State/City/County gov't should compute a "fair retirement" - say 1.5% x number of years worked x base salary (no OT included) ...and indicate that is what they SHOULD have been given. Then take their current rate (sometimes as high as 3% x number of years worked x last year salary (including OT)) ...and tax the excess (the difference between an honest retirement and the corruptly negotiated retirement) at 95%. This way ..the state/more local gov'ts are not changing the promised retirement - but they are using the same clauses found by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts that the gov't CAN Tax things if they want!! The excess funds can be returned to help the systems be less insolvent.

Doesn't matter - the union goons and corrupt liberal politicians made agreements that were non-sustainable, and the current taxpayers should not be held up and made to pay for past corrupt agreements. A bankruptcy court should evaluate what should have been fair ...like 1.5% per year x number of years worked x base salary (no OT included)...and everything over that payment should be TAXED at a rate of 95%. This way, we don't change their promised retirement, but we can certainly tax the hell out of all the excess that they shouldn't have been given!!

Unions and corrupt politicians make un-holy alliances to get sweetheart contracts for union backing, union funding, etc. The contracts are not "performable" and therefore, a legal argument can be made that they should be voided since it is not fair to "rape" the taxpayer to cover unsound "contracts". In the same manner, our Fed. government is shifting the debt to our kids and grandkids - and I would advise them to repudiate it....DON'T PAY IT.

What would be Constitutional would be a repeal of the EMTALA that forces hospitals to give free care to people who show up without insurance. Congress passes a law that says - "hey people - if you don't have insurance, don't expect others to pay for it - take responsibility for you and your family. And - OBTW - hospitals can turn you away and not treat you if you don't have insurance or don't have some charitable organization willing to "guarantee" payment for treatment. That is a legitimate way to have an individual mandate. And ...Congress could mandate that states can't FORCE insurance companies to be forced to include "freebies" and boutique treatments that many people don't want - but raise up the cost of medical insurance.

While it is important to know that the early bird gets the worm, it is equally important to remember that the second mouse gets the cheese!!!

Let (hell ....REQUIRE) education institutions to "co-sign" any student loans. If the student defaults, then let the institution pick up part of the costs. This would force the colleges to teach meaningful courses to qualified students ....or else the college would have to absorb costs of non-performing loans for worthless degrees or students who were not capable of performing at a satisfactory level.

"Mission Accomplished" was the Carrier crews response to the EXTENDED deployment that they underwent in order to support Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The crew wanted the banner. Read the speech that Pres. Bush gave on the flight deck, and the term "mission accomplished" WON'T BE FOUND. Instead, a warning about the LONG STRUGGLE AHEAD in the war on islamofascist terrorists. BUT - you must hate the Navy people who wanted the banner, because you won't give them credit for their hard 10 month deployment, long flight ops, etc. - and overall SUCCESSFUL support of the Army & Marine ground troops ...with fantastic results. They were PROUD of their sacrifice, and you demean their efforts. SICK!!

Recall the statement: "Don't Mess with Texas". I suspect that Mexico lacks the intestinal fortitude or spine to invade ...and if they tried - they would get their keister kicked back across the Rio Grande!

Get a clue. Perry was correct - the present retires have SS because current workers pay into the system. As more people retire and draw SS, and as there are fewer current workers paying into the system, then either tax rates go up on the workers, or benefits are reduced to the retirees. Besides - don't focus on just Perry - recall that the author - Judge Napolitano is DEFENDING Perry's statement - and he spells out a number of reasons - and I didn't see you refute any of those reasons!!

We need to have some changes to the law mandating Congress present and vote on a budget. If Congress fails to submit a budget and vote on it - all Congress-critters loose free franking privileges, and their travel budget is zero'd out, and money for staff is cut in half. That is at a minimum - and I would be willing to go with even more draconian suggestions!

And recall that the "White House Plumbers" were a group that was investigating leaks to enemies of national security information. (Viet Nam war on-going, with USSR aiding No.Viet Nam). Good intentions - but bad process. Clinton's "plumbers" were to protect him after he was "laying pipe." Obama - needs protection as he seeks to sell out the US.