The Pension plan is not in a structurally solvent state.  As of 2007, the unfunded liability of the Cook County Pension plan was 22.7%.  Sadly, having over one-in-five dollars necessary for the pension unavailable is an improvement.  If we look at the figures from 2006 and 2005, it was closer to one-in-four dollars:

This lack of full financing in others futures, however, is not the largest structural problem that we face in paying what we owe is the worker to employer ratio.  At the national level, people discuss the danger for social security when we reach a two-to-one worker to recipient ratio.  Unfortunately, at Cook County we are already substantially below a two-to-one worker to recipient ratio:

The above chart shows the danger, of the current employment pattern.  As time continues, we can expect the ratio to continue to decrease.   As a result of this, the county acquires a greater and greater dependency on employee contributions to ensure revenue:

This pillaging of the pocketbook is of course made worse by the fact that the number of employees who are contributing to this program has been steadily decreasing since 2005, meaning that the per-person contribution has grown from approximately $8,000 in 2005 to approximately $11,000 in 2007.

Perhaps the greatest threat, however, to the soundness of the Pension Fund is not the structural inequities of its design, but its dependence on the stock market for annual revenue.  Since 2005, almost half of the yearly revenue for the fund has come from Investment Revenue.  From a low of forty-five to a high of sixty-three, investments have counted for the largest portion of the fund of any item over the past three years.

This is a dangerous dependency on the whimsy of the market, as we have seen over the past year.  On 1/2/08 the DOW closed at 13,043.96, whereas it has now dropped 5,254.4 points, and as of 1/7/09 closed at 7,789.56.   This leads to a general depression in the amount of revenue available for the fund, and as a result leads to the aforementioned increase in the percentage of the employee contribution, as well as a new demand on the employee contribution.

Furthermore, one can see a direct correlation between the success of the investment and overall effectiveness of the fun.  One can clearly see the importance of the fun, if you realize that the drop in the 2007 unfunded liability is approximately one-fifth the difference between market revenue of 2006 and 2005.  Furthermore, those years that have had the most successful seen market growth, are also the ones that have seen the smallest increase in the Employee contribution.

As a result of this, one can clearly see the danger that the County Pension Fund is currently in.  The Funds Liability has yet to decrease to fewer than 20%–meaning that one-in-five dollars are still unpaid for.  Furthermore, the structural soundness of guaranteeing 80% of an employee’s highest annual income after thirty years of service is a dangerous program, considering the decreasing worker to beneficiary ratio—which has seen a twenty-three percent decrease over the past three years.   Furthermore, the county needs to be lead away from Market investments towards more continuously solvent, and regular means of fund management.

Furthermore, once Al Franken is seated–as he will be…eventually.  This will officially give the Democrats a 60 seat majority, making it very hard for the GOP to block any legislation.  

And finally, this means that any attempt at a 2010 GOP resurgence just got a lot harder.  As “big John” said, without Pennsylvania we cannot win back a majority.  And let’s be honest Toomey doesn’t have a shot in hell.

I , however, do think that OH, IL, and CO, area all excellent chances on GOP wins.

Ohio has a PVI of D+0 an effectively undivided primary–Portman will only be facing Car Dealer owner Ganley.  Meanwhile, while Portman is down in the polls, he has the GOP base firmly locked down, and is competitive.  Furthermore, Portman has succesfully outraised both democratic Candidates, which boes well for his ability to control the debate in the next race.  Furthermore, it looks very likely that Fisher will have to spend some of his money responding to any allegations by Brunner.  This in turn could lead to a nasty primary that makes both Fisher an Brunner look bad while Portman just saunters through his race with an intact war chest and reputation.

Illinois and Colorado to come later.

And for your moment of Zen

Obama, met the Russian as an equal, and offered them a plan that would weaken US foreign policy and national security in exchange for Russian beneficence.   Offering Russia an equal exchange that weakens us for minor help is always a bad idea.  This is because Russia immediately senses the weakness of that proposal.  It then assumes that they can hold out for more.  As a result, when President Obama offered to sacrifice a hallmark of American National Security–the ABM–Russia said no, waiting to see what he would offer next.

This is a standard Russian tactic, it was used at Potsdam, and Tehran, as well as regarding Germany in the 1940s and early ’50s.  The then continued to do it all the way up to the SALT I talks with Richard Nixon and beyond.  In fact the only time that we have successfully, negotiated with Russia, is when they have been on their knees (or newly weakened) and we can clearly crush them.   We’ve seen this with George Bush’s Russian negotiations in 2002, or Clinton and Bush 41′s negotiations in the 90s.   A prime example can also be found in the 1970s.  Specifically Richard Nixon’s success with SALT I after he initiated a new China policy, which distinctly weakened the Russian situation.

