<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: California&#8217;s Choice: Bigger Worker Paychecks or Bigger Union Coffers?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/californias-choice-bigger-worker-paychecks-or-bigger-union-coffers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/californias-choice-bigger-worker-paychecks-or-bigger-union-coffers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=californias-choice-bigger-worker-paychecks-or-bigger-union-coffers</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 22:07:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: kafir4life</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/californias-choice-bigger-worker-paychecks-or-bigger-union-coffers/comment-page-1/#comment-3672932</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[kafir4life]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 10:41:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=147423#comment-3672932</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The State Anthem of California goes like this... 
 
gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme, gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme. 
gimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimme. 
gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme, gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme. 
gimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimme. 
 
second verse same as the first, just louder. 
third verse, same as the second, just louder. 
forth verse, same as the third, but with windows breaking, cars set on fire. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The State Anthem of California goes like this&#8230; </p>
<p>gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme, gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme.<br />
gimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimme.<br />
gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme, gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme.<br />
gimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimmegimme. </p>
<p>second verse same as the first, just louder.<br />
third verse, same as the second, just louder.<br />
forth verse, same as the third, but with windows breaking, cars set on fire. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tough Love</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/californias-choice-bigger-worker-paychecks-or-bigger-union-coffers/comment-page-1/#comment-3669456</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tough Love]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:22:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=147423#comment-3669456</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well Stated indeed ! ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well Stated indeed ! </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fanlad</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/californias-choice-bigger-worker-paychecks-or-bigger-union-coffers/comment-page-1/#comment-3668284</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[fanlad]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:47:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=147423#comment-3668284</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[California&#039;s public sector union pensions are unsustainable. Example, California&#039;s fire fighter&#039;s retiring with 90% pay at age 50. A big pyramid scheme at best, first in gets the retirement and money, last in gets the bankruptcy and much lower retirement at best. The politicians make the sweet heart deals with the unions to get elected, but are never held accountable because they are usually retired or out of office before the bill becomes due. Typical liberal tax and spend policies that keep on milking the cash cow, the tax payer. Prop 32 is the first step.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>California&#039;s public sector union pensions are unsustainable. Example, California&#039;s fire fighter&#039;s retiring with 90% pay at age 50. A big pyramid scheme at best, first in gets the retirement and money, last in gets the bankruptcy and much lower retirement at best. The politicians make the sweet heart deals with the unions to get elected, but are never held accountable because they are usually retired or out of office before the bill becomes due. Typical liberal tax and spend policies that keep on milking the cash cow, the tax payer. Prop 32 is the first step.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Juvenal451</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/californias-choice-bigger-worker-paychecks-or-bigger-union-coffers/comment-page-1/#comment-3667045</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Juvenal451]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:04:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=147423#comment-3667045</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Imagine Prop 32&#039;s opposite:  non-profit corporations such as unions and environmental groups, many of which bump noses with corporate interests from time to time, advance a &quot;Dividend Protection Initiative.&quot;  The idea is that ALL corporations, both non-profit and for profit, are prohibited from making political contributions from monies that could otherwise be paid as dividends.  The exception is that, if a dividend is paid, an individual shareholder may authorize all or part of his or her dividend to be used by the corporation for political purposes.  Such authorization would required to be in writing, and would have effect for no more than a year. 
 
Never mind that non-profits do not have profits or pay dividends; never mind that none of this would apply to independent expenditure committees, or SuperPacs. 
 
Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth. 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Imagine Prop 32&#039;s opposite:  non-profit corporations such as unions and environmental groups, many of which bump noses with corporate interests from time to time, advance a &quot;Dividend Protection Initiative.&quot;  The idea is that ALL corporations, both non-profit and for profit, are prohibited from making political contributions from monies that could otherwise be paid as dividends.  The exception is that, if a dividend is paid, an individual shareholder may authorize all or part of his or her dividend to be used by the corporation for political purposes.  Such authorization would required to be in writing, and would have effect for no more than a year. </p>
<p>Never mind that non-profits do not have profits or pay dividends; never mind that none of this would apply to independent expenditure committees, or SuperPacs. </p>
<p>Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PAthena</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/californias-choice-bigger-worker-paychecks-or-bigger-union-coffers/comment-page-1/#comment-3666548</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PAthena]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 21:12:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=147423#comment-3666548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Prop 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative supported by the electorate 52-48 percent, but overturned by the courts.&quot;  Note that the judge of the court that declared this initiative unconstitutional is himself homosexual. 
Of course, laws governing marriage are not unconstitutional as this self-serving homosexual judge declared.   There are laws which prohibit polygamy, for example. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Prop 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative supported by the electorate 52-48 percent, but overturned by the courts.&quot;  Note that the judge of the court that declared this initiative unconstitutional is himself homosexual.<br />
Of course, laws governing marriage are not unconstitutional as this self-serving homosexual judge declared.   There are laws which prohibit polygamy, for example. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tough Love</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/californias-choice-bigger-worker-paychecks-or-bigger-union-coffers/comment-page-1/#comment-3665788</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tough Love]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:57:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=147423#comment-3665788</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It will be interesting to watch the responses of the Public Sector retirees and active as their pensions are DRASTICALLY cut as CA slides into insolvency.  
 
