Last week, I wrote that I am “hoping to share them [my library] and knowledge with my progeny”. Interestingly enough, I ended up having one of those conversations with my third grade son just a couple of days after I wrote the column.
My son, being in the third grade, just had his first end of grade (EOG) tests. I certainly have no objection to having EOG tests. The concept is nothing new. I had plenty of tests when I was in school. The EOG is just one more comprehensive test that is administered. If a child paid attention in school all year long, taking an EOG test is nothing to be feared. The way I see it, testing measures achievement, both by the student and by the pedagogical staff.
That, however, is not the point of my rant today. What came out of the EOG testing that I found curious and led to a discussion about reality, economics, government, and life was the topic of breakfast. Our nine-year-old informed us that he wanted to eat breakfast at school on the days the tests were being administered. Not only was it encouraged by the teachers at the school that the students should have a good night’s rest, but also a decent breakfast in the morning. I am in agreement with both ideas. The interesting thing was that the school would be offering breakfast to all students, not just those who were “economically disadvantaged” on test days. I was informed that breakfast was “free”.
Personally, I understand the need to serve a cafeteria style lunch at large schools. At Selma Elementary School, 90% of students get either free or reduced price lunch. We don’t qualify for free or reduced pricing on lunch, nor would we accept it if we did. A full priced lunch is only $2. If you can’t afford $2 a day for lunch, you either need to rethink the priorities of your budget or you probably should not be having children. When I was in elementary school, I remember taking a metal lunch box with a simple peanut butter and jelly sandwich, some cheese puffs, and a bit of milk in a thermos. I was happy with that, and it was what my family could afford sometimes. We send our son with a home packed lunch every day, not out of necessity, but out of choice.
School lunch is heavily subsidized by the federal government. The average school lunch costs $2.66 to prepare, according to the research I just did (and those are outdated figures). Add to that the costs of running a cafeteria, staff, electricity, and water (and I am sure there are many other costs) and it is a significant amount of money. The federal government subsidized $2.47 for every free lunch (again, probably an outdated number). Ironically, full priced lunches are only subsidized $1.90, so schools get more federal funds for free or reduced lunches. Besides tying the amounts of free and reduced lunches to Title 1 federal funds, you can now see why schools push so hard for as many students to get on the free and reduced lunch programs at your local public schools. In 2011, the federal government spent $14.3 billion just on the school lunch program, not that the Constitution allows for such expenditures. Politicians, however, never let that stand in their way.
Obviously, free lunches are not free. Someone has to pay for them, and that is the US taxpayer. We pay for the school lunch program at the federal level, the state level, and the local level, so we are on the hook for the cost one way or another. If I pay full cost, we pay more at the local levels of government for lunch. If we get reduced or “free” cost lunch, we pay more at the federal level.
A gallon of milk costs approximately $3.50 right now. A box of Wal-Mart store brand cereal can be as cheap as $1, maybe $2 if you get a larger box of a more popular variety. I know, since I do my own shopping. A box of cereal will certainly last at least a week for one child. That means breakfast will cost as low as $4.50 per week. At less than $5 a week, I still cannot fathom the need for a regular school breakfast program in addition to a school lunch program. If you can’t afford $5 a week for your child to eat breakfast at home, you need to either rethink the priorities of your budget or you probably should not be reproducing.
I had the discussion with my nine-year-old that the breakfast was not actually free. Taxpayers are picking up the tab for his newly found breakfast. Regardless of how many times he insisted that the meal was free, I corrected him on that concept. I am paying for his breakfast one way or another, and I hope that he grasped the concept.
We all love our children, but there are no guarantees of equality of outcome in either one’s ability to provide meals or even in test scores. Children can still live on a simple, home provided meal, and be happy. To be honest, I wish that more parents took the personal responsibility to provide for their own children more seriously and the school cafeteria trash cans were overflowing with brown paper bags from home packed lunches and even breakfast items rather than letting the taxpayers pick up the cost.
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Friday, June 01, 2012
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Column for Dec. 22, 2011
I can’t believe the piece of junk mail I got today. I get plenty of solicitations for credit cards, usually more than one a day. I get junk mail from my mortgage company, my life insurance company, travel agencies, car dealers, lawyers, and the list goes on. Today I got one that insulted my sensibilities.
