Disneyland Annual Pass holders face dramatically higher prices……..

To most people this is such a “delightful” place they will be foolish enough to pay for those foreign workers brought in to replace American workers. And anyone who can read people understands when a mound of cash is laid in front of you take it.

Disney is raising prices for annual pass holders to its Disneyland and California Adventure parks.

An anytime pass, which used to cost $779, now costs $1,049. That pass comes with free parking and unlimited downloads of park photos.

Disney spokeswoman Suzi Brown told the Los Angeles Times a restricted version of the pass sells for $849 but has two weeks of blackout days, including the Christmas and New Year’s holiday seasons, the park’s most popular dates. The park says the move is meant to prevent overcrowding.

Prices of most other annual passes also went up.

The anytime-anywhere pass, good any day at parks in Anaheim, California, and Florida, rose 31 percent to $1,439.

Parking went up $1 to $18, but the single-day admission price of $99 remained the same.

Bank fined for making client remove shoes

A Brazilian bank didn’t have a leg to stand on when it forced a client to remove his shoes and do business in his socks, a judge ruled.

Many banks in crime-ridden Brazil have tight security with metal detectors and, on entering the Caixa Economica Federal (CEF) branch in Sao Paulo state, Lourivaldo de Santana was asked to empty his pockets.

But after the watch, phone and other small items, one of the guards “asked him also to remove his boots and then said that if he wanted to enter he’d have to go in socks,” the Sao Paulo federal court spokesman said Tuesday.

Meanwhile, “a crowd was building up at the bank entrance because of the turmoil that occurred.”

De Santana concluded his visit shoeless, but not without suffering “humiliation,” according to a judge, who ordered he be paid 5,000 reais, or about $1,430, in damages.

This was not the only recent clothing-related ruckus at a Brazilian bank.

O Dia newspaper reported Wednesday that a woman in the southwestern Mato Grosso do Sul state got so fed up with not being cleared to pass through the metal detector that she stripped entirely.

“I took off my clothes in a sign of protest,” she was quoted as saying, alongside a picture of her at the bank in her underwear. She now faces indecency charges, O Dia reported.

Removing shoes happens at the Airports every day…….

Dipshidiot of the day: Man gets long prison term, then gets married at courthouse

A man sentenced to at least 20 years in prison in one Pennsylvania courtroom has followed that up by walking into another courtroom to marry his girlfriend.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports (http://bit.ly/1KR1CmH ) 47-year-old Greg Howard was sentenced Thursday in Westmoreland County Court for robbing and assaulting an elderly woman during a home invasion.

Prosecutors say the Monessen man and two other people got into the woman’s house by pretending to be delivering furniture. Witnesses say they took $13,000 and jewelry and left her on her bed with her ankles and wrists bound.

Howard’s closing argument had referenced Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny. But he was silent at sentencing.

He was allowed to wear civilian clothes instead of a prison jumpsuit. He remained shackled during a brief wedding attended by five deputies and the bride’s baby.

5 deputies to attend a wedding for a long term prisoner? Seriously? Imagine the cost for a non-criminal function.

I worked as a Bailiff for 6 years and the sheriff’s office had a policy we do not provide security for weddings, we had too many other things to provide security for and we were always short staffed. So there was a few times some of these bleeding heart judges held weddings without security. Amazing some of them survived.

California weighs banning concealed handguns on campuses

California is once again considering a move to tighten its restrictions on guns with a ban on the concealed carry of handguns at colleges and schools.

The Sacramento Bee reports Saturday Gov. Jerry Brown is considering the legislation as the nation mourns the school shooting in Roseburg, Oregon that left 10 people dead, including the gunman.

Current California law makes it illegal to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school or on a college campus without permission from administrators. But it includes exemptions for retired law enforcement officers and those with concealed carry permits.

The bill approved by lawmakers in early September would expand the prohibition of guns on school and college grounds to include weapons allowed with concealed carry permits.

Brown has until Oct. 11 to act.

How would this legislation stop what happened in Oregon? Just another agenda driven kneejerk reaction

It was easier to be thin 20 years ago

It’s hard out there for millennials: the economy tanked, the Earth is getting hotter, sometimes Facebook crashes. Oh, and they’ll end up fatter than people 20 to 40 years ago even if they eat and exercise the same, according to a study inObesity Research & Clinical PracticeThe Atlanticreports that after looking at data from nearly 51,000 Americans, researchers concluded that a person in 2006 eating and exercising the same as someone of an identical age in 1988 had a BMI about 2.3 points higher, meaning they’d be about 10% heavier. “Our study results suggest that if you are 25, you’d have to eat even less and exercise more than those older to prevent gaining weight,” Jennifer Kuk of York University in Toronto says in the story.

