Ann Coulter: ' McConnell Schools Obama on Debt'

Well, here's another prominent conservative backing the Senate Minority Leader ... Ann Couter at Human Events:

Democrats don't want to cut any government spending programs, not now, not ever. The country is on a high-speed bullet train to bankruptcy (the only kind of bullets liberals approve of), and the Democrats' motto is: Spend! Spend! Spend!

Democrats are at an advantage in the "should the U.S. go bankrupt or not?" debate because, based on their economic policies so far, they obviously favor bankruptcy.

This allows them to sit back and demand that Republicans propose all the spending cuts and then turn around and scream that Republicans have declared war on the poor and disadvantaged.

It's a nice trick, especially considering Republicans control only the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats control all other branches of our government: the Senate, the White House, and The New York Times op/ed page. What's their plan?

Their plan is to keep spending, while blaming tax breaks for corporate jets for the entire $14.3 trillion deficit. The Democrats will never suggest any cuts to a budget that has put the country another $4 trillion in debt only since Obama became president.

She's funny. More here.

Obama Bails on Debt Talks

Well, the news you've all been waiting for!

At Los Angeles Times, "Obama ends tense debt talks with a warning":

Reporting from Washington— President Obama abruptly left debt negotiations with congressional leaders Wednesday at the White House when a top Republican said there was no longer time to engage in the large-scale deficit reduction discussions the White House is now seeking as part of a vote to raise the nation's debt ceiling.

The flare-up came at the end of the nearly two-hour session during which House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told the president that Congress should instead consider a series of debt ceiling votes based on spending cuts that already have been identified. Talks could then continue to identify additional cuts for subsequent votes, he said.

Republicans have refused Democrats' call for taxes on the wealthy. The president responded by ending the meeting, sources said.

"I suggested we were so far apart I didn't see in the time before us how we get to where he wants us to be," Cantor told reporters after the meeting.

Obama warned Cantor not to set such an ultimatum, and according to congressional and administration aides repeated his vow to veto legislation that would extend the debt ceiling only for a short period.

"The president told me, 'Eric, don't call my bluff. I'm going to take this to the American people,' " Cantor said.

Aides described it as the tensest meeting yet in the months of discussions, with the president at one point accusing both sides of posturing.

More at the link above. And at National Review, "Obama ‘Abruptly’ Walks Out of Debt Talks."

BONUS: Also at Politico, "No yelling at Obama today." And the segment's a little after 20 minutes:

Government Shutdown in Minnesota Threatens Beer Sales

Distribution and sales of beer aren't allowed under the state's shutdown, since beer licensing was put on hold before June 30th, for budget reasons. At Wall Street Journal, "Minnesota Shutdown Could Dry Up Beer," and Minneapolis Star-Tribune, "Shutdown forcing MillerCoors to pull beer from shelves." (Via Memeorandum.)

Also at Power Line, "NOW IT’S GETTING SERIOUS!"

If renewing liquor licenses isn’t a core function of government, what is?

Mitch McConnell Isn't Selling Out Republicans

There was a lot of fire and brimstone on the right in response to McConnel's comments, but check WSJ, "Debt-Limit Harakiri":

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday he's concluded that no deal to raise the debt ceiling in return for serious spending restraint is possible with President Obama, and who can blame him? We've never thought the debt ceiling was the best leverage for a showdown over the entitlement state, and now it looks like Mr. Obama is trying to use it as a way to blame the GOP for the lousy economy.

This may have been the President's strategy all along: Take the debt-limit talks behind closed doors, make major spending cuts seem possible in the early days, but then hammer Republicans publicly as the deadline nears for refusing to raise taxes on business and "the rich."

This would explain the President's newly discovered fondness for press conferences, which he has rarely held but now rolls out before negotiating sessions. It would also explain why Mr. Obama's tax demands have escalated as the August 2 deadline nears. Yesterday he played the Grandma Card, telling CBS that seniors may not get their August retirement checks. Next he'll send home the food inspectors and stop paying the troops.

