It gets tiring hearing how Republicans are the rich ones. The Democratic battlecry about wealth needs to be stopped. Here are facts from OpenSecrets.org about the net worth of the Congress and Senate taken together. As you can see out of the top twelve Members of both chambers the highest net worth trophies go to nine Democrats. Only three are Republicans. Democrats win the race when you rachet it down to the top 25. The top twelve are listed below
Minimum Net Average Net Maximum Net
1 Jane Harman (D-Calif) $236,280,153 $397,412,077 $558,544,002
2 Darrell Issa (R-Calif) $160,615,042 $343,457,521 $526,300,001
3 John Kerry (D-Mass) $284,157,594 $336,224,883 $388,292,172
4 Mark Warner (D-Va) $60,591,195 $237,843,092 $415,094,990
5 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $149,443,028 $200,545,512 $251,647,996
6 Jared Polis (D-Colo) $97,374,113 $175,875,556 $254,377,000
7 Robin Hayes (R-NC) $74,576,347 $173,409,173 $272,241,999
8 Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla) $-69,659,542 $165,748,714 $401,156,971
9 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $43,821,041 $103,560,020 $163,298,999
10 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $59,897,019 $93,715,011 $127,533,003
11 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $53,326,179 $89,509,099 $125,692,020
12 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $52,344,301 $84,171,162 $115,998,023
26 comments:
Mr McGruff
and if you did your homework fairly, and looked at the 25 poorest US House and Senate elected officials, you would have reported that 20 are Democrats and 5 are Republicans.
where would the Mayor fall in this analysis?he is a multimillionaire correct?
What Mayor are you talking about??
My homework..let's talk about your homework..
When you ratchet facts down to the base level the poorest House and Senate people make $174,000.00 per year plus medical,dental, vision, a generous pension at 80% of salary available after 20 years of service and attaining age 50 which is 2-3 times that of the general population, get a COLA that is always higher than Social Security recipeients, wheeled perks including limousines, travel out of the country on taxpayer junkets, cut rate health clubs, fine furnishings, franking privileges, ohhh the list could go on and on...but you can read it here..http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=343
Hardly sounds like poor people to me.
What does Todd Eachus make as House Majority leader? Base $110,350
Better yet how about the people he hired. http://blogs.mcall.com/capitol_ideas/2009/03/working-for-mr-eachus.html
http://sightsonpennsylvania.blogspot.com/2009/03/more-new-hire-house-majority-leader.html
If you are talking about the Mayor of Hazleton then you would know his salary is $50,000 per year with no pension.
As far as what he is worth I would imagine he earned it during the years he owned businesses. Should we be talking about the businesses owned by Eachus and his aide????
To hint at indictments where none exist is out of bounds. I deleted your comment for that reason. I don't mind disagreeing statements but slanderous or libelous talk is unacceptable behavior. Keep it fair and I will treat you fairly.
you continue to ignore my replies to your statements. why is it you wont respond to them?
if you are conceding to my comments I am ok with that.
I will paraphrase the statement you made and would hope you reply.
you agreed that Barletta overtaxed both residents and non residents on earned income tax. you disagree with Eachus that it should go back in the pension and that it should go back to the TAXPAYERS that were over taxed.(WHICH I AGREE WITH YOU ON) being you recited 961 with such intimacy, show me where it allows for the taxing of non residents.
and why arent you calling out the Mayor to pay it back.
Also you agree with the Mayors statement that there was no money taken out of the pension. that Barletta took the earned income tax BEFORE it went into a dedicated account for this specific tax, please tell me why that isnt a punishable offense?
Finally to delete a question of mine on words that YOU wrote, is unfair. please admit at least i was commenting on words YOU wrote in your blog here.
Lets get something straight. Because you asked a question does not mean I have to answer it or answer it the way you want it answered. You used a word, had it been used on talk radio, would have drawn an immediate criticism and disallowed. I missed it on another post but that won't happen again. I let that post stand by the way.
Can you show me anywhere in Act 205 that provides for a criminal penalty? I have a copy of 205 that I obtained from PERC so I am giving you a heads up and not laying in bait and trap. The provisions of Act 205 provide for mandamus action period. So cut the "illegal" crap.
