Life is like a box of...stupid.

This was this guy's first boat, but he wasn't quite sure of the correct procedure for launching a boat at the ramp. However, he figured it couldn't be that difficult to do, so he stopped by his Union office for advice, and they just told him, "Don't let the trailer get too deep in the water when you're launching your boat".

Well later on, he couldn't understand what they meant by that, as he just could barely get his trailer in the water!

Here's a picture worth a "thousand' words! You're gonna love this guy!!! They walk among us, get married, have children and vote!

Oh, check out the sticker on back windshield. Some will say it explains everything. Others say, well...that's pretty much what everyone I've shown the picture to has said.

NY Times Blows The Whistle On Drug Industry's Dirty Tricks

Posted by: Dr. Mercola

November 26 2009 | 83,589 views

As a sobering example of how members of Congress can be spoon-fed the views and even the exact words of high-powered lobbying firms, consider remarks inserted into the Congressional Record after the debate and vote on health care reform in the House.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Timesshow that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

The apparent goal was to show that, even though there were sharp divisions between the parties on the overall reform bill (only one Republican voted for it), there was bipartisan support for provisions relating to drugs produced by the biotechnology industry. One provision, for example, would allow generic competition to expensive biological drugs but only after the original manufacturer had enjoyed 12 years of exclusive use, a generous period by anyone’s standards.

Asked about the Congressional statements, a lobbyist close to Genentech said: “This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There may be nothing "nefarious" about allowing a lobbyist to write words for you, but I'm not sure I like that someone with a very specific interest in health care "reform" is putting words into my employees mouths. Yes, I'm referring to Congress as my employees, specifically the three that represent MY interests. You should be concerned about your employees as well.

I expect my employees to be able to think and talk for themselves and if they can't, and rely on a lobbyist to tell them what to say, then I have to wonder just what the heck am I paying them for?

The Results of Cell Phone Use While Driving

The Honda crotch rocket rider was traveling at approximately 85 mph. The VW driver was talking on a cell phone when she pulled out from a side street, apparently not seeing themotorcycle. The riders reaction time was not sufficientenough to avoid this accident. The car had two passengers and the bike rider was found INSIDE the car with them. The Volkswagen actually flipped over from the force of impact and landed 20 feet from where the collision took place.

All three involved (two in the car and the bike rider) were killed instantly. This graphic demonstration was placed at the Motorcycle Fair by the Police and Road Safety Department.

Pass this on to car drivers or soon to be new drivers, or new motorcycle owners

AND ESPECIALLY EVERYONE YOU KNOW WHO HAS A CELL PHONE!!!!!

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Wake up people.

Stop talking on Cell phones and Texting while trying to drive.

Put your Cell phone in the back seat !!!

The above was received in email. No, I didn't check this out for veracity. As stated above, a picture is worth a thousand words. This kind of accident is 100% avoidable. Three people died because one person was too selfish to think of the safety of anyone else, much less his or her own safety.

Cell phones, texting, and driving do not mix. No matter how good you think you are, you are not that good. If you must use a cell, then please, use a hands-free device. If you must text, pull off to the side of the road.

As a general thing, I don't care what you do to risk your life, but when you're talking on a cell phone, you're also risking mine. I know that you may think your reaction time is super and you can react in time to avoid any accidents. You may even have done it. You're playing on borrowed time and your luck will run out.

Don't think that just because you're young you're any better than the elderly person driving down the street. When your attention is diverted, (talking will divert your attention, and lets not even talk about how texting diverts your attention) you've just narrowed the gap in the differences between you and that white haired dear in the other car.

The life you save might be your own. Or mine.

"Sure wish someone would invent something to keep the sun out of my eyes."

Is Health Care A Right?

I’ve been on vacation for a few days, and among other things, I’ve been mulling the health care debate. I think I’ve stumbled on to a couple of the stumbling blocks to passing the bill.

I knew I wasn’t for the bill, but I also knew there was something I was missing about why. My liberal side says, why not? Why shouldn’t health care be offered to all Americans? My conservative side says, “that’s all well and good, but health care isn’t free. How, and who, will pay for it.”

I think that’s a major reason people are against it. The citizens of the United States have paid out a lot of money over the last year. We bailed out Wall Street, and the automotive and insurance industries to the tune of billions of dollars. So much that I don’t know the figures anymore; so much so that we now think of spending millions as nothing.

And now, the Administration wants to spend billions more for health care for all Americans, a good thing on the surface. But, and here’s a problem, it’s being billed as a “right”. We have certain “rights” that are not specifically defined, such as the right to be treated as human beings with dignity and respect, and right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have certain “rights” granted to us under the Constitution of the United States. Those are usually defined as “Freedoms”, a few of which are: freedom of speech, freedom from persecution, freedom to (or not to) worship as we please, freedom from illegal search and seizure, and freedom of assembly. We do have the "right", among others granted in the Constitution, to bear arms, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I just read the Bill of Rights to the Constitution again to be sure I wasn’t missing or forgetting something, and I see nothing that gives the American citizen the "right" to healthcare. I see nothing that says the American people have to bail out Wall Street or any industry, for that matter.