The reality is that Mr. Obama is trying to present Republicans with a Hobson's choice: Either repudiate their campaign pledge by raising taxes, or take the blame for any economic turmoil and government shutdown as the U.S. nears a debt default. In the former case Mr. Obama takes the tax issue off the table and demoralizes the tea party for 2012, and in the latter he makes Republicans share the blame for 9.2% unemployment.

This is the political context in which to understand Mr. McConnell's proposal yesterday to force Mr. Obama to take ownership of any debt-limit increase. If the President still insists on a tax increase, then Republicans will walk away from the talks.

More at that top link, and see Fred Barnes, "Republicans Introduce Plan, Go On Offensive."

Sugar Daddy All Out

Sarah Palin, "The Sugar Daddy Has Run Out of Sugar; Now We Need New Leaders":

Barack Obama’s big government policies continue to fail. He should put a link to the national debt clock on his BlackBerry. The gears on that clock have nearly exploded during his administration. Yesterday’s terrible job numbers should not be a surprise because it all goes back to our debt. Our dangerously unsustainable debt is wiping out our jobs, crippling our economic growth, and jeopardizing our position in the global economy as the leader of the free world.

*****

This debt ceiling debate is the perfect time to do what must be done. We must cut. Yes, I’m for a balanced budget amendment and for enforceable spending caps. But first and foremost we must cut spending, not “strike a deal” that allows politicians to raise more debt! See, Washington is addicted to OPM – Other People’s Money. And like any junkie, they will lie, steal, and cheat to fund their addiction. We must cut them off and cut government down to size.

*****

As we approach 2012, there are important lessons we can learn from all of this. First, we should never entrust the White House to a far-left ideologue who has no appreciation or even understanding of the free market and limited government principles that made this country economically strong. Second, the office of the presidency is too important for on-the-job training. It requires a strong chief executive who has been entrusted with real authority in the past and has achieved a proven track record of positive measurable accomplishments. Leaders are expected to give good speeches, but leadership is so much more than oratory. Real leadership requires deeds even more than words. It means taking on the problems no one else wants to tackle. It means providing vision and guidance, inspiring people to action ...

Like Kryptonite to Stupid? Sorry Oliver, Kryptonite's Getting Killed

I always thought that blog motto was risky, but I just don't read Oliver Willis, so I have no chance to test it out. But I happened to see this post at Memeorandum, and boy, Kryptonite's getting clobbered:

If I’m being charitable, I’ll just assume the White House is floating a trial balloon in order to make the eventual Republican rejection look even worse. AKA “we even offered to cut social security!” But if there’s any reality to this proposal, I hope that at the very least a senator like Bernie Sanders and the few remaining Senate Dems who aren’t spineless or bought off will filibuster.

Well, you know, I'm sure Oliver's a clever writer, but he might study the rules of the Senate a bit before making proposals like this. Senate rules allow opportunities for the minority party to slow down legislative action, and with the filibuster, the possibility of talking a bill to death. While in principle any member can filibuster, the fact is only the minority party has reason to do so, for it has no agenda setting power within the chamber, and the minority can't prevail on a simple up-or-down vote. Hence, by allowing any member to take the floor to debate a bill, legislators in the minority seize the opportunity the tie up the Senate until the bill is either changed or withdrawn. The Democrats are currently in the majority, and won't need to filibuster. Majority Leader Harry Reid, if he's opposed, simply won't introduce legislation to cut Social Security. And even if Senator Bernie Sanders opposed a Democrat bill on Social Security reform, he caucuses with the Democrats (although he's a socialist) and he'd be in no position to oppose the majority.

So, sorry Oliver. We all make mistakes blogging now and then, but your motto cries out for brutal mockery.

Obama Proposes Social Security Cuts

The PBS clip is informative, but no mention of calls to reform Social Security.

But see the Washington Post, "In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts" (via Memeorandum):

President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.

At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation’s budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action.

As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending.

“Obviously, there will be some Democrats who don’t believe we need to do entitlement reform. But there seems to be some hunger to do something of some significance,” said a Democratic official familiar with the administration’s thinking. “These moments come along at most once a decade. And it would be a real mistake if we let it pass us by.”

The proposal doesn't seem very specific on reforming Social Security, other than perhaps reductions in the annual inflation adjustments for recipients. That's a step in the right direction, but there's no shortage of proposals for fixing entitlements, so I'll be interested to hear what else comes up.