Continuing, however, my strict policy of always proposing something with every critique I will now plot out an alternate path to acquiring Russian Pressure on Iran.  The first step in the Dubsican Foreign Policy would be to announce a doubling (or tripling) of European ABM sites, and that you hope to place these in Lithuania/Estonia and FYROM/Romania.   This moves Russia onto the defensive as they are uncomfortable enough with the two ABM sites that already scheduled to exist, let alone 4-6 this time in the Russian “Near-Abroad.”   Once we’ve made this announcement we can begin to forget about it, as the actual construction of these is irrelevant.   Step two is to announce a desire for a summit where Russia and the United States can begin to “iron out” their differences as regards Iran and discuss how the US can best aid Russia in managing the Iranian Nuclear threat.  These two moves place the United states in a much better position.  This is because Russia now has the pressure of deciding whether or not it wants to publicly disassociate from a global Iranian containment policy.

As a result of these two steps we have now pushed Russia onto the defensive.  This puts us in a stronger negotiating stance.  Furthermore, Russia–now even more uncomfortable with due to the doubling of ABM sites–will be more willing to come to the table.  This in turn will make Putin more willing to put pressure on Iran in exchange for our cutting half of our ABM program.  And even if Putin was unwilling to accept a halving of our ABM sites and demanded the elimination we still would have accomplished our goals.   And in the worst case scenario–had Russia rejected the summit–we would have shown our willingness to compromise and work with Russia.  This would have also embarrassed Russia in the international community, and further isolated them from Europe.  All while laying the groundwork for a probably unnecessary doubling of ABM that would have at least increased our economic clout in Eastern Europe and the Near abroad.

As a result, President Obama should have adopted a more aggressive policy of Russia.  He could ave used a carrot–lessening ABM and the Summit–and a Lead Pipe–Tripling ABM–to both pressure and mollify Russia.  This would have at least left the United States less embarrassed than we are now, while having a better pay off in both situations–success and defeat.

One point before we even get into the two major problems with this bill, the District of Columbia already has a delegate in the House of Representatives.  And this Delegate can vote in Caucus, in committee, introduce legislation, accrue committee tenure, and vote anywhere but the floor.

There are, however, two major problems with this bill.  The first is that it is unconstitutional.  The constitution references the “several states,”  and the District was clearly not in the mind of the founders when they created a “federal district.”  Furthermore, the district is supposed to represent a “national” city, unlimited by regional alliances, whose only purpose is the federal government, and to tend to the needs of the nation as a whole.  This is why, the founders did not even give residents of the District of Columbia the right to vote in Presidential Elections.    So as a result, this proposal violates both the literal an spiritual  meaning of the US constitution.  As a result it violates the judicial philosophies of both Strict Constructivist and Activist Judges, and should be easily shot down if it reaches the federal Judicial system.

It is not, however, just in the realm of constitutionality that the DC voting Rights Act fails, but also in the political realm.  The supporters of this bill argue that it will be political neutral, because it will grant an additional congressional district to Utah.  This logic fails for three reasons.  The first is that Utah will acquire this seat after the 2010 census anyway and as such, this bill actually favors the Democrats who would otherwise lose a seat.   Seconly, The long term implications of this bill also upend any partisan neutrality that it claims to have.  By being the sole seat representing the District , it is never subject to reaportionment–much like how Vermont, Montana, Delaware, and the Dakotas will always have a seat–while the seat in Utah would be subject to reaportionment.  This means that the Democrats would hold this congressional seat until DC becomes a primarily Republican city–unlikely considering both its voting habits and Demographic trends.    The final problem, as regards partisan neutrality, is the precedent this bill would set for giving congress the right to add congressional delegations.  This could be dangerous in two situations, one is that the Democratic Congress moves to give the District Senate Represenation–garaunteeing DC two Democratic Senators.  This could easily upset the partisan imballance in divided or close partisan composition of the Senate–such as existed from 2001-2003, and from 2007-2009.  As a result this bill is clearly not an act to ensure congressional representation for five-hundred thousand plus individuals, but instead to lead to a long term advantage for the Democrats in the House of Represenatives and lay the groundwork for a future Democratic advantage.