If healthcare is a “right”, from where does that “right” spring? I want to help my fellow Americans as much as possible, but not to the extent that we bankrupt the country and mortgage future generations.

I'm not saying healthcare isn't an issue. I'm not saying healthcare should be given only to the wealthy or those employed by large companies. I'm not saying it should be withheld from the poor, or those with limited income, self-employed, or employed by small companies.

How about an overhaul of the health care industry? Make insurance more affordable for small businesses, and lower income Americans. Those on welfare have Medicare (paid through your payroll taxes, by the way). Maybe that’s not on the par of what Bill Gates can afford. But let’s face it, Bill Gates doesn’t need to buy health insurance for himself or his family, he can afford to pay out of pocket for any health care his family needs.

Here’s an idea: instead of making health insurance available to the “super wealthy”, why not legislate that they have to pay out of pocket. The insurance companies wouldn’t have to pay for their Botox or cosmetic surgeries and that money could go to pay for healthcare for middle and lower income families.

I also think the timing of the presentation of the health care bill was bad. It’s been less than a year since we took on the debt of billions for Wall Street, and ownership of the automotive and insurance companies. Had the Administration waited until after the mid-term elections, maybe it would have been better received.

Everything in this Administration seems to be a “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” moment. I’m beginning to believe they think they have limited time and they have to get as much done as possible in the time they have.

Members of Congress: you need to read these bills, instead of voting on what you’ve been told. Of course the parts of the bill that won’t be as well received will be downplayed, if not just not spoken of in the first place. You just can’t rely on other people to tell you everything you need to know. Human nature is to gloss over, or to down play what they don’t want you to know and really play up what they do want you to know. (oops! I forgot to tell you that?? My bad! hee hee! But look! Here’s the good part!).

People are angry. And we have a right to be. We’re being patronized by our own elected officials who are trying to force a bill down our throats when they haven’t read the bill themselves. And then, our own elected employees are calling us unpatriotic and un-American for protesting the bill.

Read the bills so you will know what you’re voting on. Read the bills so you can explain it fully to your constituents. Read the bills so you know what you’re talking about. And finally, read the bills so you have a chance of being re-elected.

I think y’all might be lucky that mid-term elections are a year away and aren’t being held this year.

She looks like…

"You know, she reminds me, she looks like the flight attendant who won't give you a second can of Pepsi. No, you've had enough. We're landing. Looks like the waitress at the coffee shop who draws a little smiley face on your check. Have a nice day."

"She looks like the dip sample lady at Safeway. She looks like the nurse who weighs you and then makes you sit alone in your underwear for 20 minutes. She looks like the Olive Garden hostess who says, 'I'm sorry, your table isn't ready yet.' She looks like the infomercial lady who says she made $64,000 a month flipping condos."

"She looks like the lady at the bakery who yells out '44! 45!' She looks like a real estate agent whose picture you see on the bus stop bench. That's who she looks like. She looks like the lady who has a chain of cupcake stores..."

These are comments made by David Letterman about Governor Sarah Palin, a sitting governor. I’m not going to comment about how juvenile, crass, sophomoric, and just plain stupid these remarks are. I won't comment on the example he's setting for his son. That would be giving him even more publicity than he’s already gotten.

But, I have to wonder how the flight attendants of the world now think about Letterman. Or the waitresses, the ladies who work at grocery stores giving out samples, nurses, restaurant hostesses, women on infomercials, bakery workers, real estate women, or bakery store owners. Whatever you might think of these careers, or the women who persue them, these are hardworking women, who work in industries that demand exceptional public service, and in some cases, at very low pay - especially for the job they do.

Letterman has denigrated every one of these careers by insinuating that they are somehow less than that of, oh, say, a late night talk show host who simply sits behind a desk and makes chit-chat with Hollywood types or someone who is simply the flavor of the moment. I notice he didn’t say anything about bleached blondes with enhanced boobs who make a living reciting lines that someone else wrote.

Yes, Letterman owes a real apology to Governor Palin and both her daughters, but he also owes one to the women whose career choices he dismisses as being worthy of a punch line in a joke.

I hope Letterman isn't planning a plane trip, or a trip to a restaurant, grocery store, or bakery store. I hope he's careful about his choice of real estate agent. And, with his health history, he sure shouldn't be making fun of nurses.

Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

Thursday , May 28, 2009

Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a Bible study — unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.

"On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the Bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county." David Jones told FOX News.

"We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a Bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all," Jones said.

A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited "unlawful use of land," ordering them to either "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit," the couple's attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.

But the major use permit could cost the Jones' thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over.

For David and Mary Jones, it's about more than a question of money.

"The government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion," Broyles told FOX News. "I believe that our Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave if they saw that here in the year 2009, a pastor and his wife are being told that they cannot hold a simple Bible study in their own home."

"The implications are great because it’s not only us that’s involved," Mary Jones said. "There are thousands and thousands of Bible studies that are held all across the country. What we’re interested in is setting a precedent here — before it goes any further — and that we have it settled for the future."

The couple is planning to dispute the county's order this week.

