Monday, April 11, 2011

WHO MOVED THE STONES ... I CAN'T WALK ON WATER WITHOUT THE STONES! OBAMA'S PROBLEM: I VOTED NO BEFORE I VOTED YES ...

White House: Obama Vote Against Raising Debt Limit a 'Mistake'
Published April 11, 2011 | FoxNews.com


If President Obama knew then what he knows now, he would not have voted against raising the debt limit in 2006.

That was the explanation trotted out by the White House Monday, as it sought to square the administration's pleas to Congress to lift the debt ceiling by next month against Obama's voting history. As a senator in 2006, Obama voted against raising the debt limit. But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the president now views that vote as a "mistake."

"He now believes it was a mistake," Carney said. He said Obama understands that senators want to make it clear when they disagree with the administration but that there are other ways to go about doing it. He said the debt ceiling vote is not something Washington "can play around with," warning that a failure to lift the cap would be "Armageddon-like" for the economy.

The White House tried to clear up questions about the debt ceiling ahead of a critical speech Wednesday in which he'll outline a new deficit-reduction plan -- a proposal no doubt meant to convince Republicans that he's serious about spending cuts and that there's no need to hold the debt ceiling vote "hostage."

"He will very clearly lay out his vision for deficit reduction, the need for it to be balanced, the need for it to be bipartisan, the need for it to address the long-term drivers of our debt and for everyone to share in the burden of bringing our fiscal house into order," Carney said.

"We believe that we should move quickly to raise the debt limit and we support a clean piece of legislation to do that," he added. "Concurrently -- not linked, but concurrently -- the president is going to demonstrate on Wednesday his commitment again to deficit reduction."

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner now estimates that the nation's debt ceiling will be reached no later than May 16, and has urged Congress to act before then. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Geithner wrote that Congress risks a fiscal calamity potentially worse than the one from which the nation is recovering.

Geithner noted that the Treasury Department can take "extraordinary measures" to buy time -- about eight extra weeks, maximum -- after the May deadline. But he said once those measures are exhausted the U.S. government would not have enough money to pay its bills. Military salaries, Social Security payments and jobless benefits would cease, he warned, adding that a default on the debt would drive up interest rates, erode home values and cause a new financial crisis.

"For these reasons, default by the United States is unthinkable," Geithner wrote.

But after extracting a last-minute budget deal out of Democrats, in turn averting a government shutdown and marking billions of dollars in spending cuts in their column, Republicans are in the mood for another stand-off on Capitol Hill. From the top down, GOP leaders warn they will not vote to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling unless they see genuine efforts to reduce the deficit.

"There will not be an increase in the debt limit without something really, really big attached to it," House Speaker John Boehner said at a fundraiser Saturday night.

In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Boehner reiterated that his members will not vote to raise the cap without "serious steps" on spending cuts. He acknowledged that leaving the cap in place would have "very serious implications for the worldwide economy and jobs here in America," but said Republicans will not "roll over" without addressing the underlying problem.

"The biggest threat that we have to our economy and to our future is doing nothing, and that's what the president asked us to do -- do nothing," Boehner told Fox News. "Doing nothing is totally irresponsible and we will not go down that path."

Boehner said there will be "dozens" of spending battles over the next year and a half.

Republicans are touting Rep. Paul Ryan's, R-Wis., budget proposal -- a plan released last week that contains about $6 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years -- and suggest they'll be pushing for some of its provisions. Ryan, in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," said the Republicans' strategy is not to default, but compel the government to control spending.

"I think there will be some kind of negotiations, and yes, it probably will go up to some sort of a deadline. The debt ceiling deadline is a moving deadline; it's not a date-certain deadline like the government shutdown," Ryan said. He said the debt ceiling increase, if Republicans are to support it, must come with "real fiscal reforms, real spending cuts, and real spending controls going forward so we can deal with the debt in the future."

White House senior adviser David Plouffe, over the course of several television interviews Sunday, indicated that the White House is willing to put some reforms on the table. Obama plans to detail some of them in the speech on deficit reduction Wednesday -- a follow-up to a budget proposal earlier in the year which was widely panned by Republicans as doing little to control spending. Amid the back-and-forth, Obama took a moment Monday afternoon to speak with a group of Colorado students touring the White House. He told the tour group that education will stay a priority for him in budget talks going forward.

