Most state employee pension funds are grossly underfunded.  In California, that would rather use money to build a high speed rail, the taxpayers, both state and municipal, are on the hook for $500 billion that is not in anyone’s treasury.  In Massachusetts, the cost of paying public employees promised benefits, that has not been funded, amounts to $13,685 per household.

But Illinois seems to hold the dubious distinction of being the worst.

…Dana Levenson, Chicago’s former chief financial officer, has projected that the average city homeowner paying $3,000 in annual property taxes could see his tax bill rise within five years as much as $1,400. The reason: A 2010 Illinois law requires municipalities to raise the funding levels in their pension systems using property tax revenues but no additional contributions from government employees. [emphasis supplied]

What responsible legislature would pass such a bill?  One beholden to the unions for election money and votes, of course.

Do you have one of those in your state?

Bennett, who spoke to Arizona radio host Mike Broomhead Thursday, said he requested the confirmation eight weeks ago and has not gotten it. Hawaii, he said, does not have to supply a certified copy of the birth certificate, merely send him an email confirming that it has one.

Asked by Broomhead if he would remove Obama’s name from the ballot if Hawaii fails to comply, Bennett said: ‘That’s possible. Or the other option would be that I would ask all the candidates, including the president, to submit a certified copy of their birth certificate.’

The request seems more than reasonable particularly in light of recent revelations that a 1991 bio of the President, authored by the President’s literary agent, declared the President’s birthplace as Kenya.

Again, I personally believe the President was born in Hawaii, but, as they say, oh what a tangled web we weave when first we try to decide to deceive.

A 1991 announcement of now President Obama’s  credentials  in anticipation of a book he was writing said this:

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.  [emphasis supplied]

Of course, President Obama  did not write those words, his agent did.  But, I find it hard to believe that his agent did not first send that “bio”to the President for review, or, did not speak with President Obama before those words were published.

This brings to mind the claims of Elizabeth Warren (D. Ma.) about her native American heritage…dubious, at best.  It almost seems as if those on the left will say, or allowed to be said about them, whatever is necessary to accomplish their goals at that moment in time.

But, maybe that is just me.

Of course, when they completed a field test study with 1,500 students … there was no problem. From Fox News.

The Florida Department of Education lowered the performance level standard on a state writing exam after only 27 percent of fourth graders passed, MyFoxOrlando reports.

The decision to lower the standard from a four to a three was made in an emergency conference call Tuesday. The test scores range from zero to six.

Fourth grade teachers say the test inadequately reflected their pupils’ writing abilities. They say the main reason the students did poorly was the test question was too hard.

According to the Florida Department of Education, the prompt, or essay topic, for fourth graders in the state of Florida this year was, “Suppose you or someone else had a chance to ride a camel. Imagine what happens on this camel ride. Write a story about what happens on this camel ride.”

Since this was a writing exam, there should not have been a problem – or a grade reduction – if the 4th graders confused a camel with a horse or a bear. The grade reduction should have been directly related to their writing skills. To put it another way, this is a writing exam, not a zoology exam.

This really sucks, since the Shooting Sports Center is a nice, comfortable and safe place for introducing new shooters to the sport learn about firearms, and do some training. You had the opportunity to rent a variety of Smith & Wesson firearms to “try before you buy,” and you could join IDPA matches held two or three times per month with as many as 50 participants enjoying an evening or morning of shooting with really good people.

Again, this was – and is – a very safe place to shoot. They took the introduction to firearms very seriously, requiring non-members visiting watch a safety video prior to entering the range and be directly supervised by a range safety officer while on the line.

Unfortunately, four crummy felon thugs ruined it for law-abiding citizens.

Court documents show that in May 2011, 22-year-old Manuel Lora went to the range with some friends and fired several shots. Lora is a convicted felon, and two of his friends are also convicts. …

But federal law states that it is illegal to possess a firearm and ammunition by a person convicted of a crime punishable by at least one year in prison.

Federal law didn’t stop Lora and the others from using the range. Court documents show they falsely signed liability waivers and certificates saying they’d never been convicted of crimes punishable by a year in prison. All four lied. Documents state Lora used several pistols rented from the range, and months later, police said he shot and killed 25-year-old Jonathon Tallaj in Springfield with a similar weapon he’d fired at the shooting range. Lora has since been charged with Tallaj’s murder.

Note Lora did not, and could not buy the gun used to murder Tallaj from Smith & Wesson, he obtained the gun illegally since he’s a convicted felon.