I never stated that what Barletta did was illegal. AG Wagner has stated he feels the actions of the City of Hazleton including its council who enact ordinances of taxation were improper. Todd Eachus stated they were improper and then went on to state that improper in Harrisburg means illegal. But McGruff did not.
I never agreed that he overtaxed residents. Todd Eachus stated that and I addressed HIS assertions not mine.
Senate Bill 961 would have been an extension of Act 205. The provision in that Act allows for a tax on earned income meaning employees within the city limits. What planet do you live on? You want me to defend my statements. Start defending yours with facts not more fantasy.
The Mayor never took any money. The municipality known as the City of Hazleton taxes persons and property. Why would the Mayor have to pay back anything?
If I don't answer your reply, which by the way because of the outlandish accusation you made will now require my approval for post, it will never mean I concede a darn thing. Never ever put words in my post.
well then while you have the copy of 205 show me where it states anything other than you can collect enough earned income tax to cover your MMO> anything else is an OVERTAX!!!
there is no such thing as super-funding a pension with taxes you collect for a defined purpose.
if you collect more than you need to meet your MMO it is overtaxing.
act 205 is a pension bill, collecting a tax and not putting it in a separate account falls under a criminal code not a pension bill.
and when i talk that the Mayor should put it back, i am talking about the municipality, which we know the Mayor is the fiscally responsible person for that entity.
You are almost humurous but more like a natt that needs a swat. You want me to read the law to you. Why don't you call PERC yourself and ask for a copy to be emailed to you? 717-783-6100
HB 1828 is a bill that will allow the state to take over distressed pensions. Those pensions will be required to tax above their MMO's in order to superfund the penions and get them back over 50% funding. Superfunding as you will soon find out is allowable under current and future law.
Act 205 allows for deviation from municipal contribution limitations found in Section 607 (d)
(d) Deviation from municipal contribution limitations.--The municipality may exceed any
limitations on municipal contributions to municipal pension plans otherwise applicable to
the municipality. So your statement "there is no such thing as super-funding a pension" is false now isn't it?
Any account that tax under 205 was collected went into City owned accounts, no ones pocket. Shame on you to intimate otherwise.
Your posts border on intentional, not factual, character assasination of the Mayor and Council. You are not factual just attack for attack sake.
What criminal code do you read? The Auditor General made a determination as the way he sees Hazleton's pension issue. The wording that I posted before defines a pension plan as periodic retirement payments and benefits according to the Third Class City Code and 205. The Mayor and City Council believe that wording means they can tax for funding of retiree healthcare "benefits" costs. The matter is before Commonwealth Court. There has been no determination either way as to who is right. Your blatant accusation of criminal activity is exactly why I removed your prior post. Until a determination has been made by a court all opinions including yours and mine are just that.
As I stated before Act 205 only provides for the remedy of mandamus action against the municipality found in Section 1001 (f).
When you state you want the municipality to pay it back that would mean city property owners would pay themselves as well as employees who do not live within the city. You want to burden the seniors and young families in this town with that expense? The Mayor and Council tried to minimize the impact on seniors and young families with their plan. Actually I thought it to be quite inventive and innovative. Any other plan would have burden those already mentioned but you fail to give me a proposal that would minimize the impact on those people.
If this matter was criminal it would have been turned over to the Attorney General's office so again cut the potentially litigous statements.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion that you don't agree with the Mayor and Council's actions. I will defend your right to say so. I DONT agree with it but that is part of life. However, raising the bar and labeling actions beyond their real scope crosses a line.
Either lose the words criminal, indictment, or any other such insinuations in your posts or I will stop them before they make the net.
Why aren't you complaining about the great giveaway that caused this problem in the first place? Lifetime retiree healthcare benefits, 20 and out, 75% pension payment...where is your banner now?
Put the blame at Marsicano's doorstep. He took those actions without the approval of council. And the present Council and Administration are charged with straightening out his mess.
You know that the Third Class City Code prevents property millage from exceeding 25 mills, sans the extra 5 mills granted by the courts. If expenses keep going up and income cannot one must find other funding methods. Hence the 205 mechanisms were employed.
Otherwise the City would be facing ACT 47 and all contract bets are off. Unions would have lost in that scenario. Is that the other scenario you wanted?
Don't be so quick in your mission to make the Mayor look bad. Remember the residents of the City are pawns in political retribution, innocent victims of people wanting headlines.