But the White House warns that voting against the debt ceiling increase would be "catastrophic" for the economy.

Carney on Monday urged Republicans not to hold the debt limit vote "hostage" in order to extract budgetary concessions. He said the president is serious about cutting spending, but that Congress should not "play chicken" with the economy.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., urged Republicans to take the debt-limit threat off the table.

"It could be a formula for recession or worse," Schumer told CBS' "Face the Nation." "So this is playing with fire."

Though Geithner, in his letter to Reid, said Treasury has a few tricks up its sleeve to forestall the default deadline, he noted the government has "much less flexibility" than it used to because of the sheer size of its deficits.

The secretary said the U.S. government, for instance, can't simply cut spending or raise taxes to avoid hitting the cap. With the public debt increasing at a rate of about $125 billion every month, Geithner said it would take an impossible amount of budgetary rearranging to halt that climb in the near-term.

For reference, the projected fiscal 2011 deficit was about $1.6 trillion. After weeks of wrangling, Congress cut that by just $38.5 billion in the deal reached over the weekend.

"In order to avoid an increase in the debt limit, Congress would need to eliminate annual deficits immediately," Geithner wrote.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/11/geithner-warns-nation-hit-debt-limit-deadline-mid/#ixzz1JFmVhzQz

THE THREE R'S ... AND I'M LOVING IT!

MAYBE I'M OLD FASHIONED ... BUT I ATE WHATEVER MY MOTHER PACKED IN MY LUNCH BOX!  IF SOMEONE FORGOT THEIR LUNCH WE SHARED AND THAT WAS ALL PART OF THE FUN OF HAVING LUNCH ... SHARING WITH OUR FRIENDS.  MILK AND JUICE WERE THE ONLY BEVERAGES BACK IN THE 50'S ... THAT'S WHEN OUR PARENTS WERE IN CHARGE, FAST FORWARD TO 2011 ... WHAT HAPPENED?  WELL ONE OBSERVATION IS NOW WE HAVE COLLEGE GRADUATES WORKING AT MCDONALD'S, BURGER KING AND WENDY'S ... WE HAVE A BIRTH TAX OF AROUND $45,500 AND COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE IN DEBT UPON GRADUATION ... AND THEY MOVE BACK IN WITH MOM AND DAD ... GO AHEAD HIT THE BUTTON:  

Chicago school bans some lunches brought from home

To encourage healthful eating, Chicago school doesn't allow kids to bring lunches or certain snacks from home — and some parents, and many students, aren't fans of the policy


By Monica Eng and Joel Hood, Tribune reporters 3:42 AM CDT, April 11, 2011

Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school.

"Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?" the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English.

Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: "We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!"

Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: "Do you see the situation?"

At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."

Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common.

A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals.

"While there is no formal policy, principals use common sense judgment based on their individual school environments," Monique Bond wrote in an email. "In this case, this principal is encouraging the healthier choices and attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom."

Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.

At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.

"Some of the kids don't like the food they give at our school for lunch or breakfast," said Little Village parent Erica Martinez. "So it would be a good idea if they could bring their lunch so they could at least eat something."

"(My grandson) is really picky about what he eats," said Anna Torrez, who was picking up the boy from school. "I think they should be able to bring their lunch. Other schools let them. But at this school, they don't."

But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."

At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain.

"The kids may have money or earn money and (buy junk food) without their parents' knowledge," Stinson said, adding that most parents expect that the school will look out for their children.

Such discussions over school lunches and healthy eating echo a larger national debate about the role government should play in individual food choices.

"This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility," said J. Justin Wilson, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry.

"Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Wilson said. "This is the perfect illustration of how the government's one-size-fits-all mandate on nutrition fails time and time again. Some parents may want to pack a gluten-free meal for a child, and others may have no problem with a child enjoying soda."

For many CPS parents, the idea of forbidding home-packed lunches would be unthinkable. If their children do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals, such a policy would require them to pay $2.25 a day for food they don't necessarily like.

"We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk," education policy professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach wrote in an email. Her son attends Nettelhorst Elementary School in Lakeview. "Not only would mandatory school lunches worsen the dietary quality of most kids' lunches at Nettelhorst, but it would also cost more out of pocket to most parents! There is no chance the parents would stand for that."

Many Little Village students claim that, given the opportunity, they would make sound choices.