If San Diego County refuses to allow the pastor and his wife to continue gathering without acquiring a permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

Click here to watch the full FOX News interview.

Click here to read the full 10News report.

has everyone given up?

by Greta Van Susteren

Transparency or Dodging? You tell me…

Will the White House release ALL the pictures taken from the AF 1 fly over Manhattan? or not? Remember, that trip cost you $328,000 so you ought to see what you paid for. They could at least put on the White House website, right?

The White House released ONE picture and I would bet my right arm that more pics than one were taken on that photo op / glamour trip over Manhattan.

Why won’t they release ALL the pics?

Is the White House Press Corps giving up asking ?

~~~~~~~~~~

For what it's worth, I agree. The pictures should be released to the American taxpayers. We paid for them, we should get to see them. When I hire a photographer to take photos at a wedding or party or event, I get to see the proofs and decide what ones I want. Is this really any different? I'm a taxpayer, the photos were paid for with taxpayer money. Remember, the Federal government only has the money they get from us, the taxpayers.

Now, what to do with the proofs. Here's some ideas:

*Make them screen savers on every Federal computer as a reminder of what a colossal waste of money is.

*Make "motivational" posters to remind all Federal employees to not make such a stupid mistake.

*Put them on Federal credit cards (like Capital One has) so that when a Federal employee whips out the plastic, they are reminded to rethink spending taxpayer money.

* Required email signature tags reminding Federal employees that it's not only the other party that make stupid decisions.

*Replace Obama's rising sun change emblem with a plane and Statue of Liberty reminiscent of the fly over.

To answer Greta's question, sure, the media's given up. They think the issue is dead and buried and they're going back to bowing and scraping when Obama graces them with his presence. I hope that one day they will go back to their jobs of reporting the news, but I'll be happy if they go back to questioning everything the Administration does, like they did with Bush.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, questioning the government. But if they want to be investigative reporters, do the job properly, and uncover the truth, no matter who is head of the Administration. Let's not stop now that the hated and evil Bush has been driven out and replaced by the beloved and saintly Obama.

And we as taxpayers have a duty to question those things we believe need to be questioned. Not because there is someone in the White House we don't like, but because we bankroll the process. People, it's our money they are playing with. No. Not just ours. It's ours and the next generation's and the next. And maybe the next, I'm not sure anymore. Personally, I don't think there's an end in sight. In a very few years, we will all be Federal employees. The banks, the auto industry, the housing industry, probably insurance, will all be owned to some extent by the Federal government. I said a very few years. It may be longer, but I believe it will happen. And you know what happens when the government runs something. They are great at defense, but lousy at delivering mail.

Just wait until Uncle Sam starts giving you your physical, dispensing your meds, or diagnosing your illness. I hope it will be a change we can believe in, because we're going to have to live with it.

Danger: Hate Crimes Bill Would Destroy Freedom Of Expression, Religion

Who could possibly oppose punishment for hate crimes? That is the quandary people of goodwill feel when confronted by the superficially attractive, but false title of legislation purportedly intended to prevent crimes of violence, when in fact the bill itself — HR 1913 (“Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009”), passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week — is loaded with hidden landmines that threaten sacred freedoms of expression and religion.

This quandary is brought about by a facile and concerted use of language that has been twisted by people with a radical agenda for America, so that certain words are emotionally loaded and convey a completely different meaning than their normal use. The word “hate,” for example, has been twisted to mean “disagreement,” so that if you express your disagreement with homosexual behavior, you are accused of being “hateful” and engaging in “hate” speech, or even a “hate crime.”

The intended effect is to silence reasonable and good people, and to quash any intelligent substantive debate on the normalization of homosexual or other “sexual orientations.” (Recall the excoriation of Miss California by Perez Hilton after she politely expressed her disagreement with same-sex marriage.)

It is important to underscore this point because silencing dissent and ad hominine arguments are standard tactics practiced in the name of stopping so-called “hate.” However, silencing dissent — antithetical to the First Amendment and true civil libertarians — is only a first step; the next move is criminally proscribing disagreement with the real threat of jail. This is precisely the intent of the Hate Crimes Bill, which the Senate will now consider.

HR 1913 is inimical to America’s core foundational principles of freedom of expression, religion, thought, ideas, and yes, dissent. Our Founders were extraordinarily careful to balance these freedoms with the responsibility to honor and preserve life and liberty, and to respect the dignity of all individuals. Our Founders believed that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. The hate crimes bill eviscerates these founding principles.

First, HR 1913 will stifle religious speech and “politically incorrect” ideas by providing a legal basis for finding religious leaders guilty of hate crimes. How would this happen? HR 1913 makes it a federal crime to willfully cause “bodily injury” because of “the actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity” of another. Incredibly, the statute fails to define “bodily injury. When a statute fails to define a term, a judge must discern its meaning by looking to other statutes. Several federal criminal laws define “bodily injury” as including emotional distress. So, if a pastor expresses the biblical viewpoint that homosexual (or other) behaviors are immoral, a homosexual can allege that he has been emotionally injured by the willful conduct of the pastor. That is a hate crime under HR 1913!