Your quest to make the City pay back money comes on the backs of taxpayers. It will make great headlines but the reality is that it will cause great suffering. So who's side are you on anyway???
you are correct, it is never the Mayor's fault, it is always someone else.
from rolling the dice in the pension to the give away in gasoline to the deficit in the budget.....how dare anyone try and blame this Mayor. oh lets not forget about the millions the courts determined the city owes and the potential for millions more from a negative outcome in an appeal they have.
Remember this Mr McGruff, i dont have to make the Mayor look bad......... HE DOES IT ALL ON HIS OWN.
Oh..so you finally gave up..you finally conceded to your inabiblity to make your case with facts. This is the best you can do with your answer.
Did you check to see if it was Sam Monticello who authorized those gasoline purchases? Nooo... Why? Because you have such a blind mission you are not out to find what is right and truthful you are out to find what you want to find.
No court to date has DETERMINED that the City of Hazleton owes anything. Lawyers and their firms would love to get one tenth of what they put in for reimbursement. The reality is they "rolled the dice" to see if they will be reimbursed.
No you make yourself look bad with your ridiculous, baseless, groundless statements.
By the way you didn't concede that I proved to you a municipality could charge more than its MMO. Why is that? Sorry to rain on your parade. Is it because you want to make baseless charges hoping some shit will stick to the wall?
First of all, Mr Monticello isnt the elected official and head of the City. to put it squarely on his shoulders and leave the Mayor from his responsiblity is wrong. where was the Mayor in reviewing all the documents that Monticello had access to. was he off campaigning for a job SOMEWHERE else.
and on the pension, read carefully, State aid is limited by the employer's cost (mmo). But what Hazleton is doing has nothing to do with State aid. Mayor Barletta assesses and collects a tax that is only supposed to be used to fund the mmo when no other monies are available, but collects it well beyond the allowable level. He then uses the extra tax revenues to "superfund" (his term for putting in more than the minimum required) the pension, and to pay for non-pension expenses such as post retirement medicial insurance premiums and accumulated leave payouts.
Mr.Monticello was the City Administrator. What..does the game change depending on what day of the year it is. Here is a quote about Deakos's assessment.
Deakos said former city administrator Sam Monticello "should have known it was illegal."
So now it is not Monticello but Barletta. Barletta can only review what is put before him, not what is kept from him
On the pension issue you are incorrect about the MMO. MMO is the minimum municipal obligation. In stating minimum it means that more than the MMO can be put into the pension fund. If superfunding was a problem it would have been one of Auditor General Jack Wagner's findings which it is NOT. I provided you with the law now its your turn. Cite the law that states you cannot superfund a pension.
On July 26 I posted the definition of a pension plan according to the Third Class city code and 205. In looking at 53 P.S. §895.102 one will find definitions relating to pensions. A "Pension Fund" is defined as "the entity which is the repository for the assets amassed by a pension plan as reserved for present and future periodic retirement payments and benefits of active and retired members of the pension plan". A "Pension plan or system" is defined as "the various aspects of the relationship between a municipality and its employees wtih respect to retirement coverage provided by a municipality to its employees". A "Plan document" is defined as the law, ordinance, resolution, or related documents which governs the various aspects of the retirement coverage provided by a municipality to its employees, including periodic retirement payments and benefits, administration, and funding".
There was a recent court case in 2008 Danzille vs. Lomeo that suggests post retirement healthcare benefits are "pension benefits" under 205. However, it was not a precedent to follow.
Look up Township of Tinicum vs. Fife. It is cited in many court cases. Although James Mcaneny states in his testimony that post retirement health benefits are not included in the wording of the third class city code given above it is easy to see how Hazleton views it has solid ground for its actions.
BTW to the multimillionaire poster why don't you tell us how much Paul Kanjorski is worth? Here I can help you http://www.legistorm.com/showPdf/ls_disclosure-member-2009-annual-report-308.pdf
Mayor Barletta does not assess nor levy a tax. Hazleton City Council passes an ordinance authorizing taxation. AS far as this special tax you are talking about 0.4% has been assessed since before Quigley's time. It is not a new tax. It is an existing tax.