See also New York Times, "President Looks for Broader Deal on Deficit Cuts."

The Republican Party May No Longer Be a Normal Party

And that should be a good thing, except that David Brooks is arguing that the GOP is missing an historic opportunity to balance the budget, if only it would compromise on closing tax loopholes, etc., and so forth. At New York Times, "The Mother of All No-Brainers":

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

David Brooks is a the left's token big government conservative, and there's some icing on the cake there, as he's operating from the hallowed perches of the New York Times. What's interesting is how this story remained on top at Memeorandum all day yesterday, with progressives weighing in on Brooks' righteousness, and even Megan McArdle agreeing with the notion of some kind of crazed GOP party cult. I can't speak on the budget negotiations, because I'm not in the least convinced that anything the administration and Congress do will make the slightest difference regarding the long term fiscal balance sheet (think entitlement reform). What we need is growth. With a growing economy and a robust job sector we'll begin to pay down the debt as long as nothing else screws things up, like a lousy momentary policy (and Democrat housing policy). Anyway, I'll try to read up a bit anyway, and update with something more knowledgeable. Here I'm mostly ranting at how David Brooks once again shows his true colors as the favorite RINO of the moment.

More on Amazon Affiliates

I know I've posted on this, but I'm still bothered by the Democrat budget in California, which imposes taxes on online sales from the state, also known as the "Amazon tax," since one of the biggest companies affected is Amazon.com. One of the things I miss about being an affiliate, is that whenever I mentioned a book --- which is pretty often --- I would link to Amazon's associate's link and I could earn a referral commission. That's not an option any more. So now it seems weird linking books knowing that a referral fee could be earned --- and an earning opportunity lost. Anyway, Robert Stacy McCain wrote about his referral success. Every now and then a reader will buy an expensive product through a referral link and that sends a large commission to the blogger. Some time back a reader bought an $800 bunk bed through my links, and I received a hefty commission for the purchase. That was nice. And Robert writes on those as well:

Somebody got a sweet deal — only $499! — on that piece of high-end home video equipment via one of the Amazon links here, which earned me a sweet $20 commission through the Amazon Associates program.

And Robert shares this video of Jeff Bezos:

Meanwhile, I rarely link him but I'll break my rule to send readers to Little Green Footballs for some lulz. Charles Johnson is perterbed by Amazon's decision to pull out of the state, but not so much that Democrat tax hikes are destroying free enterprise in California.

Typical. Charles Johnson's a bleeding-heart progressive with psychological problems. No surprise he'd back big government over business.

Anyway, Common Sense Political Thought has an entry, "Amazon.com going Galt Updated, Saturday morning."

And at Los Angeles Times, "Amazon, California play waiting game in sales tax fight":

Amazon.com Inc. is sticking by its vow not to collect California sales tax on Internet purchases — and state officials must decide what to do about it.

But the showdown over the new tax collection law that took effect Friday could be months away. Companies don't send the taxes to the state until the end of each quarter, which means the California Board of Equalization won't know officially about Amazon's refusal to collect them until Oct. 1.

The tax-collecting agency said Amazon accounts for about half the Internet sales in California from large out-of-state firms that, prior to the new law, did not have to collect sales tax for the state. It said the new law would capture about $317 million a year in sales taxes that previously went uncollected.

Amazon, based in Seattle, has said repeatedly that it would not collect the California sales tax, calling it an unconstitutional infringement on interstate commerce.

Such defiance sets up a major legal battle by this fall, though Amazon could first challenge the law in court, as it has in New York. It has lost a trial court ruling there and has an appeal pending.

Amazon is "going to fight in every state where it can fight," said Tracey G. Sellers, managing director of the Tampa, Fla., office of tax firm True Partners Consulting. "It's going to be years before this whole issue is settled" in the courts.

Amazon declined to say whether it would sue to overturn the new California statute, though state officials expect a lawsuit.

More at that link above, but California officials are looking to novel ways at making this unconstitutional law work:

The new law also gives the Board of Equalization the authority to develop new theories that would establish a nexus or legal connection, making Amazon liable for collecting California sales taxes.