My employer supplies me with a Blackberry, with which they expect me to use for work communications. I use it heavily for email and telephone calls. Several years ago I got another cell phone, which was a prepaid wireless phone. At the time I was dating a woman who loved to keep in touch by text messaging. Since I only had my work phone, I obtained another phone for personal use. Fortunately that relationship only lasted about three weeks. She was a liberal, non-practicing, Catholic who thought that Hillary Clinton was the greatest candidate for President ever. I am a right wing, conservative Protestant who thinks that Hillary Clinton is just about the Anti-Christ. For four years now I have kept that same prepaid phone going. My right wing, conservative, Protestant wife whom I met just one week after ending the relationship with the Clinton loving liberal carries that phone and has since we were dating.
Having a cell phone is not a constitutional right. I pay for my own Tracfone and have for years. If I want another cell phone, I will have to pay for it out of my own pocket. Most people I know, rich or poor, that have personal cell phones pay for them themselves. That is the way it ought to be. Though a great convenience, cell phones are not something to which anyone in America is entitled. For that matter, neither are automobiles, internet service, personal computers, or gourmet bread and ice cream.
For several years, I have frustratedly watched television commercials for Assurance Wireless. They provide free cell phones to people who are on Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, live in federal public (Section 8) housing, get free school lunch, get home energy assistance, or just plain have a low, qualifying income. The services are paid for by the federal government via the Universal Service Fund program. Make no mistake, you pay for this fund.
In researching the fund, I found “The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996...As of the first quarter of 2011, the USF fee, which changes quarterly, equals 15.5 percent of a telecom company's interstate and end-user revenues.” If a telecommunications company pays the fees, you are the ones really paying for it, since fees are passed on to you, the consumer. Telecommunication fees are nothing new and consumers have been paying for them since the 1930’s.
The USF has been broadened to include internet access. Now we are paying to subsidize high speed internet to “under served rural areas” and for low income people. In reading, I found that “the FCC approved a six-year transfer process that would transition money from the Universal Service Fund to a new $4.5 billion a year Connect America Fund that will support the expansion of broadband services to areas that don't have broadband access yet.” So we will be paying for people who choose to live in the boondocks to have fast internet.
When my wife and I go shopping, we count the cost of groceries to make sure that we come within budget. It is infuriating to see a young, unmarried couple that have a toddler with another baby on the way pay for groceries with a food stamp card. We saw one woman get the most expensive bread in the store and a couple of gallons of milk pay for it with a WIC voucher, some of her other groceries with a food stamp card, and the remainder of the groceries with a bank debit card while talking on a cell phone. Here we were counting the costs of our own groceries still skimping on our own cell phone service, and paying full price for everything.
What is just as frustrating is that the companies who provide the free cell phone service make enough profit off from doing so to put on a full marketing campaign on national television and direct mailer solicitations. You and I are paying for it to happen, for people to get free groceries, and for people to have free cell phones. Is it just me, or is this not infuriating? How are people entitled to free cell phone service, which should be considered a luxury item, at our expense? Merry Christmas all year ‘round, I guess.
My employer supplies me with a Blackberry, with which they expect me to use for work communications. I use it heavily for email and telephone calls. Several years ago I got another cell phone, which was a prepaid wireless phone. At the time I was dating a woman who loved to keep in touch by text messaging. Since I only had my work phone, I obtained another phone for personal use. Fortunately that relationship only lasted about three weeks. She was a liberal, non-practicing, Catholic who thought that Hillary Clinton was the greatest candidate for President ever. I am a right wing, conservative Protestant who thinks that Hillary Clinton is just about the Anti-Christ. For four years now I have kept that same prepaid phone going. My right wing, conservative, Protestant wife whom I met just one week after ending the relationship with the Clinton loving liberal carries that phone and has since we were dating.
Having a cell phone is not a constitutional right. I pay for my own Tracfone and have for years. If I want another cell phone, I will have to pay for it out of my own pocket. Most people I know, rich or poor, that have personal cell phones pay for them themselves. That is the way it ought to be. Though a great convenience, cell phones are not something to which anyone in America is entitled. For that matter, neither are automobiles, internet service, personal computers, or gourmet bread and ice cream.
For several years, I have frustratedly watched television commercials for Assurance Wireless. They provide free cell phones to people who are on Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, live in federal public (Section 8) housing, get free school lunch, get home energy assistance, or just plain have a low, qualifying income. The services are paid for by the federal government via the Universal Service Fund program. Make no mistake, you pay for this fund.