Back to the MMO. Since the pension was not fully funded Act 205 taxing authority allows the tax to be collected to acheive that purpose.
so if it is a benefit, why isn't the city reporting it in the actuarial?
why did they pay it from 2000 to 2003 from general obligations?
when something good happens in the city it is due to the Mayor, and when something IMPROPER happens it is Councils actions.
and as far as how long the city has been collecting the tax, that isnt the issue. the issue is how he is improperly using it. that has been done under Barletta's watch. Correct?
so now we have the following at fault by your claims.
1. City Council
2. Sam Monticello
3 John Quigley
4. Marsicano
But no where does the Mayor show any fault.
and do you know if the Mayor is considering having his police department investigate what if any crimes Monticello committed in the gasgate saga? you words are suggesting that Monticello hid illegal facts from the Mayor.
As McAneny pointed out in his testimony including "pay as you go benefits" in the MMO could present a huge problem for any city.
Let me ask you this question. Municipalities are at the mercy of legislation passed by the state in order to tax its constituents. Why would the legislature include language regarding "benefits" in defining the pension plan if it didn't mean benefits? You seem to want to sound astute on this issue. Define what is meant as "benefits" as defined in both the Third Class City Code and 205.
What you are failing to acknowledge is conflicting standards regarding this issue. Why did Hazleton end up in court? For that exact reason. You pretend to have the final answer. Obviously you want to paint the picture the way you see it.
As far as Quigley and Marsicano go, the point I was making is that the tax has always been there. I didn't blame them for it just highlighted that the tax is not new as suggested by a poster. If Eachus has his way the money Hazleteon taxpayers are paying will change in a huge way. Under the Mayor's plan the amount they pay will not change at all. And Marsicano gave away the farm. As a matter of fact his award didn't hold up in the long run.
Eachus is making the claim that the City will save over $600,000. Bullshit. Getting back to McAneny's testimony and as you suggest now the healthcare costs will need to be part of the MMO and included in actuarial determinations thus hiking in a big way the amount Hazleton taxpayers owe...to the tune of about $4 million. He wants to bankrupt Hazleton like he is doing to the state of Pennsylvania. 73 days and no budget...If he worked for a private firm he would have lost his job a long time ago.
As far as Sam Monticello goes who says that what you state is correct? Not me. Why does Sam need to be investigated? The PA Department of Revenue has resolved this issue to its satisfaction. If you were in business you would know audit findings are just that. It takes a huge leap to raise the bar to criminal activity. But of course that is what you are looking for so let me ask you a question. Why don't you go to Jackie Musto Carrol and ask her to investigate? She is the DA. Or are you afraid that she will reject your assertions as I have as pure hogwash?????
Oh wait maybe you are in business. The business of spinning things do bad out of control looks normal.
And before you tell me they reached a budget, Rendell is already hinting he may veto it. Some way to signal a compromise. Even Eachus acknowlegde that the final budget is a couple of weeks away. Doesn't sound like a solid deal to me.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/20090911_Budget_deal_thisclose_to_being_sealed.html
http://www.psba.org/news-publications/headlines/details.asp?id=671
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20090913_Pa__budget_deal_riles_Rendell__House_GOP.html
you are well aware that part of act 205 under the special taxing authority, part of the requirements are..... when you provide "other benefits" you need to identify them and report them in your pension!!! your mayor doesn't do that, now does he.
and on your statement
"Your quest to make the City pay back money comes on the backs of taxpayers. It will make great headlines but the reality is that it will cause great suffering. So who's side are you on anyway???"
it has been on the backs of them already. he took more money than he used.and if he used it for the purpose you say, for post retirement benefits, REPORT it in your pension. it is the Mayor that is saddling financial distress on the taxpayers, the ones you are trying to protect in your statement to me.
you must have overlooked my one comment. the one where i ask you to see in Act 205 where it gives "special taxing authority" to a municipality, and then it states "other benefits" which post retirement health care would be one of them. see that is where the Mayor was to list it AND report it in the actuary report. are you with me on this. am i going Slooooow enough for you??????
so i will agree with you, benefits are defined in the legislation you point out, but there are requirements.
the Mayor cant have his cake and eat it too.
are you following me?
I didn't overlook your comment. I had other things to tend to and I use multiple computers to run this blog. I had the following answer typed on another computer. I needed to tend to personal matters and forgot to release it so here it is.