Having, destroyed the current bill, I do believe that DC residents should have congressional represenation, so I have come up with a plan to grant them immediate representation in both the House and the Senate, while ensuring a truely Partisan neutral bill.  We will give all of the District of Columbia that is not directly related to the management of the federal government–White House, Memorials, Congress, Supreme Court, etc.—to the state of Virginia.  We will than expand the current congressional delegation to include this new district–as well as the new District in Utah.  This will give the District it’s seat in the House, two Senators–Jim Webb, and Mark Warner–and ensure that the current Partisan ballance is maintained in both the Senate an the House.  My plan will also ensure that both seats are subject to reapportionment following the 2010 Census and beyond, thus giving the bill long term partisan neutrality.  The final advantage of the Dubs plan, is that it ensures that the constitution is maintained, and that only “the several states” are represented in Congress.

Recently, there was a general election in Israel. Israel–for those of you who do not know–has slate voting, with proportional representation in the Parliament. What this means, is that you vote solely for the party, not the individual, and that so long as your party has broken 2 percent, it will receive proportional representation in the Parliament. As a result of this, Israel has a long and torrid history of coalition government, which is slowly reaching the level of the Italian Parliament. The results of the most recent election will be no different; however, they will have a substantive impact on US foreign policy, the Peace Process, and Israeli policies.

One of the reasons that this most recent Israeli election will have a massive impact on the peace process and on Israeli foreign policy is the rise of Yisrael Beiteinu (YB), a “far right” third party, that rose to 3rd place, took 15 seats in the Israeli Parliament, and has the ability to act as the king maker of the right–choosing whether Likud or Kadmia will have the Prime Minster ship. This is important, because despite Yisrael Beiteinu’s “far right” status–and it is–this far-right party is probably the most rational party when it comes to Palestine. The driving impetus of the YB–Yisrael Beiteinu is too hard to spell–is to create a more Jewish state.

As a result of this the YB and its party leader Avigdor Lieberman support a Palestinian state and have a very reasonable and logical solution to the population and boundaries issue: let’s trade. Lieberman wants “the exchange of land highly populated by Arabs for land with Jewish settlements. “ What this means is, for the first time in decades, Israelis have disavowed Empire. As a result, Likud–the party that wants to achieve greater Israel–will have to accept negotiation with a Palestinian state, if it wants to lead the country. This in turn could provide a real impetus to the peace process and a movement towards practicality by the Israeli right. Because Israelis elected members of the far right, they have elected foreign policy moderates, who are willing to negotiate with–and encourage the existence of–a Palestinian state full of Arabs so as to increase the percentage of Jews in Israel.

Now, all of this is not to say that this far right (possibly racist) party will all of a sudden make the creation of a Palestinian state and a real “road map to peace” (smirk), easy… it won’t. But it does tell us is that Israelis are sick of Empire, and the beginnings of a long term peace plan that Israel actually wants are beginning to grow. The final benefit is that the YB can create credible peace plan. As “only Nixon could go to China,” so too can only right-wing Israeli Nationalists create a real and lasting peace.

As a result of this, I don’t think Obama is seriously planning on making this offer.  Obama would be putting a Conservative Senator into a position to negotiate for business on behalf of a Liberal Presidency–unless of course Obama has decided to completely throw his entire platform under the buss.

Additionally, if offered this position I do not believe that Gregg will accept.  While he is definately facing a tough re-election in 2010, he has a relationship with the New Hampshire electorate that no other politician in the state has had, will be facing a middling popular congressman–Since Lynch has said he won’t run–and has access to a level of money that others lack.  Furthermore, Gregg has to know, that if he accepts this offer he’ll have a limited amount of influence with the President.  Gregg, as a conservative Republican will have practically no influence for two reasons.  Obama has continued the growing tradition of a strong west wing, and a weak Cabinet.   And on top of that Gregg will be a Conservative Republican who is often forced into the role of the contrarion, arguing for a view held by no one–including the President!

As a result of all of this, I fail to see why Obama would offer Gregg the cabinet post, nor why Gregg would accept.

I hadn’t realized that Patterson made a Cuomo challenge easier, until I saw these numbers, then it hit me!  Cuomo received countless hours of attention as the anti-Kennedy and the thinking man’s candidate for the Senate Spot.  He went from being the AG who had the bungled gubernatorial from four years ago, to the serious candidate.  He went from being the AG most famous for being Mario Cuomo’s son to someone you know stuff about, he became a real person and a respected official.  Put simply, by not picking him, Patterson elevated Cuomo’s name recognition, enhanced his reputation, and made a challenge by Cuomo a lot easier than it was a month ago, when he was just the AG running on daddy’s coat tails.

Patterson, put simply, and to quote Walter Sobchak.…”You’re out of your Element.”