yet another taxpayer shakedown

from the boston globe on february 27th:

Despite new taxes, an improving economy, and staffing cuts, Boston is still facing a $42 million shortfall in the next budget year that could require more pink slips at City Hall, city officials said yesterday.

To close the gap, major city agencies have been asked to trim budgets by 1 percent, cuts that “may require layoffs,’’ said Lisa Calise Signori, the city’s director of administration and finance.

“Everything has to be on the table,’’ Signori said.

which logically leads to a story from the boston globe today:

A labor arbitration panel has ruled that Boston firefighters must submit to random drug and alcohol testing in exchange for a 19 percent raise over four years, a significant bump that will dwarf the pay increases for other city unions.

The decision, released yesterday after a bitter four-year standoff, is largely a victory for the firefighters, who the city says will receive a wage boost that is 5 percent higher than what police unions received. The size of the award puts Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s administration in a precarious position as negotiations begin this spring with the city’s 44 collective bargaining units, heightening expectations for raises.

im at the point where i want to just give up.

how can such a huge raise be justified in this economy?

why does adding a drug test equal a bump in pay? god forbid we have firefighters that arent high on the job.

why did it take so long to have a drug testing policy?

why are government employees unionized with the very politicians they elect negotiating their contracts?

where will all this extra money come from?

if a firefighter fails a drug test, will he be fired or "put into rehab" while being paid?


EVERYONE needs to go this november! if youre an incumbent, you automatically do not have my vote.

state of the union

my only thoughts on the state of the union address is to the amount of attention and response being given to supreme court justice samuel alito's apparent mouthing of "not true" to president obama's comments on the recent citizens united vs fec ruling.

in case you missed alito, here it is:



firstly, the only reason this is even getting any play is due to the infamous shout of "you lie!" from rep. joe wilson when obama was addressing congress regarding the health care bill.

now my overall opinion is that the office of the presidency should be shown the utmost respect and we can not have individuals shouting out comments during addresses to congress and the american people. but the question is, why are people feeling compelled to do so?

joe wilson
during the president's address to congress he denied that health care would be provided to illegal immigrants, prompting joe wilson's outburst of "you lie!"

while, technically, the bill did not state that healthcare would be provided for illegal immigrants, it also did not allow for any checks of citizenship. the federation for american immigration reform (fair) argues that illegal immigrants can not be denied health care specifically because there isn't anything in the bill to check for citizenship. several days after the presidents address, the white house had to strengthen its position stating that illegal immigrants would be barred from purchasing health care coverage through the exchange stating that "verification requirements are something we would work out with congress."

justice alito
during the state of the union, president obama stated, "the supreme court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. well, I don't think american elections should be bankrolled by america's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

however, "under current law, election spending by non-U.S. persons and entities is prohibited, and that prohibition is unaffected by the ruling in citizens united. thus, the existing restriction on expenditures by foreign corporations remains in place not because they are corporations but because they are foreign."

so, what's more egregious -- an individual objecting to a statement (even if it's in the hallowed halls of congress) or congress and the american people being presented with information that is not completely factual?