregnant women, Same-sex married couples, Retirees, and Incarcerated people.” (in that order). So if a immigrant was granted amnesty, the government made it very easy for him or her to get started.
Within the section under “Immigrants”, the website lists 17 types of immigrant status that makes one eligible for Obamacare. Furthermore, six more types of status are eligible if one has applied for a particular immigrant program, and yet another five more status types are able to enroll in Obamacare if they are coupled with employment authorization. That makes 28 types of immigrants who are eligible for an Obamacare plan already.
Now, to be fair, the website explicitly states at the bottom of the page: “Undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible to buy health coverage through the Marketplace. They’re not eligible for premium tax credits or other savings on Marketplace plans.”
However, that’s where Obama’s 10-point Executive Amnesty plan comes in. Under this plan, “President Barack Obama is on the verge of granting executive amnesty and work permits to five million illegal immigrants, including the illegal immigrant parents of children who are American citizens OR previously received executive amnesty under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012.”
Now, the first thing to note about the relationship between amnesty and Obamacare is the part about DACA. On healthcare.gov, it states that “Deferred Action Status” is eligible for Obamacare, but also notes specifically on that same bullet point that “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is not an eligible immigration status for applying for health insurance”. Now, if Obama implements his Executive Amnesty plan, those currently claiming DACA status will be able to suddenly attain Obamacare — allowing potentially many, many new subscribers here.
Another analysis from HotAir goes further in depth:
“One key piece of the order, officials said, will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents and no longer worry about being discovered, separated from their families and sent away.
That part of Mr. Obama’s plan alone could affect as many as 3.3 million people who have been living in the United States illegally for at least five years, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute, an immigration research organization in Washington. But the White House is also considering a stricter policy that would limit the benefits to people who have lived in the country for at least 10 years, or about 2.5 million people.
Extending protections to more undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, and to their parents, could affect an additional one million or more if they are included in the final plan that the president announces.”
Hence, if Executive Amnesty goes through, the warning on the healthcare.gov website regarding undocumented immigrants is no longer applicable to those who would receive protections; thus, they would be eligible to purchase an Obamacare plan.
As it stands now, a large number of legal immigrants are already using Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. In a report released just this past week from the Center for Immigration Studies, “immigrants have accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment since Obamacare began being implemented in 2011”. Furthermore, “The high rate and significant growth in Medicaid associated with immigrants is mainly the result of a legal immigration system that admits large numbers of immigrants with relatively low-levels of education, many of whom end up poor and uninsured.”
2011-2013 have proven to be successful for immigrant-related Obamacare signups; therefore, the likelihood for immigrants who receive amnesty to sign up for an Obamacare plan or product seems relatively high. As a very rough estimate number, if Obama was to grant amnesty to 5 million immigrants, (a middle estimate figure) and assuming the signup rate for Obamacare just among those immigrants is 42% (to stay on trend), then 2.1 million immigrants would sign up.
If HHS is predicting 9.1 million enrolled by the end of the year, and then potentially another 2.1 million can be also factored in, the White House is getting closer to the originally projected figures. Remember, “in the past, the White House has used the budget office numbers as a benchmark for success under the Affordable Care Act”, and the CBO had predicted 13 million by the end of this year, so adding immigrants newly eligible through Executive Amnesty will certainly help to salvage Obamacare numbers.
With the news this morning that Obama will announce Executive Action on immigration this coming Friday, it seems all the more likely that Executive Amnesty is tied to Obamacare. The White House has been mum about how many people have enrolled in the past few days of open enrollment season, suggesting that the number is low. An independent site, acasignups.net, back this assertion.
At this point, no one in the Administration even cares about the cost anymore. It’s all about saving the legislation from abomination, no matter the pricetag or method. That’s probably why the CBO has not even bothered to score the impact of Obamacare on the deficit since 2012 — before Obamacare even began to be fully implemented! Of course, it’s not like anyone really believes either by now that Obamacare won’t add to the deficit.