"This swings the gate wide open to establish nexus as we see fit," said Betty Yee, a board member who spearheaded the agency's support for the law. But she acknowledged that any other theories the board devises would probably be tested in court.

As wee see fit? Gotcha.

'The Local Government Pension Squeeze'

We're going to be hearing more and more about stuff like this, particularly as the Obama Depression deepens.

From Stephen Malanga, at Wall Street Journal (via RealClearPolitics).

RELATED: The process is playing out in one of the cities right next door to where I live. See NBC News Los Angeles, "Costa Mesa Mayor Pro Tem Talks About Unprecedented City Cuts." And at Los Angeles Times, "Costa Mesa's police chief abruptly quits over council's plan to slash workforce," and O.C. Weekly, "Costa Mesa Police Chief Resigns With a Letter, Calling City Council 'Incompetent' and the City's Fiscal Crisis a Lie."

BONUS: "Republicans promote Costa Mesa as a pension-slashing leader."

Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (R-NC) Delivers Weekly Republican Address, 6/25/11

From the House GOP Conference:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl Suspend Participation in White House Debt Ceiling Negotiations

At ABC News, "Top Republicans Walk Out of VP Biden's Debt Talks":

Vice President Joe Biden's debt ceiling talks hit a brick wall Thursday after two key Republicans walked out in a dispute over the idea of raising taxes.

The departures of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Thursday morning left the formerly bicameral, bipartisan talks with no Republicans left at the negotiating table.

Cantor said the group had reached an "impasse" because Republicans oppose any and all tax hikes, while Democrats say they are a necessary in a balanced attempt at deficit reduction.

"As it stands, the Democrats continue to insist that any deal must include tax increases," Cantor said. "There is not support in the House for a tax increase, and I don't believe now is the time to raise taxes in light of our current economic situation. Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue."

Also at Wall Street Journal, "Tax Dispute Stalls Debt Talks" (via Memeorandum).

College Budget Update

From Ann-Marie Gabel, LBCC Vice President for Administrative Services:

And at Los Angeles Times, "With budget talks stuck, blame game begins," and "Gov. Brown warns of initiative war if bipartisan talks breakdown."

Also at Sacramento Bee, "Republicans now want election, but won't extend taxes on own." And San Jose Mercury News, "Questions abound over what's next at Capitol."

Gloria Molina, L.A. County Supervisor, Said She'd Like to 'Cut the Testicles Off' Agency Executive Under Her Authority

Los Angeles County government is a lot like the Cook County political machine. A bastion of Democrat Party power, top officials run government like fiefs, and they wield power in the style of the big city party bosses of yore.

In an article today, the Los Angeles Times reports that the Los Angeles County board of supervisors has sought to kneecap County Chief Executive William T. Fujioka. He is CEO for the County, in charge of managing a $23 billion budget and over 100,000 employees. Apparently Fujioka, whose grandparents were sent to internment camps during World War II, is a hard-knuckled administrator, having honed his political skins navigating the rough and tumble of L.A.'s east side gang scene growing up. On the job as County CEO since 2007, Fujioka initiated an administrative reorganization that worked to take power from the hands of the elected board:

The county plan to centralize authority was the brainchild of Fujioka's highly respected predecessor, David Janssen. The new chief executive was to have increased responsibility over the department heads who guide the delivery of services for 10 million constituents, ranging from housing the skid row homeless to defending exclusive hillside neighborhoods from mudslides.

Fujioka was given more staff, and his office's budget climbed 53% to $43 million in four years. Eventually, Fujioka was to have received greater power to hire and fire most agency chiefs.

Under the new structure, supervisors were to have taken a back seat in day-to-day operations. The structure presumed the high level of respect and openness Fujioka's predecessor enjoyed. But most supervisors and their staffs have served for decades and developed expertise and deep interests in certain issues, and the transfer of trust did not come naturally.

No doubt.

It turns out that board members Michael Antonovich, Gloria Molina, and Zev Yaroslavsky moved "to strip the Children and Family Services and Probation departments from Fujioka's control." There's more to the story at the link, including some ugly politics among members of the board, but this passage really caught my attention, and looks like an abuse of power:

While a majority of Fujioka's elected superiors may be critical, his subordinates praise him. County managers have complained about pointed attacks and contradictory direction from board offices in the past. "It's a very scary thing if you are a lowly department head," said Janice Fukai, the county's alternate public defender. "If you go in with the CEO, you feel a little more insulated and a little more protected."