Supposedly, Smith & Wesson was not bullied by the anti-gun state of Massachusetts, but I don’t believe that for a minute. Their statement…

We recently made the business decision to temporarily close our Shooting Sports Center while we make changes to better align its purpose with our key business objectives as a firearm manufacturer. This is a decision that we made internally and on our own accord for a number of business-related reasons which include the many complexities of operating a public range, combined with our desire to focus on our manufacturing operation.

Why don’t I believe it? I guess it does not really matter, but let’s say Smith & Wesson caved to anti-gun pressure back during the late years of the Clinton administration and a lot of people have not forgiven them. Smith & Wesson’s leadership has an image problem.

Anyway… What was Smith & Wesson supposed to do? Verify through a background check for every person who came into the range to try shooting or rent a firearm? Certainly doable, but that opens up a bunch of issues and a lot of questions.

If you think background checks are reasonable, what do you do about registered sex offenders who move among us in public? Should malls be required to complete a background check on everyone who comes in to shop? Certainly, sex offenders on a registry can be dangerous right? How about a school football game? School plays and musicals? Even if sex offenders are banned from school grounds, the system – mostly – relies on self-enforcement. Should a mall or school be responsible if sex offenders commit crimes on their property or follows someone from their property and attacks them? At least Smith & Wesson requires all participants answer the “are you a convicted felon” question, make a copy of their IDs and keep the documentation. (Smith & Wesson must have provided law enforcement with the liability releases and questionnaire.)

As a patron, I hope Smith & Wesson leadership would read this post, and I’d like to encourage them to immediately again open the range to the law-abiding public.

Update: I found the following statement online, but can not confirm it actually came from Smith & Wesson.

Due to a number of business and infrastructure factors which include planned upgrades, we are electing to keep the SSC closed on a temporary basis. This closure applies to the general public, current members, law enforcement, IDPA members, VIP’s (without prior approval) and all Smith & Wesson employees. The closure will remain in effect until further notice. We anticipate a mid-summer opening.

During the coming months we will reassess the entire operation to assure alignment with our core business objectives and we plan to open as a private facility with a renewed purpose intent on supporting our commitment to the shooting sports industry. Our plans will encompass continued access to License-To-Carry (LTC) and other training programs as well as FirstShots®, IDPA events, Scout activities, Hunters Education classes and others.

You can read more in this Washington Times editorial, but here is the bullet point story…

• Army 1st Lt. Augustine Kim returns home after being injured during his second tour in Afghanistan.
• He picks up his personal weapons from his parents home in New Jersey (where he kept them for safe storage while on deployment) and heads back to his North Carolina home by car.
• The weapons – being transported per federal guidelines – were properly secured in the back of his vehicle and locked up, separate from ammunition.
• On the way, he had a doctors appointment at Walter Reed Medical Center and stopped there. Reed is within the Washington, D.C. limits.
• On the way out, he gets lost in the city and gets pulled over. Knowing he’s transporting his legally owned personal weapons properly per federal guidelines, he allows the DC police department to search his car.

It’s not clear what brought about the traffic stop or if there was any probable cause to search his vehicle, but we do know Kim was arrested and charged with four felonies.

The cops asked Lt. Kim if they could search his vehicle. The lieutenant agreed because his guns were cased and stored in full compliance with federal firearm-transport laws. “I told them I had been under the impression that as long as the guns were locked in the back, with the ammunition separate, that I was allowed to transport them,” Lt. Kim told The Washington Times. “They said, ‘That may be true, however, since you stopped at Walter Reed, that makes you in violation of the registration laws.’ ” It is illegal to possess a firearm anywhere in the District other than the home. He was handcuffed and brought back to police headquarters, and his guns were confiscated as evidence.

The tank platoon leader was booked on four felony counts of carrying outside the home, which threatened a maximum penalty of a $20,000 fine and 20 years imprisonment. “I knew if I got one felony, my military career would be over,” Lt. Kim recalled. The next day, he hired firearms attorney Richard Gardiner to represent him. After several months of negotiations, Mr. Gardiner persuaded the U.S. attorney to offer a deal in which Lt. Kim would plead guilty to one misdemeanor charge of one unregistered gun which would then be dismissed if he avoided violating the law for nine months. Though all charges were dropped a year ago, Lt. Kim’s record has not yet been expunged.