I can hear it now .... 
 
&quot;But I WAS Promised&quot; 
&quot;But I WAS Promised&quot; 
&quot;But I WAS Promised&quot; 
&quot;But I WAS Promised&quot; 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It will be interesting to watch the responses of the Public Sector retirees and active as their pensions are DRASTICALLY cut as CA slides into insolvency.  </p>
<p>I can hear it now &#8230;. </p>
<p>&quot;But I WAS Promised&quot;<br />
&quot;But I WAS Promised&quot;<br />
&quot;But I WAS Promised&quot;<br />
&quot;But I WAS Promised&quot; </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Whitehead</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/californias-choice-bigger-worker-paychecks-or-bigger-union-coffers/comment-page-1/#comment-3665753</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Whitehead]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:45:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=147423#comment-3665753</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[California is not a state, it is a union enclave masquerading as one.  When the unions meet with government to negotiate, there is no one at the table representing the taxpayer.  When I see a police officer making almost $100/hr (including pay and benefits) taking the job of a private security officer at sporting events, car shows, etc., I know that the fix is in.  Private security in California pays the lowest scale of all 50 states, bar none and the reason is the police unions have the power to force venue owners to hire off-duty cops at extortion rates.  This kills my job opportunities (armed security officer) and keeps me &quot;in my place&quot; (i.e., you have no union, move along).  That the use of off-duty police officers as security officers (armed or not) is illegal in California means nothing to the Democrat machine.  Laws are for conservatives, not Democrats.  And don&#039;t ever expect the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services to investigate, it is run by union employees as well.  Again, taxpayers who aren&#039;t unionized have NO voice. 
 
What makes it even worse is private security officers, as a whole, are much better trained for venue security than cops will ever be.  Private security officers are preventive first, reactionary later; police officers are, by definition, reactionary only and this is reflected in their training.  Who did this to me and my fellow officers?  The police unions who can break the law at will; who will stand up to them?  Democrats?   
I met an off-duty cop who was working as an &quot;armed body guard&quot; for a limo company.  He would hire himself out for $50/hr. to carry his pistol (in civilian clothes) and drive snobs around.  Totally illegal; he has no Security Officer Firearms Permit nor a private Guard Card.  In addition, he doesn&#039;t wear a uniform as required by law...being totally illegal?  No problem, he&#039;s a cop and can do what he wants.  (You cannot act as a private Security Officer in California without a Guard Card and you need a separate firearms permit to carry an open weapon.  Concealed firearms are NEVER approved.  In addition, you must wear a state-approved uniform, no exceptions, even for off-duty cops. 
 
When I ask my boss why he doesn&#039;t complain, his response is: &quot;To who?&quot;   &quot;To who&quot; indeed.  As I said, a state run by criminals, for criminals.  Don&#039;t ever come to California and try to run a legal business.  You&#039;re a fool if you do.  Bring white envelopes for the unions, the city council, and the police chief.  Money does speak out here. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>California is not a state, it is a union enclave masquerading as one.  When the unions meet with government to negotiate, there is no one at the table representing the taxpayer.  When I see a police officer making almost $100/hr (including pay and benefits) taking the job of a private security officer at sporting events, car shows, etc., I know that the fix is in.  Private security in California pays the lowest scale of all 50 states, bar none and the reason is the police unions have the power to force venue owners to hire off-duty cops at extortion rates.  This kills my job opportunities (armed security officer) and keeps me &quot;in my place&quot; (i.e., you have no union, move along).  That the use of off-duty police officers as security officers (armed or not) is illegal in California means nothing to the Democrat machine.  Laws are for conservatives, not Democrats.  And don&#039;t ever expect the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services to investigate, it is run by union employees as well.  Again, taxpayers who aren&#039;t unionized have NO voice. </p>
<p>What makes it even worse is private security officers, as a whole, are much better trained for venue security than cops will ever be.  Private security officers are preventive first, reactionary later; police officers are, by definition, reactionary only and this is reflected in their training.  Who did this to me and my fellow officers?  The police unions who can break the law at will; who will stand up to them?  Democrats?<br />
I met an off-duty cop who was working as an &quot;armed body guard&quot; for a limo company.  He would hire himself out for $50/hr. to carry his pistol (in civilian clothes) and drive snobs around.  Totally illegal; he has no Security Officer Firearms Permit nor a private Guard Card.  In addition, he doesn&#039;t wear a uniform as required by law&#8230;being totally illegal?  No problem, he&#039;s a cop and can do what he wants.  (You cannot act as a private Security Officer in California without a Guard Card and you need a separate firearms permit to carry an open weapon.  Concealed firearms are NEVER approved.  In addition, you must wear a state-approved uniform, no exceptions, even for off-duty cops. </p>
<p>When I ask my boss why he doesn&#039;t complain, his response is: &quot;To who?&quot;   &quot;To who&quot; indeed.  As I said, a state run by criminals, for criminals.  Don&#039;t ever come to California and try to run a legal business.  You&#039;re a fool if you do.  Bring white envelopes for the unions, the city council, and the police chief.  Money does speak out here. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 430/435 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-30 17:06:56 by W3 Total Cache -->