U.S. Politics 18

[TerraPrime]

One of Ben Smith's readers notes that while sales of pornographic movies are declining in hotels they still account for about $175 per room for Marriott chains.

Once again, real data showed that consumers are not rational.

You can pay anywhere from $10 to $25 dollar for internet access per day, and get all the pron you want. Why pay an average of $175?

[Guest Raids]

yeah, I was looking at this article the other day.

I don't understand this at all. All I know is that there will be some seriously pissed off state govt workers if this happens.

About half, I think, of the states have constitutional amendments guaranteeing pension payments to state employees. The states can declare bankruptcy all they want, and the pension obligation will not go away. In those states.

In the rest of them it would, as the article says.

[Guest Raids]

It does. It's just wrong for the states that have constitutional pension guarantees.

ETA: I should add that this is a highly lucrative area and you will certainly see many different attempt to get around the constitutional provisions. It just won't happen.

[Shryke]

I mean, doing this is basically politically neutral for them. "We're eliminating wasteful pension funds" will be the moniker.

Though, TBH, I have no idea how to solve the state budget problems beyond Bernanke monetizing more US debt and bailing the fuck out of the states. I'm not even sure I understand the problem: cities can default, but states cannot, however states can't run a deficit so... huh?

I'm not completely clear on why Cites can and States can't, but States CAN run a deficit. It's just a bunch of them were stupid enough to pass amendments saying they couldn't.

The pension thing differs from State to State, as Raids points out, but you can be damn sure they'll be trying to wiggle out of that at every turn.

Largely solutions would depend on the state in question, but I'd say any bailout would have to have some serious "Fix your fucking constitution" strings attached for quite a few of them.

[Ormond]

Once again, real data showed that consumers are not rational.

You can pay anywhere from $10 to $25 dollar for internet access per day, and get all the pron you want. Why pay an average of $175?

I think you are reading that wrong. What the article meant was that the Marriott Hotel chain's total revenue from pornography works out to $175 per room PER YEAR. It doesn't mean that individual guests in a Marriott Hotel are spending anything near $175 on pornographic movies during an average hotel stay.

[Commodore]

Tim Pawlenty is epic

[alguien]

Tim Pawlenty is unable to communicate beyond talking points

[TerraPrime]

I think you are reading that wrong. What the article meant was that the Marriott Hotel chain's total revenue from pornography works out to $175 per room PER YEAR. It doesn't mean that individual guests in a Marriott Hotel are spending anything near $175 on pornographic movies during an average hotel stay.

Ah, that makes much more sense. My bad in reading incorrectly.

[Shryke]

Pawlenty will be a hoot. It's gonna be amazing seeing how many times his opponents can fit the word "bridge" into a sentence.

[darkone]

keith olberman run for Senate?

Not sure if this is serious or not but it would be interesting although I doubt that he'll win or anything.

[darkone]

I'm sure KO thinks he's capable. I'm curious what job he's going to get offered in lieu of something like this. I really don't see it. A lot of people who used to watch his show got completely sick of it. He's got fans, but not nearly enough to carry him to a Senate seat. Think Al Franken has a lot of retractable quotes? KO's are legion.

Yeah I don't really see it either. I actually broke from his show soon as he seemed to go over the deep end. He'll probably end up taking another tv show or radio program... as for being a politician I just don't see it.

[sologdin]

"We're eliminating wasteful pension funds" will be the moniker

decent article on this issue here.

[Tempra]

It does. It's just wrong for the states that have constitutional pension guarantees.

ETA: I should add that this is a highly lucrative area and you will certainly see many different attempt to get around the constitutional provisions. It just won't happen.

What is your rationale? State constitutional provisions create property interests that are protected by the Takings Clause?

I'm not completely clear on why Cites can and States can't, but States CAN run a deficit. It's just a bunch of them were stupid enough to pass amendments saying they couldn't.

The pension thing differs from State to State, as Raids points out, but you can be damn sure they'll be trying to wiggle out of that at every turn.