[you are well aware that part of act 205 under the special taxing authority, part of the requirements are..... when you provide "other benefits" you need to identify them and report them in your pension!!! your mayor doesn't do that, now does he.]
- Here is the dilemma with that comment. If you report it on the pension side it needs to be pre-funded, not pay as you go. That figure would drastically change the MMO needed to be paid. McAneny from PERC states that truism in his statement at the hearing on August 18,2008 before Levdansky’s committee where, btw, Eachus sat silent and did not defend Hazleton. By keeping the post retirement healthcare benefits on the general fund side you are pay as you go and the immediate cost to the taxpayers is much less.
and on your statement"Your quest to make the City pay back money comes on the backs of taxpayers. It will make great headlines but the reality is that it will cause great suffering. So who's side are you on anyway???"it has been on the backs of them already. he took more money than he used.and if he used it for the purpose you say, for post retirement benefits, REPORT it in your pension. it is the Mayor that is saddling financial distress on the taxpayers, the ones you are trying to protect in your statement to me
First off the Mayor nor Council took any more money than was used. It was ALL used to pay 1) into the pension as MMO plus more leading to the term superfunded and 2) post retirement healthcare benefits negotiated under contract terms and a legally binding municipal obligation. The levy is no different than it has been before the Quigley administration as near as I can ascertain, the same 0.4%.
The City of Hazleton owes the bill no matter what. Where the money comes from is not as important as it coming from somewhere. The obligation was created by the municipality long before Barletta or the present Council including all its Members, Democrats and Republican, took office. I am confident that once HB 1828 is passed with the present amendment in the Senate the Auditor General will find a solution that is not on the backs of the taxpayers.
Back to the reporting issue. It was reported somewhere but not just where you claim you want it to be reported. Further, again, if you put it into the pension as you are stating it needs to be prefunded in the MMO skyrocketing the cost.
Act 205 is not new legislation. It has been messed with by the Legislature over the years and never to the better. There is no reason why post retirement healthcare benefits cannot be pay as you go thus releasing Hazleton and all municipalities from prefunding.
you say i put spin on things! yes it does create a financial hurdle for the city, but when you do things outside of the LAW you are breaking the law. that is why the City has spent tens of thousands of dollars defending this improper activity in a court of law!! So you are telling me in cases where there is desperation Mayors should be allowed to break laws to overcome difficult decisions?
what makes then different than me? your defense is shallow, his actions are improper and in the end the City has a 3MILLION dollar bill it needs to pay!!!
Yes I do say you put a spin on things. I have a shallow defense??
Show me where the City of Hazleton has a judgment against it for $3 million dollars in the pension issue? There is NONE. That's not just a spin by you that is outright disingenous.
You know that the matter with the Auditor General is in court by your statement. Obviously you know that case has not been heard and there is NO DECISION.
As far as tax liability goes the Mayor and Council's decision to use part of the 205 money to pay post retirement healthcare benefits did not cost taxpayers anymore than it did in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, and so on.
Let me ask this question of you? When a quarterback makes an illegal pass does stadium security arrest him???? And again, I am not saying the Mayor and Council did anything illegal. Remember the right to tax starts in the Pennsylvania Legislature. They enact laws without realizing the consequences to the municipalities. Act 47 was looming. So in answer to your last question, maybe. Maybe the legislature should know what is going on in its districts and react.
Being a Mayor of a Third Class City isn't at all like being a quarterback of a team in a GAME> maybe that is the problem, the Mayor has advisers like yourself that give him these silly comparisons.
again we fault some other source for the City's financial situation. why is it the City of Hazleton is the only one in COURT defending an improper use of act 205 funds, is it that the legislature never imagined a Mayor such as Hazletons that would completely misinterpret the intent of the legislation?
it doesn't have a judgment yet on 3 millions dollars of improper use of TAXPAYERS money, but tell me the City couldn't have used the tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees paid in defense of this action to better use, like POLICE PROTECTION!
Your funny with your stuff. You are so intent on defeating the Mayor you aren't even listening to yourself.
Do you go to bed frustrated and thinking of the Mayor 24/7? There are many issues facing the City of Hazleton like many municipalities in this state and nation. Lets move onto the next issue.
There is nothing else that you and I are going to hash over this issue that will make a difference with either party. So for me its done.
Post a Comment