'Tax, Tax, Tax the Rich, Walker You F**king Son of a Bitch'

More progressive civility.

Via Althouse:

And progressive extremism: "Photos: Protesters lock selves to Senate railing."

Should Lifeguards Get Six-Figure Pensions?

One lifeguard in Newport Beach recently retired at $108,000 annually, with full medical benefits.

At Los Angeles Times, "Lifeguards' special-status pensions under scrutiny in California":

As lifeguards begin their busy summer season, the bronzed guardians of California's beaches find themselves at the unlikely center of the battle over costly public pensions.

The six-figure salaries of some full-time municipal lifeguards have fueled talk radio segments and blog comments in recent weeks, with some commentators expressing surprise at the pay for those who patrol the beaches.

For local government, the larger concern is over the pensions that lifeguards receive when they retire. Most full-time lifeguards get the most generous public retirement plan — the same "public safety" pensions received by police officers and firefighters. Lifeguards argue that they deserve the benefits because they put their lives at risk, not just from rescuing beachgoers but because of an elevated risk of skin cancer from years under the sun.

But a growing number of cities — including Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and San Diego — are demanding that lifeguards cut their pensions. Solana Beach has already taken action, eliminating the most generous plan, which made lifeguards eligible for a pension worth up to 90% of their largest paycheck at age 50. Pensions for new hires top out at about one-third less.

Newport Beach Councilwoman Leslie Daigle said the city can no longer afford paying them the same retirements as police and firefighters. One Newport Beach lifeguard recently retired at 51 with an annual pension of $108,000, plus medical benefits, she said.

"They are more than generously compensated for a highly desirable job," Daigle said. "We would find qualified applicants for lifeguarding without" the top-end benefits.

More at the link.

Reason Magazine reported on this back in April.

Photo Credit: "Huge Waves at the Wedge in Newport Beach."

Pawlenty Defends Economic Plan on Fox News Sunday

With Chris Wallace:

PREVIOUSLY: "Tim Pawlenty's Economic Speech at University of Chicago, June 7, 2011."

Tim Pawlenty's Economic Speech at University of Chicago, June 7, 2011

The complete text is at Wall Street Journal. And check the report at Los Angeles Times, "Tim Pawlenty slams Obama on economy."

He makes some radical proposals, a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and temporary emergency executive authority to freeze federal spending. He also offers a familiar list of economic proposals, like an aggressive flat tax and a restructuring of the tax system, eliminating a number of taxes, from capital gains to inheritance taxes. I listened to the whole thing, but check the text if you're short on time. He's a very gracious and polite man. I'm learning more about him, and he's hitting hard against the administration, calling out President Obama for his anti-Americanism and rejection of American exceptionalism. That's good to hear. I'm interested to see how Pawlenty does in the Iowa straw poll coming up, especially since Mitt Romney's not attending. He's also the former governor of Minnesota, so that will make for some interesting exchanges with Michele Bachmann (a congresswoman from Minnesota) if she enters the race, and I think she will.

MediCare: Too Good to Last

From Charlie Cook, at National Journal:

“Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Benefits Over a Lifetime,” a study by C. Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane for the Urban Institute that was released in January, demonstrates quite vividly why senior citizens like Medicare so much. A single man earning the average wage, $43,100 in 2010 dollars, who retired in 2010 will pay an average of $55,000 in Medicare taxes over his lifetime and will receive $161,000 in Medicare benefits. A similarly situated woman will pay the same $55,000 in Medicare taxes but will get $181,000 in Medicare benefits (because women live longer than men). A one-earner couple in that situation, again paying $55,000 in Medicare taxes, would receive $342,000 in benefits. If you’re a Medicare recipient, why wouldn’t you think that the program as we know it is a great deal?

But, obviously, it’s not sustainable. With federal budget deficits soaring and worries about a national-debt crisis in our future rising, how is it possible to keep Medicare as we know it? If the federal government, over the long haul, isn’t in a position to make up the gap between what people are paying and the benefits they’re receiving, Medicare taxes have to go up, benefits have to be cut, or deductibles have to be raised on high-income retirees.