Largely solutions would depend on the state in question, but I'd say any bailout would have to have some serious "Fix your fucking constitution" strings attached for quite a few of them.

States cannot declare bankruptcy because there is no provision in the bankruptcy code that allows them to declare bankruptcy. Cities, for instance, declare a Chapter 9 bankruptcy. Congress could "easily" pass a law amending the bankruptcy code, but this whole situation creates one giant constitutional cluster fuck.

[Guest Raids]

I actually think the article sort of fails to get the main point across - this is not about whether or not government employees should still get defined-benefit pension plans (federal employees do not, FYI), it's about whether the government should be obligated to make good on the promises of defined-benefit pension plans it made to employees at the time they were hired. In many cases, that was decades ago. In terms of declaring bankruptcy, this about whether the government should have continue paying pension benefits to people who have already retired.

Sure, you can say that the private sector has already gone this route, but the private sector does not have a constitutional obligation to make good on those promises (and those amendments went on the books right when the courts determined that private companies could renege on their defined-benefit pension programs, so their purpose is crystal clear).

In these states, people should really think about how many lawyers' bills they want to pay before ultimately losing and being forced to pay out these pension funds anyway.

For states that don't have constitutional pension protections, everyone should ask whether screwing a retiring elementary school teacher out of the pension funds he or she has been depending on in calculating their retirement planning their entire life is really how they want to go about it.

ETA: Tempra, are we talking about the same thing? I am talking about, for instance, Michigan's constitutional amendment, which states: "The accrued financial benefits of each pension plan and retirement system of the

state and its political subdivisions shall be a contractual obligation thereof which shall not be diminished or impaired thereby." Is that what you are talking about?

With a constitutional clause like that, the state's pension obligations are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. If the federal law passed explictly says that they are, then we'll have a state constitutional provision that runs up against a federal statute and the preemption rules will come into play.

[Tempra]

ETA: Tempra, are we talking about the same thing? I am talking about, for instance, Michigan's constitutional amendment, which states: "The accrued financial benefits of each pension plan and retirement system of the

state and its political subdivisions shall be a contractual obligation thereof which shall not be diminished or impaired thereby." Is that what you are talking about?

With a constitutional clause like that, the state's pension obligations are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. If the federal law passed explictly says that they are, then we'll have a state constitutional provision that runs up against a federal statute and the preemption rules will come into play.

I was trying to figure out how you got around the Supremacy Clause, which would knock out any conflicting state law protecting pensions, but I see you haven't...

[Guest Raids]

Do you think a federal statute allowing the states to declare bankruptcy has any bearing at all on the state's own constitutional provisions regarding guaranteed pension benefits?

Preemption is not implicated.

Even if such a statute attempted to explicitly preempt state constitutional protections, under Bates, the Court will always favor the reading of a statute that disfavors pre-emption.

To put it plainly, I don't think the language and intent of any state that actually passes will implicate the federal preemption rules.

I take it you do? You think the statute allowing states to declare bankruptcy would state "This Act hereby does preempt any state constitutional provisions purporting to guarantee the paymnent of public pension benefits or otherwise declares them to be a contractual obligation of that state"?

[Guest Raids]

Where does that link go? Does it go anywhere that discloses the content of the leaked information, or contain quotations of it, etc.?

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

No quotations, and no content. It does discuss the alleged source of the classified documents and his alleged treatment at Quantico.

[The Iceman of the North]

Where does that link go? Does it go anywhere that discloses the content of the leaked information, or contain quotations of it, etc.?

Have you started regretting working for the North Korean government yet?

[Annelise]

Tim Pawlenty is epic

He's workin' the strategy, I kind of feel like McCain's celebrity ad should follow it haha. I would have guessed from the last election, that you'd like something more toned down and simple. Maybe it's just come to be thought of as what will be necessary to defeat Obama. ETA: Or at least for Pawlenty to defeat Obama.