Second, religious leaders could be found guilty for the violent acts committed by people who hear them speak. Federal law provides that whoever induces someone to commit a federal crime shall be punished as if he actually committed the crime himself (18 U.S.C. § 2). If a pastor addresses the topic of sexual orientation and an unstable person hears his sermon and is thereby “induced” to murder a homosexual (which would be a federal hate crime), then the pastor could be found guilty of murder.

Third, the bill provides special legal protections to people who engage in behaviors that ought to shock our collective moral conscience. The bill fails to define the term “sexual orientation” and a judge could interpret this term to include behaviors such as pedophilia, voyeurism, exhibitionism, bestiality, necrophilia, polyamory and a host of other sexual behaviors. When U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, also a former appellate judge, offered an amendment to prevent pedophiles from being included in this class of protected people, it was defeated on straight party lines.

This provides the legal basis for absurd results. You could be found guilty of a hate crime if you physically stopped a pedophile from assaulting a child because the pedophile is within the special protected class and you “caused bodily injury” “because of” his “sexual orientation.”

An activist judge could thus interpret the law based on his own sexual orientation or agenda. For those thinking such an interpretation is far-fetched, remember that no one in 1970 would have believed that the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), originally written to target organized crime, would be used by pro-abortion advocates to target pro-life organizations.

Yet, in 1986, the National Organization For Women (NOW) used RICO to sue pro-life groups, and the federal courts allowed this bizarre interpretation, finding in favor of NOW. It took nearly 20 years of expensive litigation before the Supreme Court overruled the lower courts.

Who should oppose hate crimes? All Americans who believe in equal justice under the law, who believe in freedom of expression, religion, thought and dissent, and who believe in the dignity and worth of all individuals. If you are a true civil libertarian, then you owe it to yourself, your children and your country to contact your senator ASAP and oppose this insidious bill.

David Wiedis is an attorney and COO of The Providence Forum, the West Conshohocken-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit scholarly and educational organization that preserves, defends, and advances the faith and values of our nation’s founding. The Providence Forum celebrates its 10th anniversary this year: www.ProvidenceForum.org

Jet flyover in lower Manhattan sets off panic

Good grief. I can't believe someone actually approved this "photo op". Some one's head was up their a$$ on this one. And yes, considering the money involved in this stunt, I used the $$ on purpose, not necessarily to mask using the word "ass".

What a stupid move. Can you imagine what was going through the minds of the people who saw this happening? People were fleeing from high rise buildings in absolute fear of their lives. Had I been there, I would have been right with them. Not a doubt in my mind.

The director of the White House military office, Louis Caldera, took the blame a few hours later. The airliner was a 747 that is called Air Force One when used by the president.

It's bad enough that someone, Caldera or whoever, had the bright idea to use NY landmarks as a photo op, but I'm also wondering just how much this cost. This dumb move needs to come out of some one's pocket and I don't mean the taxpayer's. It's bad enough that we're paying for Wall Street screw-ups, I don't want to pay for this dumb-a$$ move.

Has Caldera and the WH military office never heard of Photoshop? No, they can't use stock footage, they have to film something new, something exciting! They have to have stock footage they can show when Obama is flying in and out of NYC. They have to burn, and I do mean burn, thousands of dollars shooting film that will be used how? how often? For what reason?

This is one time I want to know who, why, how much, and who's paying for it.

Stupid, no, beyond stupid.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Update: I sent emails to my three Congressional employees expressing my anger over such an act. First, what it did to the people who saw the low-flying planes and relived the terror and horror of 9-11 as they ran from their buildings, and second, over what it cost in the light of today's economy.

Personally, if I were among those running from their buildings, reliving the terror of September 11, I would be looking for a lawyer to sue the socks off someone. Generally, I don't hold with suing "just because" someone endured a little stress, but this is beyond the pale. At the least, it was thoughtless and inconsiderate to inflict this nightmare on NYC without notice. At the worst, considering how we're being inundated every day by how bad the economy is, how long it's going to last, I think there might be some misuse of public funds involved.

As a result of someone's stupid, lame-brained, dumb-assed idea, the taxpayers are going to pay for the 747, two fighters, their crews, and any lawsuits that come out of this stupid stunt.

Maybe the expense caused by this exceedingly stupid idea should come out of the budget of the White House military office. Or better yet the pockets of the yahoos who came up with the idea, and who signed off on it.

Update 4-28: Apparently, it costs somewhere in the vicinity of $56,000 an hour to put AF1 in the air. I'm assuming that's the cost of the 747, fuel, crew, and everything else down to the last bag of peanuts on board.

How much did the NYC flight cost?

@ 11:52 am by Eric Zimmermann

How much did the NYC fly-over photo-op cost? If Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) recent musings are any clue, Republicans may be looking to seize on this. It's hard to know the exact cost without more details of the flight, but a 2006 report by the House Government Reform Committee gives us a clue.

The report was prepared at the request of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) while Democrats were in the minority. (Waxman is now chairman ofthe committee). Entitled "THE COST OF PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL POLITICAL TRAVEL," the report was clearly intended to criticize President Bush and Vice President Cheney's extensive travel around the country to campaign for Republicans in the midterm elections.