The city of Washington has been dragging their feet when it comes to returning Kim’s personal property. Bastards. Thieves. Criminals all of them.

There is a huge problem here that must be resolved. I really wish Kim had the ability and backing to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court, and the NRA or some other gun organization should have backed him 100 percent. There was absolutely no intent to commit a crime here, and as a matter of fact, Kim took the steps to research the law and proceed as directed.

But he made a stop in DC and didn’t just blow through or go around. What if he needed gas? What if he got stuck in a storm? What if he got a flat tire or broke down? What if you were on a flight was re-directed to a city or state with firearm laws so restrictive they could charge you with multiple felonies as soon as you picked up your bags?

All of these things have happened to people, and there have been multiple instances where the New York Port Authority Police hassled or arrested people flying out of New York Airports.

This issue must be fixed.

I guess it’s kind of like telling Hamas, the Taliban and al-Qaida…

“Hey, we’re going to leave the Middle East next week. Since we’re leaving we expect you will think they might stop harassing the Israelis and recognize their state. We also will expect you to think they might faithfully honor the human rights of women and children”.

What kind of foreign policy game is this?

An influential panel is calling for an 80 percent reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons and an elimination of all nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missiles.

In a report for the advocacy group Global Zero, retired Gen. James Cartwright and others argue that the U.S. needs no more than 900 total nuclear weapons for its security in a post-Cold War world. The report chaired by Cartwright, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff known to be close to President Barack Obama, comes at a time that the president is weighing a range of sharp nuclear reductions.

The president isn’t weighing much of anything right now, except the cash flowing into his reelection campaign. He won’t mention this at all until after the election. If he wins, we already know he’ll feel he has more flexibility to act unilaterally.

The report argues that such drastic cuts in nuclear forces by the United States and Russia could open the way for the two countries to open arms control talks with other countries, including China.

That’s funny, and the first thing I thought was “what about North Korea?” I guess if they mentioned North Korea, their report would lose all credibility.

Hat tip to our buddy Ed Morrissey who claims this may be a bellwether, but I’m not so certain since I’ve never even heard of Franciscan University in Ohio. Then again, maybe these small Catholic universities (lower case “u” for the CUA Cardinals out there) have not only First Amendment issues, but also have tighter financial budgets. That said, they – like others in the future – may choose to just opt out of the entire student health care insurance fight. They are not required to be involved, so when the federal government starts demanding things and screwing specifically with the First Amendment rights of the school, why not provide the kids directions to Washington, DC and redirect the anger?

The school – who right off the bat put the main focus on ObamaCare – writes to students…

The Obama Administration has mandated that all health insurance plans must cover “women’s health services” including contraception, sterilization, and abortion-causing medications as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Up to this time, Franciscan University has specifically excluded these services and products from its student health insurance policy, and we will not participate in a plan that requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life.

Additionally, the PPACA increased the mandated maximum coverage amount for student policies to $100,000 for the 2012-13 school year, which would effectively double your premium cost for the policy in fall 2012, with the expectation of further increases in the future.

Due to these changes in regulation by the federal government, beginning with the 2012-13 school year, the University 1) will no longer require that all full-time undergraduate students carry health insurance, 2) will no longer offer a student health insurance plan, and 3) will no longer bill those not covered under a parent/guardian plan or personal plan for student health insurance. The current student health insurance plan will expire on August 15, 2012.

That said, a couple of questions remain. First, I assume they are continuing to cover employees and faculty at the school, but what are they doing concerning the mandate for them?

They also mention students traveling abroad and those involved with intercollegiate sports – they are a Division III school – will continue to be covered by a policy, but there are no details provided. What’s up with that?

Rest assured, more and more Catholic institutions will do the same. That’s the easy bet. I’ll place my meager day’s pay on many small businesses and companies choosing to just drop coverage for health insurance all together and pay the federal fine instead.

The federal government is fine with this, since we know Obama wants a federally-regulated, single payer system. They have publicly said this monster of a law is only step one. Concerning companies just getting out, I wrote the following about two weeks ago.

[O]ffering health care benefits is a pain in the ass. Companies have teams of employees who spend hundreds and hundreds of hours researching options and working with providers to come up with plans. Then, you have what I’ll refer to as “the employee morale problem” when people bitch and moan about the plans they have to choose from. They compare the plans offered to other employers – or maybe state/federal employees – who only have to pay a $20 co-pay for doctor visits and $25 for a visit to the ER. Even if you offer a good plan, employees still might complain.

