Y'all have to go see this movie!
I don't often go see movies in the cinema because of several things; I like to drink beer and mess with Trey and make him go Mmmmmaaahh! I'm trying to watch the movie! while watching movies and those are just not good things to do in a cinema. So we do them at home. Also don't you think the movie watching experience is enhanced by snuggling with a shirtless hunk? I know so! Try it and see! (but not with Trey)
The other two reasons we don't go to movies in the cinema very often is the cost- for two people $16? I can get a bottle of gin for only a little more than that! Or a bucket of chicken and a rental movie. and also there are very few new movies that I want to see badly enough to leave the house. Normally, for me to leave the house I have to get paid. I think the last cinema movie we saw was "Brokeback Mountain." The third reason is that most newer movies suck. I'm going to pay $16+, fight traffic, struggle for parking, and listen to people take inane phone calls in the film or shriek at each other to see moving cinematic masterpieces such as, um, "Deck the Halls?" Or "Santa Clause III". No, thank you.
But y'all have to go and see the movie that I linked to above, preferably with me, because it is only going to be like the second best movie of all time. Seriously. The last combination of Chabrol/ Rendell resulted in my absolute favourite movie of all time, La Ceremonie, which was like Hitchcock, but much better- Hitchcock never really got the motivation down all the way in all of his films, whereas Rendell's stories really have Psycho- level craziness. Hitchcock is great at setting up suspense and situations, but the characters are not so interesting. Anyway, I haven't read The Bridesmaid in a long time but it did have some seriously creepy people in it.
So on the work front- there are a few pieces of news.
A) I haven't finished my applications yet, I need to finish those this weekend and send them off. Not all my Letters of recommendation are in but I'm just going to go with what I have.
B) Latest news in Teacher Abuse: Perdue is going to (considering) cutting retiree health benefits to , um, zilch. (see Article)
I'm not going to have you read the entire article if you con't care to, but I just want to point a few things out. Unlike, for example, GM which has many many more retired workers than current employees, we have about 4 times as many active workers as retirees. That's a very healthy ratio.
$1.5 billion estimated per year out of this year's budget of 18.6 billion is very manageable, particularly considering that this guvner got reelected by crowing about how the government was in surplus. Georgia makes more money every year in taxes. Also, $1.5 Billion divided among $100,000 retirees is $15K per year per retiree. How are retired teachers expected to come up with this money?
Perdue considering cuts to state retiree benefitsRetired teachers, other state employees could lose promised health coverageBy Shannon McCaffreyASSOCIATED PRESS
ATLANTA - Georgia faces a mounting price tag that could reach $20 billion in the coming years to cover health benefits already promised to tens of thousands of retired teachers and other state employees.
The cost is so staggering that Gov. Sonny Perdue is considering increasing premiums or eliminating health-care benefits altogether for state retirees, according to e-mails obtained by The Associated Press through an open records request.
Perdue spokesman Dan McLagan said the state is awaiting a report from an outside actuary detailing the full costs of the benefits over the next 30 years.
"At this time, it would be irresponsible to rule anything in or out," McLagan said Wednesday.
A draft analysis issued in March and obtained by AP through an open records request estimated the price tag for the non-pension health benefits at $17.6 billion over the next three decades. To put that figure in perspective, it's just $1 billion less than the state's total budget this fiscal year.
Another estimate placed the cost at between $15 billion and $20 billion. The draft report said that an annual contribution of $1.5 billion is needed to fund the benefits.
The cost of retiree health care and other non-pension benefits - like vision, dental and life insurance - is coming to light in Georgia and other states because of new standards from the federal Government Accounting Standards Board. They require that states provide a look at future costs of retiree benefits, initially as a footnote on the state budget next year. The rules do not require states to come up with the money all at once. Instead, they're designed to provide greater transparency to the mounting costs of benefits for public employees. Those benefits seem certain to grow even more as baby boomers retire.
There are more than 414,000 active and retired state employees in Georgia. About 100,000 retirees are on the state health benefit plan, state officials said.
Parry Young, a credit analyst at Standard and Poor's, called the non-pension benefits "a runaway train."
"This may be the fastest growing component of any government's budget and states may discover that these benefits are not at a level that's sustainable," Young said.
Young said that Georgia is in relatively good shape because the state's pension plan is on solid fiscal footing. Some other states are facing pension shortfalls as well.
Still, the failure of states to show that they have a plan in place to pay for non-pension health benefits could hurt their bond ratings, which would impact the rate at which they borrow money. Georgia currently enjoys a AAA rating from Standard and Poor's, one of only nine states to earn the highest rating.
McLagan said that Perdue has assembled a group of experts to study the potential budget impact and the best ways to comply with the new rules.