It reads in part: "This report assumes that flight operating costs are $56,518 per hour for Air Force One and $14,552 per hour for Air Force Two. These figures are based on the perhour cost figures cited by GAO for fiscal year 2000, adjusted for inflation."

Now the question becomes, how many hours was the plane in the air?

Looks like the report Waxman requested (to embarrass Bush?) may come back to bite the Dems in the butt.

Scientist Fired by Gore Calls Warming Fears ‘Mistaken’ 

Princeton University physicist Dr. Will Happer, who says he was fired by Vice President Al Gore for failing to adhere to Gore’s views on global warming, has now declared that man-made warming fears are “mistaken.”

Happer, who served as the director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, said, “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”

He said in 1993, “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy."

Now Happer has asked to join the more than 650 international scientists who have spoken out against man-made global warming fears and are cited in the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environmental and Public Works Committee ranking member James Inhofe, R-Okla.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer told the committee on Dec. 22.

President-elect Barack Obama’s choice as his top science adviser, Harvard University professor John Holdren, is a staunch believer in the dangers of man-made global warming and advised Gore on his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Dr. Happer has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

Sen. Inhofe said that the statements of prominent scientists like Happer who are willing to publicly dissent from climate fears strike a blow to the United Nations, Gore, and the media’s claims about global warming.

“The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less and less credible every day," Inhofe said.

Happer declared, “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect — for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow. Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past . . . 

“Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility.”

AP IMPACT: Wall Street still flying corporate jets

Dec 21, 5:19 PM (ET)

By STEVENSON JACOBS

NEW YORK (AP) - Crisscrossing the country in corporate jets may no longer fly in Detroit after car executives got a dressing down from Congress. But on Wall Street, the coveted executive perk has hardly been grounded.

Six financial firms that received billions in bailout dollars still own and operate fleets of jets to carry executives to company events and sometimes personal trips, according to an Associated Press review.

The jets serve as airborne offices, time-savers for executives for whom time is money - lots of money. And some firms are cutting back, either by selling the planes or leasing them.

Still, Wall Street's reliance of the rarified mode of travel has largely escaped the scorn poured on the Big Three automakers.

(AP) Graphic shows 2007 personal use of corporate aircraft by CEOs of financial firms that received...

Full Image

Insurance giant American International Group Inc. (AIG) (AIG), which has received about $150 billion in bailout money, has one of the largest fleets among bailout recipients, with seven planes, according to a review of Federal Aviation Administration records.

"Our aircraft are being used very sparingly right now," AIG spokesman Nicholas J. Ashooh said. "I'm not saying there's no use, but there's very minimal use."

To cut costs, AIG sold two jets earlier this year and is selling or canceling orders for four others.

Five other financial companies that got a combined $120 billion in government cash injections - Citigroup Inc. (C), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), Bank of America Corp. (BAC), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Morgan Stanley (MS) - all own aircraft for executive travel, according to regulatory filings earlier this year and interviews.

A cross-country trip in a mid-sized jet costs about $20,000 for fuel. Maintenance, storage and pilot fees put the cost far higher.

Many U.S. companies are giving up the perk. The inventory of used private jets was up 52 percent as of September, according to recent JPMorgan data on the health of the private aircraft industry.

A few big U.S. companies have shunned jet ownership. Chip maker Intel Corp. (INTC), for example, requires executives and employees to fly commercial. Intel occasionally charters jets for executives on overseas trips for security reasons, though.

For automakers, the public relations nightmare exploded last month when the chief executives of Ford, GM and Chrysler were criticized for flying on corporate jets to Washington to ask Congress for federal bailout money.

"Couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled, or something, to get here?" Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., asked the CEOs.

When the executives went back to Capitol Hill two weeks later for a second round of hearings, they traveled by car.

So why were Wall Street executives spared from the corporate-jet backlash? One reason is that they didn't have to go before Congress to request bailout money, so no one asked how they traveled to Washington.

But an AP review of Securities and Exchange Commission filings and FAA records offers a glimpse of Wall Street firms' ownership and use of private aircraft. Among the findings:

- CITIGROUP: Has a wholly owned subsidiary, Citiflight Inc., that handles air travel for executives. Citi spokeswoman Shannon Bell refused to comment on the size of the firm's fleet but said it has been reduced by two-thirds over the past eight years. FAA records show four jets and a helicopter registered to the company.

In 2007, then-CEO Charles Prince used company aircraft for personal trips for security reasons. Those trips cost the company $170,972 for that year. Current CEO Vikram Pandit began reimbursing the company for all personal travel on company planes since being appointed in November 2007.

Use of Citigroup's aircraft currently is confined to a "limited number of executives," Bell said. "Executives are encouraged to fly commercial whenever possible to reduce expenses."

- MORGAN STANLEY: Has reduced its executive jet fleet size from three planes to two since 2005, company spokesman Mark Lake said. FAA records show two Gulfstream G-Vs as registered to the company.

In 2007, CEO John Mack's personal use of company aircraft totaled $355,882, according to a February proxy filing. Mack is required to use company aircraft for personal trips for security reasons.