That's the key nugget, but read it all. Democrats are getting a free ride on this politically, despite the fact that the GOP's got the honest approach to policy. As usual.

RELATED: See also Andrew McCarthy, "Not Entitled."

Kimberley Strassel: 'Who's Winning the Budget War?'

At Wall Street Journal:

Here's the Washington headline of the week that nobody in America got to read: Paul Ryan, 40. Barack Obama, 0.

Forty is the number of Senate votes that went in favor of Mr. Ryan's reformist budget, a tally that included nearly every Senate Republican. Zero is the number of votes President Obama got for his own tax-and-spend budget, a blueprint that not one of his own party had the backbone to support. It went down, 97-0.

Washington is in a game of high-stakes chicken over raising the debt limit, though so far only one side is flinching. According to the headlines (and Democrats), Republicans are on defense over Mr. Ryan's plan, are risking America's creditworthiness, and are delaying sensible compromise by refusing tax increases. It is only a matter of time, goes the betting, before the party swerves.

This has little relation to reality, in which it is Democrats who keep calling their own bluffs. It was Mr. Obama who first swerved, submitting a "do-over" of his initial, embarrassing budget. It is Democrats who have since swerved on the debt-limit debate, agreeing to spending-cut negotiations, then continuing to up the size of a package.

By refusing to blink, Republicans keep forcing Democrats to acknowledge a very simple political reality: Voters do want spending reform, and do not want tax hikes. That's why this debate has so far moved in the GOP's direction.

RTWT. Strassel mentions NY-26's special election, and she predicted the Democrat victory a couple of weeks ago in any case, "A New York Warning for the GOP":

Good news for a politics-weary nation: Come May 24, the debate over the Paul Ryan budget reform plan will be over—almost before it began. Democrats win. Republicans lose. Long live blowout entitlements.

That, at least, is the narrative being cast on the upcoming special election in New York's 26th congressional district. GOP candidate Jane Corwin had been handily ahead until several weeks ago, when Democrat Kathy Hochul began attacking her for supporting Mr. Ryan's plan. Polls have tightened, and Democrats and the media are now pitching the race as a "referendum" on GOP hopes to cut spending and reform entitlements such as Medicare. A Hochul victory, goes the line, will prove the Ryan plan is a bust even with conservative voters.

Fascinating, if utterly untrue. In their drive to nationalize this story, Democrats and the media are deliberately ignoring the real (if mundane) reasons why the Corwin campaign is struggling—namely, GOP infighting that has allowed a third-party candidate to siphon votes. New York 26 does offer the GOP some important lessons about the entitlement debate—just not any that Democrats are flogging.

See also, John McCormack, "NY-26: Democrat Kathy Hochul Wins with 47% of Vote."

Rational and Effective? Progressive Agenda Project Medicare Ad Shows Paul Ryan Pushing Grandma Off Cliff

Via Weekly Standard:

A friend on twitter observes that The Agenda Project's website says the group's goal is to "build a powerful, intelligent, well-connected political movement capable of identifying and advancing rational, effective ideas in the public debate and in so doing ensure our country’s enduring success."

Gov. Jerry Brown Won't Ask for Income Tax Increase in 2011

Maybe he should hold off on tax increases altogether. Let the market work things out and continue to rationalize spending.

At LAT, "Gov. Brown to skip tax increase this year":

A surge in revenue has prompted Gov. Jerry Brown to scale back his proposal for more taxes, even as his administration on Friday announced its intention to close 70 state parks.

Officials familiar with Brown's plans said the revised budget he presents Monday will propose raising income tax rates on Californians for four years rather than the five he initially wanted. The higher rate would not take effect until 2012.

The governor will continue to push for a five-year extension of increases in sales taxes and vehicle fees that are due to expire by July 1, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public. Brown wants lawmakers to put some levies in place before July 1, to be ratified later by voters, the officials said.