Placing aside $1.5 billion annually for a fund to pay for the benefits could make Wall Street happy. But that money won't be easy to come by. Revenues have shown recent signs of slowing in Georgia, and state lawmakers in Perdue's own Republican party are clamoring to enact more tax cuts.
Cutting benefits for retirees in Georgia could also be politically tricky for Perdue, who has said he wants to make the state more attractive for senior citizens flocking to neighboring Florida. During this year's re-election campaign, the governor pledged to eliminate the state income tax on retirement income.
Key state lawmakers involved in the budget process said they don't expect retiree benefits to be slashed.
"I don't think that will happen," said state Sen. Jack Hill, R-Reidsville, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
That's not easing the worry of state employees. The issue has become a hot topic in e-mails fired back and forth between teachers.
"We don't want the state to balance their books on the backs of educators, retired or current," said Tim Callahan, of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators.
An Oct. 5, 2005, e-mail from Neal Childers, then legal counsel of the state Department of Community Health, said that he had been instructed to prepare draft legislation authorizing the state to set different premiums for retirees than for current state employees.
Childers also went on to say in that e-mail that the state Office of Planning and Budget "is now considering elimination of benefits."
And Perdue appears to be actively involved in the process. A Nov. 30, 2005, e-mail from another health department employee, Carie Summers, said that Perdue asked in a budget hearing when the state would be getting an opinion from the Attorney General's Office on benefit changes for retirees.
The question remains as to what the state may legally do to change benefits for its retirees.
In November 2005, Tim Burgess, then-commissioner of the Department of Community Health, asked the Attorney General's Office for "advice regarding the nature and scope of the state's legal obligation to provide health benefits to retirees under Georgia law."
E-mails obtained by AP show that the draft analysis was completed in September but new DCH Commissioner Rhonda Medows withdrew the agency's request for the opinion.
Amanda Seals, a spokeswoman for Medows, said that state lawyers were still refusing to turn over the opinion after 10 months of delays, prompting the commissioner to withdraw the request.
It was not immediately clear what the opinion said.
*****
AT A GLANCE: Georgia is tallying the future cost of paying for retiree health benefits as required by the Government Accounting Standards Board. Early estimates expect the costs to range from $15 to $20 billion over 30 years.What it means: Failure of the state to outline how it plans to pay for the ballooning benefits could hurt the state's credit rating. The Perdue administration is weighing cuts to benefits for retirees as it considers its options, but says no decision has been made.What's next: The state is awaiting a study from an outside actuary which will pinpoint Georgia's liability over the next 30 years. Officials must then decide how to fund those costs.
Today I told the students, Every time you complain, you get a pimple.
The other two reasons we don't go to movies in the cinema very often is the cost- for two people $16? I can get a bottle of gin for only a little more than that! Or a bucket of chicken and a rental movie. and also there are very few new movies that I want to see badly enough to leave the house. Normally, for me to leave the house I have to get paid. I think the last cinema movie we saw was "Brokeback Mountain." The third reason is that most newer movies suck. I'm going to pay $16+, fight traffic, struggle for parking, and listen to people take inane phone calls in the film or shriek at each other to see moving cinematic masterpieces such as, um, "Deck the Halls?" Or "Santa Clause III". No, thank you.
But y'all have to go and see the movie that I linked to above, preferably with me, because it is only going to be like the second best movie of all time. Seriously. The last combination of Chabrol/ Rendell resulted in my absolute favourite movie of all time, La Ceremonie, which was like Hitchcock, but much better- Hitchcock never really got the motivation down all the way in all of his films, whereas Rendell's stories really have Psycho- level craziness. Hitchcock is great at setting up suspense and situations, but the characters are not so interesting. Anyway, I haven't read The Bridesmaid in a long time but it did have some seriously creepy people in it.
So on the work front- there are a few pieces of news.
A) I haven't finished my applications yet, I need to finish those this weekend and send them off. Not all my Letters of recommendation are in but I'm just going to go with what I have.
B) Latest news in Teacher Abuse: Perdue is going to (considering) cutting retiree health benefits to , um, zilch. (see Article)
I'm not going to have you read the entire article if you con't care to, but I just want to point a few things out. Unlike, for example, GM which has many many more retired workers than current employees, we have about 4 times as many active workers as retirees. That's a very healthy ratio.
$1.5 billion estimated per year out of this year's budget of 18.6 billion is very manageable, particularly considering that this guvner got reelected by crowing about how the government was in surplus. Georgia makes more money every year in taxes. Also, $1.5 Billion divided among $100,000 retirees is $15K per year per retiree. How are retired teachers expected to come up with this money?
Perdue considering cuts to state retiree benefitsRetired teachers, other state employees could lose promised health coverageBy Shannon McCaffreyASSOCIATED PRESS
ATLANTA - Georgia faces a mounting price tag that could reach $20 billion in the coming years to cover health benefits already promised to tens of thousands of retired teachers and other state employees.