Fujioka's backers say he has been particularly frustrated by some of the supervisors' interventions in the children's services agency, which has been grappling with child fatalities following errors in handling cases. It is one of the departments being taken away from Fujioka. Molina is especially hands-on, summoning top agency officials to her office to demand explanations. In one instance, she said she would like to cut the testicles off an executive because of problems in the agency, according to officials familiar with the exchange.

Molina declined to comment on the incident but said, "At the end of the day, we as supervisors are literally blamed and held accountable for the outcomes of these children."

Gloria Molina's homepage is here. Clicking her page begins a photographic slide show of her service, beginning with a photo of Molina posing with President Barack Obama and ending with a shot of her posing with Former President Bill Clinton.

Her appearances with Democratic presidents form the bookends of a career in Los Angeles government spanning 20 years. In that time she's clearly developed an authoritarian style, which features crude and threatening accounts of her treatment of administrative subordinates. That Supervisor Molina refused to answer questions about the comment, as the Times indicates, is not surprising:

Molina declined to comment on the incident but said, "At the end of the day, we as supervisors are literally blamed and held accountable for the outcomes of these children."

In a time of fiscal austerity, government officials at all levels have been coming under increased attention. But I think it's fair to say that it's especially inappropriate for an L.A. County Supervisor to announce she wants to "cut the testicles" off subordinate agency officials, and when asked about it to further denigrate them as "children."

Progressives would be all over this story if a Republican official has made comparable remarks. But this is the Los Angeles big city machine, and County elected officials obviously feel they can act with impunity.

UPDATE: From Russ, in the comments:

I think when she says "children", she is referring to the children under the protective services that have died while under their authority, NOT the supervisors she threatened with castration.

I also got an e-mail from someone objecting to my comment on Molina's reference to "the children." I won't be surprised if some ASFLs contact my college to complain. Democrats and progressives are evil like that. So let's be clear: "The outcomes" may clearly refer to a purposeful act in the active sense, as in the actions of the administrators who have taken power from the hands of the board. Of course Molina might be referring to "the outcomes" of the children in the passive sense, but then again, considering she's threatening administrative subordinates, maybe not. She's a Democrat. They talk down to people like that. Progressives are losers.

Also, linked at Instapundit, because, you know, no one pays attention to this blog, or something:

THREATS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE FROM A DEMOCRATIC OFFICEHOLDER IN LOS ANGELES ...

I hope the Department Of Justice will investigate this egregious civil rights violation. For that matter, I suspect it’s a violation of California state civil rights law. Gloria Allred, call your office!

Word.

O.C. Grand Jury Questions Officials' Salaries in 3 Cities

At Los Angeles Times.

It's not as bad at the Bell scandal, but there's some big taxpayers money involved:

A first-of-its-kind report by the Orange County Grand Jury questioned whether top officials in three upscale cities — Laguna Hills, Newport Beach and Laguna Beach — are paid too much.

The report was commissioned in the wake of questions over city employee compensation fueled by last year's salary scandal in Bell, where top officials were earning salaries as high as $787,000.

The grand jury found no salaries in the 34 cities surveyed that the panel considered "abusive." The three cities were called out because they appeared to be paying out more than most Orange County cities.

In the case of Laguna Beach and Newport Beach, the grand jury questions what it said was a large number of employees earning $100,000 or more. Laguna Beach, with a population of about 25,000, had 22 such employees, and Newport Beach, with a population of about 86,000, had 60. The grand jury found that the two cities had more high-paid workers per capita that other cities.

Officials in Laguna Beach and Newport Beach disputed the findings. They said that although their cities' populations may be smaller than others, they are both full-service cities, meaning that they use city employees for services that other cities contract out. Both are also coastal cities with tens of thousands of tourists creating an added demand on city services.

"I think [the report's conclusions] were a bit misleading," said Laguna Beach City Manager John Pietig. "To do an analysis like this without comparing the services is really an apples-to-oranges comparison."