In researching the fund, I found “The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996...As of the first quarter of 2011, the USF fee, which changes quarterly, equals 15.5 percent of a telecom company's interstate and end-user revenues.” If a telecommunications company pays the fees, you are the ones really paying for it, since fees are passed on to you, the consumer. Telecommunication fees are nothing new and consumers have been paying for them since the 1930’s.
The USF has been broadened to include internet access. Now we are paying to subsidize high speed internet to “under served rural areas” and for low income people. In reading, I found that “the FCC approved a six-year transfer process that would transition money from the Universal Service Fund to a new $4.5 billion a year Connect America Fund that will support the expansion of broadband services to areas that don't have broadband access yet.” So we will be paying for people who choose to live in the boondocks to have fast internet.
When my wife and I go shopping, we count the cost of groceries to make sure that we come within budget. It is infuriating to see a young, unmarried couple that have a toddler with another baby on the way pay for groceries with a food stamp card. We saw one woman get the most expensive bread in the store and a couple of gallons of milk pay for it with a WIC voucher, some of her other groceries with a food stamp card, and the remainder of the groceries with a bank debit card while talking on a cell phone. Here we were counting the costs of our own groceries still skimping on our own cell phone service, and paying full price for everything.
What is just as frustrating is that the companies who provide the free cell phone service make enough profit off from doing so to put on a full marketing campaign on national television and direct mailer solicitations. You and I are paying for it to happen, for people to get free groceries, and for people to have free cell phones. Is it just me, or is this not infuriating? How are people entitled to free cell phone service, which should be considered a luxury item, at our expense? Merry Christmas all year ‘round, I guess.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Column for Nov. 24, 2011
I am looking at the charter for The Town of Selma,. I am looking for its general contractor’s license or business development license therein. I am also reading through NC General Statues Chapter 160A, which specifies how towns are to operate. I am not a lawyer and won’t drag through every jot and tittle, but I don’t see the power of a town to become a venture capitalist. The only thing I have read that even remotely comes close is “A city may contract with and appropriate money to any person, association, or corporation, in order to carry out any public purpose that the city is authorized by law to engage in.” That would be a very broad interpretation.
I do see the power of a town government to regulate certain business, just not to create or subsidize them. Towns are given the right to levy taxes for various purposes, including “to provide public auditoriums, coliseums, and convention centers”, the key word being public. One statute (160A‑279) says, “Whenever a city or county is authorized to appropriate funds to any public or private entity which carries out a public purpose, the city or county may, in lieu of or in addition to the appropriation of funds, convey by private sale to such an entity any real or personal property which it owns; provided no property acquired by the exercise of eminent domain may be conveyed under this section; provided that no such conveyance may be made to a for‑profit corporation.”
In last week’s “The Selma News”, I read with interest the article on The Rudy Theater. The article did not seem clear on the ownership status of the theater, though the verbiage did mention "the Rudy Theater will transition from your company to the Town of Selma..." That leads me to believe that the theater is privately owned by them, not the town. Thus, I checked with one of our elected officials on the matter and verified this. It also seems that the concept of Selma becoming a theater owner, partner, or builder was something sprung upon the Town Council, which makes me wonder about some of the politics behind this whole plan. I am wary of the idea of a town of only 6,100 (according to the town’s own web site) going into debt to finance a sizable private business venture.
If the property belongs to the theater production company, why would the town consider using taxpayer money to renovate/expand/rebuild a private business? Though The Rudy is a nice thing to have in the town, I have a hard time believing that we generate enough tax revenue from either the theater or its patrons to pay for the public expenditure for its expansion. If we are looking at building a new facility, why? If Rudy Theatre Productions could afford to buy The Rudy and even do some renovations, they can build a new facility more to their liking themselves. For the town to consider both building a new facility and taking over the old is a double cost in that we will pay for the new construction plus for any renovations and upkeep of the old facility.
Just on principle alone, I would have a problem with the concept of the town paying for a private facility. Why would we subsidize the leisure activities of a few people? First, the majority of Rudy patrons are probably not local townspeople. I see buses come in from all over for their quality shows, and I doubt seriously that they heavily patronize our local establishments. Especially since, we have no restaurants to speak of in downtown any more, so we are not getting sales or meals tax revenue from them. Next, if the people are from out of town, why would the town subsidize residents of other municipalities to partake of their chosen leisure activities like live shows?