Researchers have three thoughts on why that could be, the Atlantic reports. First, we’re exposed to more chemicals nowadays, which could be inducing weight gain. Second, prescription drug use is way up, and antidepressants especially have been linked to weight gain. Finally, hormones, antibiotics, or artificial sweeteners in meat and other foods could be changing the bacteria in our guts and hampering weight loss. Kuk says this research is a good reason to be more empathetic to people of all body types. “Ultimately, maintaining a healthy body weight is now more challenging than ever,” she says in a York press release. (Good news: The “obesity gene” may have an off switch.)

San Francisco walls spray back pee…….

San Francisco officials say they plan to double the number of walls painted with pee-repellent paint because the program to stop people from peeing in public places is working.

Public Works Director Mohammed Nuru tells the San Francisco Chronicle eight more walls will be painted next week in three of the most problematic neighborhoods.

In July, the public works department painted nine walls in the Tenderloin, the Mission and South of Market neighborhoods.

The surfaces make urine bounce right back onto the shoes and pants of unsuspecting relief-seekers.

The paint was first used in Hamburg, Germany, where beer drinkers often can’t be bothered to find a bathroom.

Signs over the walls read, “Hold it! This wall is not a public restroom. Please respect San Francisco and seek relief in an appropriate place.”

Now more on the not so affordable care act (obummercare)

From Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side to key Republican lawmakers in Washington, including Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, there is a growing bipartisan push to repeal the so-called “Cadillac Tax” on high-cost health insurance plans that is due to kick in in 2018 under the Affordable Care Act

The problem is that people who really understand healthcare economics – including those who have supported and those who have opposed Obamacare – say repealing the tax is a terrible idea.

This week, 101 economists and policy analysts from across the ideological spectrum sent a letter to top lawmakers on the tax-writing committees of both chambers of congress urging them to rethink proposals to do away with it

The Cadillac Tax is a 40 percent excise tax on the health insurance plans that employers provide to their workers. It is paid on each dollar spent on a plan over specified annual maximums – currently $10,200 for individual plans and $27,500 for family plans. It gets its name from the fact that any plan that costs that much is typically a top of the line offering, with low or non-existent deductibles, low co-pay, and few limits on the kind of care individuals can seek.

The current tax system, under which health insurance benefits are not taxable the way ordinary compensation is, has driven employers to channel more of their spending on personnel into health benefits than they otherwise would. And that, the economists argue, is a problem.

“For decades, economists and health policy experts of all political persuasions have agreed that the unlimited exclusion of employer-financed health insurance from income and payroll taxes is economically inefficient and regressive,” they write. “The Affordable Care Act established an excise tax on high-cost health plans (the so-called ‘Cadillac tax’) to address these issues.”

Part of the problem is that when consumers of health care services are unaffected by the cost of the services they seek, they will often consume more than they actually need. They will also be insensitive to pricing, which means that providers can hike their fees with little fear that consumers will take their business elsewhere, or simply stop purchasing what they are selling.

This has the effect of driving up health care costs at the same time that it keeps workers’ compensation lower than it would otherwise be if employers weren’t being offered a tax-free way to raise compensation levels.

The Cadillac tax will help curtail the growth of private health insurance premiums by encouraging employers to limit the costs of plans to the tax-free amount,” the letters signatories write. “The excise tax will discourage the provision of insurance that covers such a large proportion of health care spending that consumers have little incentive to insist on cost-effective care and providers have little incentive to provide it.”

“In addition, they add, “As employers redesign health insurance plans to hold costs within the tax-free amount, cash wages or other fringe benefits will increase. Furthermore, repealing the Cadillac tax would add directly to the federal budget deficit, an estimated $91 billion over the next decade according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.”

The letter was organized by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities but was signed by individuals affiliated with more conservative organizations, including the American Enterprise Institute and non-partisan organizations, such as the Tax Policy Center.

How much effect it will have is unclear. Repeal of the Cadillac Tax is attractive to conservatives because 1) it’s a tax and 2) it’s part of Obamacare. For Democrats, it’s seen as chipping away at a major tax benefit that is seen as benefiting many workers – even those who don’t benefit from top of the line employer provided health insurance.

What should be clear is that the people who know more about how the tax code and healthcare economics than any lawmaker on Capitol Hill think the Cadillac Tax ought to be allowed to go into effect