- JPMORGAN: Registered as the owner of four Gulfstream jets, including a 2007 ultra-long range flagship G550 model, FAA records show. A G550 ordered for delivery that year would have cost roughly $47.5 million.

CEO Jamie Dimon is required to use company aircraft for personal trips; In 2007, his personal use of company jets totaled $211,182, according to a May filing with the SEC. Company spokesman Joe Evangelisti refused to comment on whether the bank has changed its policy on corporate aircraft use since accepting $25 billion in TARP money.

- BANK OF AMERICA: Registered as the owner of nine planes, including four Gulfstreams, FAA records show. Company spokesman Scott Silvestri refused to say whether the company has changed its policy on corporate aircraft use since taking $15 billion in bailout money.

CEO Kenneth Lewis, also required to use company aircraft for personal trips, racked up $127,643 in such travel last year, according to a March filing with the SEC.

- WELLS FARGO: Owns a single jet that "is strictly for business purposes under appropriate circumstances," spokeswoman Julia Tunis Bernard said. "No (government) funds will be used for corporate jet travel," she added.

SEC rules require publicly held companies to disclose executives' personal use of corporate aircraft. But there's "a lot of gray area" in how they do it, said David Yermack, a finance professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University who has studied the matter.

"If you use the plane for a personal trip but make one business call, should you report it?" he said. "Or if you're playing golf with potential business partners, does a company report that as business or personal?"

As mounting losses force companies to cut costs, some are becoming stingier about personal use of the company plane. Merrill Lynch & Co. (MERPO), for example, has banned such trips, according to company filings.

Experts say other companies that took bailout money will probably follow suit.

"The personal use of these planes is virtually indefensible at this point," said Patrick McGurn, special counsel at shareholder advisory firm RiskMetrics Group. "Once you're on the federal dole, the pressure is going to become immense on these firms to cut these costs."

Private jet manufacturers say the debate over executive travel has been overblown.

"What people don't understand is that business jets are mobile offices," said Robert N. Baugniet, Gulfstream's director of corporate communications. "If time has any value to you, then you'll understand why people use business jets."

He said the dustup hasn't hurt orders for new planes.

Still, some firms have avoided corporate jet ownership. Goldman Sachs Group, whose executives in past years have been among the highest-paid in the industry, has never owned its own aircraft since going public in 1999, spokesman Michael DuVally said.

The company does make private planes available to some executives through a fractional jet agreement, a timeshare-style arrangement, according to filings. Duvally refused to say how much the company spends on its fractional agreement.

Wary of being perceived as opulent, most companies fly in unmarked jets. Aviation buffs can usually track planes over the Internet using aircraft tail numbers. But many companies, including AIG and Citigroup, have blocked the public's ability to do so for security reasons.

Some corporate chieftains make no excuses for flying the private skies.

After years of railing against such costs, billionaire investor and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRKA) CEO Warren Buffet broke down in 1989 and bought a Gulfstream IV-SP using $9.7 million in company funds. He named the aircraft "The Indefensible."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do I really need to say anything? Wall Street takes our money, then continues to bleed money by using corporate jets. Now, look, if I had a business, and the business were profitable enough (or shoot, I was just rich enough) to purchase, maintain, and operate a private airplane, I'd have one too. It's got to be the best way to travel. No going through TSR lines, comfortable seating, plenty of legroom, and travel on your timetable instead of the airlines.

But, when your business is in danger of going under, and especially when you take public money to keep it afloat, you have to show that you are cutting costs and trying to economize. Flying commercial is cheaper than flying privately, even if you have to fly on someone else's schedule. 

AIG had that lesson shown to them. Remember, they were scheduled to have a retreat at a resort spa that was going to cost thousands? And this was after they got emergency bailout money. Only after the ....uh, news...about the retreat hit the fan, was it canceled. AIG didn't look so good in the glare of the spotlight when it was found out that the execs planned to continue the retrreat. Had it been canceled when money got tight (meaning before Washington came across with the cash to save their buns), AIG would have looked a whole lot better.

I keep saying perception is everything. If Wall Street, Detroit, and anybody else going before Congress for their handout flies to Washington in a private jet, or doesn't make the effort to cut costs, the public just won't buy that they need the money. 

In these economic times, the average, and even the not so average wage earner has to cut back somewhere. We don't want to see a business go hat in hand to Washington begging for a handout so they can stay in business, but fly there in private jets, stay at 5-star hotels, use limos while in Washington, all the while planning a corporate retreat, planning to payout the alphabets (CEO, CFO, etc) severance packages and so on. It's just not prudent to continue on as if nothing changed. The company has to cut costs, fly commercial, stay at the local Howard Johnson's, and use public transportation go Capitol Hill. 

If you want the public's money, you gotta play the game. Sorry, but them's the rules. We've all had to play the game at some time in our career, or in our lives, why should Wall Street, Detroit, or any other entity that comes begging to the public fountain be any different? 

IRS Is Considering Rule That Would Bar Public Employee Retirements Before Age 55

From The Las Vegas Review-Journal, September 22

CARSON CITY, NV – A major change proposed by the IRS for public pension plans, including Nevada's public employee retirement system, could eliminate early retirement pay for government employees in less than two years.

