A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
A Progressives Progress « Back to Story
Showing 6 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
Nice try, but too little, way too late.
it's better to let California hit bottom, a toxic example to others of the consequences of allowing public employees to unionize and to donate money to political campaigns.
I still don't understand why the government allowed both unionization and political donations. Or rather I do understand, but can't comprehend that people can be that corrupt - but for Democrats, at least, there is no bottom to corruption.
Great article as usual from Steve Greenhut!
I've never understood this. The state courts rule that pensions for public employees can't be modified once in place, but they have been, repeatedly. The thing is they were modified upwards continuously, with potentially disasterous consequences for everyone else who lives in the State. My question to the various judges is this: if it's illegal, unconstitutional, whatever, to modify someone's pension downwards, to their detriment, why was it acceptible to modify their pension upwards, to *my* detriment? So far, no one has addressed this issue, and until someone does, I frankly don't believe anything judges say on the subject.
Remember, State judges get State pensions, too.
Hopefully San Jose will lead the way.
Courage and politician in the same sentence, how unusual. But it certainly applies to Chuck Reed.
Bankruptcy; Just Do It !!!