"They're afraid that we'll all bring in greasy food instead of healthy food and it won't be as good as what they give us at school," said student Yesenia Gutierrez. "It's really lame. If we could bring in our own lunches, everyone knows what they'd bring. For example, the vegetarians could bring in their own veggie food."

"I would bring a sandwich or a Subway and maybe a juice," said seventh-grader Ashley Valdez.

Second-grader Gerardo Ramos said, "I would bring a banana, orange and some grapes."

"I would bring a juice and like a sandwich," said fourth-grader Eric Sanchez.

"Sometimes I would bring the healthy stuff," second-grader Julian Ruiz said, "but sometimes I would bring Lunchables."

meng@tribune.com

jhood@tribune.com



Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune







Saturday, April 9, 2011

THE PRINCE OF HOLLYWOOD ADDS A MICROWAVE TOWER TO THE TV STUDIO IN NEW FAIRFIELD

AS SUBMITTED TO THE NEWSTIMES


Douglas Thielen
9 Pheasant Drive,
New Fairfield, CT 06812
[203] 746-4039

Letter to the Editor
VIA FAX
March 30, 2011
300 words

OUT OF CONTROL IN NEW FAIRFIELD

New Fairfield’s 1st Selectman purchased a 64 year old communications Tower in New York completely on his own, with absolutely no authorization. Boards and Commissions input were not solicited by John Hodge; Board of Finance approval to purchase was not requested nor granted to our resident Monarch.

A system of financial checks and balances exists in our Republic and that fiscal system was put in place for very good reasons, not the least of which related to addressing concerns of financial impropriety. Given the lack of any approval to purchase the tower, was the fox guarding the chicken coop during the purchase?

Has Hodge paid way too much for the tower? Was an appraisal and structural analysis done on the tower and concrete pad? Vehicular access will be near impossible during nasty winters, so when the system goes down during a heavy snowfall, how to access the system? Snowmobiles? Helicopters? At what cost?

Hodge’s distorted economics and fuzzy math that supposedly “support” this purchase are at work again. His annual $140,000 income projection for leasing tower space is another pipe dream.

Although the tower is operational, a nasty “surprise” in the future is a distinct possibility. The tower is 64 sixty four years old and one has to wonder how well it was constructed and installed way back then. Also, what specifications, requirements and regulations were in place over three generations ago in New York State?

New Fairfield’s municipal election is in 9 months. Please think long and hard about Hodge’s dictatorial administrative style versus one of working together for the good of us taxpaying residents. Also, consider the lack of open and transparent governance as has been demonstrated throughout Hodge’s administration. Having a fair and objective administration, devoid of deception, shenanigans and pet projects would be a refreshing change.

Doug Thielen
New Fairfield
203-746-4039

PS/ I have also e-mailed this to you at letters@newstimes.com

Saturday, April 2, 2011

RIGHT OR WRONG ... THE LEGISLATURE HAS A CHALLENGE BEFORE THEM

Municipal aid is at stake in Malloy's talks with labor

BROMIDIC SERMONS, HACKNEYED PHRASES, AND A FINANCIAL TAPEWORM



When the budget was published, given all the factors, had nothing changed, there would have been a 6% increase.  That was because:
  • Lost stimulus money
  • Medical costs increased 10%
  • GASB added $250,000

We’d subsidized last year’s budget for hundreds of thousands of dollars that are now spent. We spent down our Medical Reserve Fund leaving a balance of under $600,000.

Since then, the Town Treasurer refinanced debt so that we are paying a lower interest rate and, most important, we are delaying principal repayment ... saving (on paper) almost half a million.  The schools “found”  $125,000 in this year’s budget to prepay GASB and our Selectman“found”  $100,000 in income in next year’s budget, etc, etc, etc, ... WOW "found money" and here I thought we had a tight accounting system ... 

Bottom line, it looks like an increase in about 2.88% in taxes, all else being equal. We are kicking the can down the road in that we are not rebuilding our medical fund to the level it should be and the Town Treasurer's refinancing delays paying off debt. 

So, connecting the dots or reading between the lines what does this mean to the Taxpayers of the Town in the coming years ... is it on a hope and prayer that the State's economy changes and these manipulations ... will work!

UPDATE: How it finally came down was the we did add $300K to our medical fund – That will be financed from taxes.  We are also taking money from Cap/Non and transferring it into medical so that it is funded to 1.28 million dollars – As a result, it is fully funded … not flush, but adequately funded.