A new regulation the agency is pursuing would prohibit most public pension plans from allowing participants to retire and collect benefits earlier than age 55, with a preferred retirement age of 62. This would cover everyone from teachers to police to city and state workers in Nevada and across the country.

The Nevada Public Employees' Retirement System, for example, allows most participants to retire and receive benefits at any age after 30 years of service. Police and firefighters can retire even earlier.

The IRS regulation, which public pension systems have been fighting since it was first proposed, would end such a practice. The IRS has the ability to implement the rule because public pensions have tax deferral status given to them by the federal agency.

Labor unions and pension officials across the country, including Nevada, are fighting implementation of the rule. They are taking their case to Congress but are not sounding the alarm to their members just yet.

Others are welcoming the proposal as a modest but necessary reform.

A briefing paper on the proposed regulation prepared by officials with the city of Henderson says the impetus for the regulation is that the IRS believes a normal retirement age younger than 55 is not reasonable.

Workers covered under the Social Security program cannot receive full benefits now until they reach the age of 67.

The IRS regulation is set to take effect June 30, 2010, although a large number of national groups, from the Fraternal Order of Police to the National Education Association, asked in April for a delay in its implementation.

The IRS has not responded to the request, according to the Henderson briefing paper dated Aug. 11.

The state retirement system is questioning the new regulation as well.

Tina Leiss, operations officer for Nevada PERS, said the agency is waiting for more direction from the IRS on how this regulation would affect the Nevada retirement system before it reacts to the proposed regulation.

Employees in the state's retirement system are believed to have constitutional rights under the contracts clause to the benefits as they currently exist, she said. Any changes to the benefits for current participants could provoke lawsuits from employees or their associations, Leiss said.

"It's just not clear yet how this would affect any of the public pension plans," Leiss said.

The IRS regulation would apply to public pension plans such as PERS because they are tax qualified plans under the agency's regulations, she said. Such a designation provides tax benefits to participants who might otherwise have to pay taxes on their retirement contributions, Leiss said.

Dave Kallas, an official with the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, said he is fielding a number of calls from concerned police officers about the rule but suggested there is no immediate cause for alarm.

Public pension officials and other stakeholders are working with the IRS to come to an agreement on the issue, which was never intended to apply to public pensions in the first place, the union official said.

Kallas said it is his understanding that the legislation that prompted the IRS rule, a pension reform bill sponsored by Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, was aimed at private pensions and not intended to apply to public pension plans.

"I'm not worrying about this issue quite yet," Kallas said. "We have to wait and see what transpires over the next few months."

Public awareness of the potential IRS change to the nation's public pension systems has come at the same time as calls for reforms to the plans.

A study released earlier this month by the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce concludes that the government support of the public retirement system has become a drain on state and local government resources, leading to the underfunding of important programs such as education and transportation.

Hugh Anderson, vice president of the ABD&F Group at Merrill Lynch in Las Vegas and chairman of the chamber's government affairs committee, said the proposed IRS change is the right move.

A retirement age should better reflect today's demographic reality that people are living much longer, he said.

It is conceivable that a public employee could retire at age 55 with 30 years of service under today's rules and end up receiving retirement benefits for longer than the years worked, Anderson said.

"This whole demographic shift is here," he said. "It is no longer in the future. The baby boom generation is here and they are living a long time."

Withdrawals from personal retirement accounts are not permitted before age 59.5, so why should public employees be immediately entitled to retirement benefits at age 50 or 55, Anderson asked.

While there might be legitimate reasons why public pension rules should not be changed for those approaching retirement, ignoring the longevity issue puts the long-term viability of the public pensions at risk, he said.

A decision by the IRS to move forward could take the politically difficult decision out of the hands of elected officials, some of whom may be reluctant to implement such a reform, he said.

The development of the IRS regulation began about three years ago following passage of the pension reform legislation in Congress.

Those opposed to the new regulation are seeking help from Congress, circulating letters in both the House and Senate to get the IRS to hold off on the change.

Letters are also being sent to the Treasury secretary and the head of IRS suggesting the IRS overstepped its bounds and indicating that Congress never intended to give the agency such authority.

The Henderson memo states a public pension plan would completely comply with IRS regulations if the retirement age is set at 62.

But if a plan wants participants to receive benefits before they reach age 62, and no earlier than age 55, the plan administrator must prove to the IRS that such an age range is reasonably representative of the industry in which the covered workforce is employed.

A delay is being sought in the regulations in part because of concerns about the rights of those participating in the pension plans.

The memo states that when the Nevada Legislature made changes to the retirement system in 1989, a lawsuit arose and the state lost. The finding was that once an employee joins the PERS system, a contract is established and benefit levels, such as retirement after 30 years, cannot be taken away.

With the potential effective date of the IRS regulation nearly two years away, those now in public pension plans will have the opportunity to determine whether to pursue retirement to avoid the mandatory retirement age policy.