Therefore, if the numbers so far this year are not meeting even lowered expectations for enrollment, then it is imperative to get the numbers up NOW. That is why Obama has decided to act on Amnesty so soon after Obamacare signups just began again — so stay tuned for Friday, and pay attention to how the Executive action affects immigration and Obamacare.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, TAXES
Many states continue to bamboozle their citizens by obfuscating the true depth of their debt that is occurring in the form of unfunded liabilities. Those liabilities are mainly state public pension plans, and they continue to routinely promise pie-in-the-sky returns, even after years of bleak economic growth and investment.
A group called State Budget Solutions analyzes the problem of underfunding each year. Its annual report “reveals that state public pension plans are underfunded by $4.7 trillion, up from $4.1 trillion in 2013. Overall, the combined plans’ funded status has dipped three percentage points to 36%. Split among all Americans, the unfunded liability is over $15,000 per person.”
Many people might think, “I don’t work for my state government, so it doesn’t affect me”. It most certainly does. We are facing a generation of Baby Boomers who are getting ready to retire, and expect to have the pension that has been promised to them. Those promises are the unfunded liabilities which must be paid out. Pension costs come from state budgets — you and me — and in order to cover the costs, adjustments must be made. Expect tax increases and/or reduced government services in the coming years because a greater portion of the state budget will need to be dedicated to meeting these obligations.
How did we get here? The most damning factor is that of generous promises.
Ultimately, negotiators — be it union heads, lawmakers, or other bureaucrats — have had a fiduciary responsibility not to pay more than fair compensation, thereby restricting compensation and benefits to amounts no greater than what those skills would command in the private sector. Unfortunately, there are really no such competitive inhibitions in the public sector and therefore the negotiation routine lacks the incentive for restraint. In most cases, the self-interest of the public sector negotiator is more directly aligned with the leader that can get him elected rather than the taxpayer whom he is representing.
Lofty and mythical promises have been made for years now without a care about how it will be paid for — because the negotiator will likely be long gone when obligations come due. This is a true case of the fox in charge of the hen house. Thus runaway financial promises have deeply accumulated in state governments for which it cannot properly budget, while binding future governments not yet in office.
The Great Recession has made the problem more acute in recent years. “As the economy struggles to get back on track, states’ fiscal health also suffers, making it more difficult for state officials to make up for the shortfalls with greater contributions. As bond yields have suffered due to interest rates being held at historic lows, the fair market valuation of public pension liabilities also took a hit.”
Furthermore, most, if not all states, have hidden the vast problem by using accounting tricks — probably hoping the economy or investment will bounce back, or else just passing the buck year after year so it becomes someone else’s problem.
For instance, “state pension funds use a high discount rate. Discounting liabilities is a necessary part of fund management. Fund managers must assume that the current assets will be worth more in the future due to a number of factors, notably the return on investing those current assets. The problem arises because the discount rate is not based on the nature of the assets held by the pension plan, but is rather based on the assumed rate of return.”
The assumed rate of return — herein lies the problem. By continuing to perpetuate and promise rates of return of 5-8% for pensions, state governments show on paper that their liabilities are much smaller than they are. However, for years now, returns have been much closer to 2-3%. Yet state governments fail to make those realistic adjustments because it sounds neither glamorous nor generous to the employee.
What’s more, some states are facing such enormous financial pressures and shortfalls in all sectors of the state budget that they have reduced or skipped the yearly contribution to the pension funds altogether — thereby making the gulf that much wider. New Jersey balanced its budget (again) this year by reducing (again) the payment by $2.4 billion; Virginia skipped its payment back altogether in 2010 — although it did implement a repayment plan over subsequent 5 years to make up for that choice.
In fact, a cursory glance back at these practices reveal that the games have been ongoing for several years now. A Wall Street Journal article on this subject from Spring of 2010 — nearly 5 years ago — discusses how states were reducing and skipping payments and delaying the “day of reckoning”. New Jersey, California, and Illinois were some of the worse offenders then.
Is it any wonder that these three states are in the top ten for the amount of unfunded liabilities? California has the worst, $754 billion. In terms of funding ratios, Illinois leads the list with only 22% of its obligations funded. You can look at the full and various lists here.
The crisis will only continue to worsen unless changes are made. The outlook is gloomy for state governments and, based on past performance, is not likely to get better anytime soon. For most states, the “kick the can” approach allows them to coast while the liabilities fester, letting it become the problem of other future governments at some undefined point in the future. That is reprehensible.