The cost is so staggering that Gov. Sonny Perdue is considering increasing premiums or eliminating health-care benefits altogether for state retirees, according to e-mails obtained by The Associated Press through an open records request.
Perdue spokesman Dan McLagan said the state is awaiting a report from an outside actuary detailing the full costs of the benefits over the next 30 years.
"At this time, it would be irresponsible to rule anything in or out," McLagan said Wednesday.
A draft analysis issued in March and obtained by AP through an open records request estimated the price tag for the non-pension health benefits at $17.6 billion over the next three decades. To put that figure in perspective, it's just $1 billion less than the state's total budget this fiscal year.
Another estimate placed the cost at between $15 billion and $20 billion. The draft report said that an annual contribution of $1.5 billion is needed to fund the benefits.
The cost of retiree health care and other non-pension benefits - like vision, dental and life insurance - is coming to light in Georgia and other states because of new standards from the federal Government Accounting Standards Board. They require that states provide a look at future costs of retiree benefits, initially as a footnote on the state budget next year. The rules do not require states to come up with the money all at once. Instead, they're designed to provide greater transparency to the mounting costs of benefits for public employees. Those benefits seem certain to grow even more as baby boomers retire.
There are more than 414,000 active and retired state employees in Georgia. About 100,000 retirees are on the state health benefit plan, state officials said.
Parry Young, a credit analyst at Standard and Poor's, called the non-pension benefits "a runaway train."
"This may be the fastest growing component of any government's budget and states may discover that these benefits are not at a level that's sustainable," Young said.
Young said that Georgia is in relatively good shape because the state's pension plan is on solid fiscal footing. Some other states are facing pension shortfalls as well.
Still, the failure of states to show that they have a plan in place to pay for non-pension health benefits could hurt their bond ratings, which would impact the rate at which they borrow money. Georgia currently enjoys a AAA rating from Standard and Poor's, one of only nine states to earn the highest rating.
McLagan said that Perdue has assembled a group of experts to study the potential budget impact and the best ways to comply with the new rules.
Placing aside $1.5 billion annually for a fund to pay for the benefits could make Wall Street happy. But that money won't be easy to come by. Revenues have shown recent signs of slowing in Georgia, and state lawmakers in Perdue's own Republican party are clamoring to enact more tax cuts.
Cutting benefits for retirees in Georgia could also be politically tricky for Perdue, who has said he wants to make the state more attractive for senior citizens flocking to neighboring Florida. During this year's re-election campaign, the governor pledged to eliminate the state income tax on retirement income.
Key state lawmakers involved in the budget process said they don't expect retiree benefits to be slashed.
"I don't think that will happen," said state Sen. Jack Hill, R-Reidsville, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
That's not easing the worry of state employees. The issue has become a hot topic in e-mails fired back and forth between teachers.
"We don't want the state to balance their books on the backs of educators, retired or current," said Tim Callahan, of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators.
An Oct. 5, 2005, e-mail from Neal Childers, then legal counsel of the state Department of Community Health, said that he had been instructed to prepare draft legislation authorizing the state to set different premiums for retirees than for current state employees.
Childers also went on to say in that e-mail that the state Office of Planning and Budget "is now considering elimination of benefits."
And Perdue appears to be actively involved in the process. A Nov. 30, 2005, e-mail from another health department employee, Carie Summers, said that Perdue asked in a budget hearing when the state would be getting an opinion from the Attorney General's Office on benefit changes for retirees.
The question remains as to what the state may legally do to change benefits for its retirees.
In November 2005, Tim Burgess, then-commissioner of the Department of Community Health, asked the Attorney General's Office for "advice regarding the nature and scope of the state's legal obligation to provide health benefits to retirees under Georgia law."
E-mails obtained by AP show that the draft analysis was completed in September but new DCH Commissioner Rhonda Medows withdrew the agency's request for the opinion.
Amanda Seals, a spokeswoman for Medows, said that state lawyers were still refusing to turn over the opinion after 10 months of delays, prompting the commissioner to withdraw the request.
It was not immediately clear what the opinion said.
*****
AT A GLANCE: Georgia is tallying the future cost of paying for retiree health benefits as required by the Government Accounting Standards Board. Early estimates expect the costs to range from $15 to $20 billion over 30 years.What it means: Failure of the state to outline how it plans to pay for the ballooning benefits could hurt the state's credit rating. The Perdue administration is weighing cuts to benefits for retirees as it considers its options, but says no decision has been made.What's next: The state is awaiting a study from an outside actuary which will pinpoint Georgia's liability over the next 30 years. Officials must then decide how to fund those costs.
Today I told the students, Every time you complain, you get a pimple.
posted by SavageATL at 9:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home