PERS has a $6.3 billion unfunded liability and $22 billion in assets. Nearly 104,000 state and local government workers and teachers and school staffers are PERS members.

An additional 37,000 retired workers are receiving benefits.

Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3900. proposed, would end such a practice.

~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting. This could effect my retirement plans if the IRS does implement this policy. 

I am under the Florida Retirement System, which is a qualified retirement plan. Anyone who is vested (six years of service) can retire. However, you lose 5% of your benefit for each year that falls short of the full retirement qualification. The longer you stay employed with an FRS provider (county, state, some cities and some municipalities, but no private providers) the more benefit you accrue over your career. "Normal" retirement is considered to be age 62, but there is no requirement to retire at that time or any time in Florida. Thanks to either George Smathers or George Pepper, former state senators, I can't remember which right now. 

Under the FRS, we have a provision under which we can retire "early", that is, before age 62. Anyone who has  30 years service in the FRS can retire with full benefits at any age. Certified employees (police, sheriff's deputies, and probably firefighters - I haven't had reason to look at their qualifications) can retire after 25 years service at any age. 

FRS has a program called the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP). It allows an employee who has 25 or 30 service years to enter the DROP. We have the option to defer entering the DROP program until age 57. I had to educate a friend in Human Relations that per FRS rules, I had until age 57. She had just told me that since I met the 30 year requirement last year, I now had only four possible years in the DROP. Wrongo, Mary Lou, as my late husband would say (why he said "Mary Lou, I have no idea, it's not my name). My friend (also not named Mary Lou), checked with FRS and found I was right, I had until age 57 to enter the DROP. My friend was right about one thing. If I wait until after age 57 to enter the DROP, I will lose a year for each year I defer. Why anyone would defer, I have no idea. It makes far too much sense to participate than to not. But that's just my opinion. 

The DROP program allows us to continue working at our jobs for up to five years. Teachers can work for six years. What happens when we enter the DROP is that we effectively retire, but we don't get our pensions for the time we are in the DROP. We continue to receive our paychecks and all benefits that we would if we had not entered the DROP. The only difference is that the FRS puts our pensions into a separate account where it begins to accumulate interest, and once a year, we get a COLA raise. When we finally retire, we start getting our checks, and we get the funds that have accumulated.

I checked into the FRS and was able to do some calculations that indicated that at my current pension projection, I will have over $197,000 in my pension if I were to remain in the DROP for five years. That's a nice little nest egg to look forward to.

I realized early on, the DROP is a good idea for the employee, especially if they wait until age 57. At that time, the employee gets the maximum they will get from their pension, unless they choose not to enter the DROP. I also realized that if you enter the DROP at age 57 and do the five years, you will retire at age 62, which is the "normal" retirement age. The employee is eligible to begin receiving (reduced) Social Security benefits as well as their pension. If they are so willing, they can defer taking the SS benefits until they reach the retirement age that is designated by SS for full benefits. In my case, age 67.

If I elect to enter the DROP at age 57 (and that is my intention), then retire age 62, I can then take another job for five years until I can get full SS benefits. Or continue working until age 72 and get even more SS benefits. I found that on the SSA.gov website. 

Under the DROP program offered by FRS, I will continue working until age 62. I recently checked with our Human Relations office and was told that if I go into the DROP, nothing will change, except on the FRS end. I did read our General Orders and found that should I enter the DROP, and at some point prior to the end of the five years change my mind, the agency will not accept my decision to drop out of the DROP. I have two options: to continue in the DROP until the end of the five years, or to terminate the DROP and leave my job. If I terminate, I will get any moneys that have accumulated and my pension, but my job will end. Under FRS rules, I could go to work for another FRS provider and then continue the DROP.

So, it seems that the IRS policy may be an effort to keep employees from retiring early. I'm guessing so that they will continue to have payroll taxes withdrawn so that the government will have that much more money available to pay for the programs in effect, future programs, and the bailout(s) our government got us into. Retirees do pay taxes, but on a much reduced level than they did as working employees.

It doesn't appear that this IRS plan will effect my plans as if I retire at age 57 and complete five years in the DROP, I will retire at age 62, which falls within the IRS policy change.

Does this policy change mean that the IRS wants FRS to eliminate any kind of "early" retirement? Or does it mean that FRS will have to change it's DROP age to 62 instead of 57? And then work another five years? Will it be better to enter the DROP before the policy goes into effect? 

On second look, it doesn't look like it will affect me, as I plan to "retire" for FRS purposes at age 57.  This rule appears to affect only those who go to work in the public sector prior to age 25 (for 30 years of service) or age 30 (for 25 years of service). A lot of people start working for government agencies before age 30, much less age 25. It can effect a lot more people down the road than it will affect those of us approaching retirement. Of course, with the economy the way it is, and as bad as it has the potential to become, a lot of people will defer retirement anyway simply because they will not be able to afford to live on their pension.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the IRS will do. Will the IRS apply this only to private pensions as it was meant? Or will the interpretation that seems to be made to include public sector pensions?

Stay tuned.