Then, if you’re a company that is self-insured, you have to ensure you have cash on hand to pay out claims. Some of those claims can be big money.

Then there is the cost. The rising costs that employees don’t see. When health care costs go up, employers can not just blindly absorb those costs, they are past on with higher prices to consumers, reductions in benefits to employees, and lower pay raises in the future.

But now that the Obama administration in all its wisdom have offered employers an opt-out that will only cost them $2,000 per employee, it’s only a matter of time before one or two pull the trigger. Then, domino effect. Why not off-load all of those issues to the government for two grand?

For those companies who do not hand over the health care administration and costs to the federal government, soon shareholders will demand they do so. You think I’m kidding? If you have two companies with 25,000 employees each that compete in the same industry and one of them pays the fines and saves a couple of million dollars or more, the shareholders of the other company will quickly demand the same.

From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

Consider this balance for MSNBC.  After the Morning Joe panel openly scoffed at the Barack Obama campaign’s attack ad on Bain Capital yesterday, Hardball came to Obama’s rescue in the evening.

From the transcript, with video below. Chris Matthews asks Mark Halperin how Obama can stand up to Mitt Romney’s knowledge of what actually happened (the truth) during his time at Bain Capital. Halperin answered…

I don’t think he needs to, I think in a debate he can bumper-sticker it and make it clear.  And again, the press — this is one of these instances where the press is very sympathetic to the Obama narrative on Bain, and not all that sympathetic to Governor Romney.  He needs to make an argument so compelling that it finds an audience in the press, if he can do it, and an audience with the public.  I think in a debate, again, we know what the President will say, and I think he’ll be pretty effective.

So in other words, the media will keep the flow moving so Romney never gets the chance to simply tell the truth. I think the subject will be difficult for Romney since many voters are not familiar with how the world of big and small business actually works. He needs to find the right approach while defining what Bain Capital did, why they did it, and why it was a good thing.

Of course, the media and liberals didn’t attack Obama when the Delphi retirees were totally screwed during the auto bailout fiasco, nor mention the thousands who lost their jobs when the government made the corporate business decision to close 1,100 General Motors dealerships. That of course, was a sound business decision since Obama made it…

Total hypocrites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I02NlWaYgQg

And President Obama keeps telling you the United States only has 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Liberals can spin it and the numbers any way they want, but what it comes down to is we’ve got a ton of oil. As a matter of fact, the largest known reserves of oil are not in the Middle East, rather they are right here in the United States, and the federal government and the Obama administration won’t let anyone touch it.

Directly from the GAO testimony, which by the way refers to an October 2010 study that does not seem to have been made public at the time. Wonder why?

In its October 2010 report, GAO noted that oil shale development presents the following opportunities for the United States:

• Increasing domestic oil production. Tapping the vast amounts of oil locked within U.S. oil shale formations could go a long way toward satisfying the nation’s future oil demands. Oil shale deposits in the Green River Formation are estimated to contain up to 3 trillion barrels of oil, half of which may be recoverable, which is about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.
• Socioeconomic benefits. Development of oil shale resources could lead to the creation of jobs, increases in wealth, and increases in tax and royalty payments to federal and state governments for oil produced on their lands. The extent of these benefits, however, is unknown at this time because the ultimate size of the industry is uncertain

The GAO goes on to note a few items that absolutely must be considered. First, you have to be able to get the oil out of the ground with minimal impact to the environment. This is important of course, and oil companies understand that. But big government liberals hate the oil companies as a matter of principle no matter what they do, so let’s leave it at that.

Second, getting to that oil in a responsible way is more expensive than accessing oil – as an example – in ANWAR. That too needs to be considered.

But for goodness sakes, we’re the best country in the world filled with smart individuals … we can get the oil at a reasonable cost with little impact on the environment. But no! The Obama administration thinks the oil companies and the people of the United States can’t handle the responsibility, so they lock you out.

They of course, know better than you or anyone else.

Jazz Shaw over at Hot Air writes…

If we move forward on this aggressively, the industry can safely access these resources which would significantly strengthen our hand on the international stage. But with the wrong approach, Washington could hog tie energy developers with excessive, expensive regulations or shut the entire process down by failing to issue permits to develop resources on these federal lands.

The public disclosure of these reserves is good news, but it’s only the beginning. And while I feel some trepidation in saying it, I’m afraid the ball is in Barack Obama’s court.