More at the link. Laguna Hills City Manager Bruce Channing makes a total of $378,000 including benefits, which is considered "excessive" if not "abusive."

I wish I was making that kind of money. Sheesh.

Colleges Cut Summer

Actually, I never liked summer school, but it plays a vital role for colleges and college students. But this summer sucks.

At LAT, "Amid budget cutbacks, California colleges reduce or eliminate summer school."

And from yesterday's Letters to the Editor:

Gov.'s budget stand

Re "Brown veto dismays Democrats," June 17

I want to publicly thank Gov. Jerry Brown for vetoing the sham budget adopted by the Democratic majority in the state Legislature. I also want to acknowledge the minority party's complicity in the budget stalemate.

California has been living in a financial house of cards for decades. We need to build a new house on a firm and sustainable foundation.

The state's budget crisis can be solved with both spending cuts and revenue increases. The choice is not one or the other. I call on our elected representatives, of every political persuasion, to work toward achieving a sustainable financial future.

Nancy I. Day

Los Angeles

Actually, we don't have a revenue problem, but at least she admits the need for spending cuts. And get union give-backs in there, and that'd be the makings of a deal.

'Tax, Tax, Tax the Rich, Walker You F**king Son of a Bitch'

More progressive civility.

Via Althouse:

And progressive extremism: "Photos: Protesters lock selves to Senate railing."

Should Lifeguards Get Six-Figure Pensions?

One lifeguard in Newport Beach recently retired at $108,000 annually, with full medical benefits.

At Los Angeles Times, "Lifeguards' special-status pensions under scrutiny in California":

As lifeguards begin their busy summer season, the bronzed guardians of California's beaches find themselves at the unlikely center of the battle over costly public pensions.

The six-figure salaries of some full-time municipal lifeguards have fueled talk radio segments and blog comments in recent weeks, with some commentators expressing surprise at the pay for those who patrol the beaches.

For local government, the larger concern is over the pensions that lifeguards receive when they retire. Most full-time lifeguards get the most generous public retirement plan — the same "public safety" pensions received by police officers and firefighters. Lifeguards argue that they deserve the benefits because they put their lives at risk, not just from rescuing beachgoers but because of an elevated risk of skin cancer from years under the sun.

But a growing number of cities — including Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and San Diego — are demanding that lifeguards cut their pensions. Solana Beach has already taken action, eliminating the most generous plan, which made lifeguards eligible for a pension worth up to 90% of their largest paycheck at age 50. Pensions for new hires top out at about one-third less.

Newport Beach Councilwoman Leslie Daigle said the city can no longer afford paying them the same retirements as police and firefighters. One Newport Beach lifeguard recently retired at 51 with an annual pension of $108,000, plus medical benefits, she said.

"They are more than generously compensated for a highly desirable job," Daigle said. "We would find qualified applicants for lifeguarding without" the top-end benefits.

More at the link.

Reason Magazine reported on this back in April.

Photo Credit: "Huge Waves at the Wedge in Newport Beach."

Pawlenty Defends Economic Plan on Fox News Sunday

With Chris Wallace:

PREVIOUSLY: "Tim Pawlenty's Economic Speech at University of Chicago, June 7, 2011."

Tim Pawlenty's Economic Speech at University of Chicago, June 7, 2011

The complete text is at Wall Street Journal. And check the report at Los Angeles Times, "Tim Pawlenty slams Obama on economy."

He makes some radical proposals, a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and temporary emergency executive authority to freeze federal spending. He also offers a familiar list of economic proposals, like an aggressive flat tax and a restructuring of the tax system, eliminating a number of taxes, from capital gains to inheritance taxes. I listened to the whole thing, but check the text if you're short on time. He's a very gracious and polite man. I'm learning more about him, and he's hitting hard against the administration, calling out President Obama for his anti-Americanism and rejection of American exceptionalism. That's good to hear. I'm interested to see how Pawlenty does in the Iowa straw poll coming up, especially since Mitt Romney's not attending. He's also the former governor of Minnesota, so that will make for some interesting exchanges with Michele Bachmann (a congresswoman from Minnesota) if she enters the race, and I think she will.