This is my major quibble with the building of sports facilities for football, basketball, and baseball teams. A sports team owner decides that he wants a nice, new stadium and threatens to leave town if he doesn’t get one. The town, state, and county involved generally capitulate and either perform major renovations (a la Five County Stadium) or build something new (like Charlotte, Minnesota, or other major sports areas) and the taxpayers are on the hook for millions of dollars to support the leisure activity of sports fans and for the employment of professional athletes. At least with major sports teams, the local economy generally sees a big benefit for hotels, restaurants, facility rent, naming rights, concessions, sales, local employment, etc.
I personally like to go to the firing range, but the town does not supply a shooting range for my enjoyment. There are more people who own firearms in Selma than go to the Rudy, I guarantee. Why would we not enjoy taxpayer subsidy for our recreation? Is it fair to subsidize one activity over another? For what purpose? The prestige of having a theater in our town, even if it is of little economic benefit? If we are going to subsidize businesses, since Selma chose to become "The Antique Mecca of the South", why would we not subsidize privately owned antique business to attract more patrons and boost sales tax revenues and the occupancy rate of downtown businesses? Why this one niche of business over others?
Let’s ask the citizens of Roanoke Rapids and Halifax County how the public expense of building a performance theater worked out for them. I drive to Roanoke Rapids regularly for business and pass by the empty theater often. They had a tenant with some major backing lined up and even performing regularly. Millions of dollars and several legal actions later, the town has ended up owning the entire complex and is deep in debt.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for allowing The Rudy to expand their own facility and am in support of even using the designated revenues set aside for marketing through The Johnston County Visitors Bureau to promote the theater along with other attractions in town. I am just not in favor of the town building their facility for them at taxpayer expense.
I do see the power of a town government to regulate certain business, just not to create or subsidize them. Towns are given the right to levy taxes for various purposes, including “to provide public auditoriums, coliseums, and convention centers”, the key word being public. One statute (160A‑279) says, “Whenever a city or county is authorized to appropriate funds to any public or private entity which carries out a public purpose, the city or county may, in lieu of or in addition to the appropriation of funds, convey by private sale to such an entity any real or personal property which it owns; provided no property acquired by the exercise of eminent domain may be conveyed under this section; provided that no such conveyance may be made to a for‑profit corporation.”
In last week’s “The Selma News”, I read with interest the article on The Rudy Theater. The article did not seem clear on the ownership status of the theater, though the verbiage did mention "the Rudy Theater will transition from your company to the Town of Selma..." That leads me to believe that the theater is privately owned by them, not the town. Thus, I checked with one of our elected officials on the matter and verified this. It also seems that the concept of Selma becoming a theater owner, partner, or builder was something sprung upon the Town Council, which makes me wonder about some of the politics behind this whole plan. I am wary of the idea of a town of only 6,100 (according to the town’s own web site) going into debt to finance a sizable private business venture.
If the property belongs to the theater production company, why would the town consider using taxpayer money to renovate/expand/rebuild a private business? Though The Rudy is a nice thing to have in the town, I have a hard time believing that we generate enough tax revenue from either the theater or its patrons to pay for the public expenditure for its expansion. If we are looking at building a new facility, why? If Rudy Theatre Productions could afford to buy The Rudy and even do some renovations, they can build a new facility more to their liking themselves. For the town to consider both building a new facility and taking over the old is a double cost in that we will pay for the new construction plus for any renovations and upkeep of the old facility.
Just on principle alone, I would have a problem with the concept of the town paying for a private facility. Why would we subsidize the leisure activities of a few people? First, the majority of Rudy patrons are probably not local townspeople. I see buses come in from all over for their quality shows, and I doubt seriously that they heavily patronize our local establishments. Especially since, we have no restaurants to speak of in downtown any more, so we are not getting sales or meals tax revenue from them. Next, if the people are from out of town, why would the town subsidize residents of other municipalities to partake of their chosen leisure activities like live shows?
This is my major quibble with the building of sports facilities for football, basketball, and baseball teams. A sports team owner decides that he wants a nice, new stadium and threatens to leave town if he doesn’t get one. The town, state, and county involved generally capitulate and either perform major renovations (a la Five County Stadium) or build something new (like Charlotte, Minnesota, or other major sports areas) and the taxpayers are on the hook for millions of dollars to support the leisure activity of sports fans and for the employment of professional athletes. At least with major sports teams, the local economy generally sees a big benefit for hotels, restaurants, facility rent, naming rights, concessions, sales, local employment, etc.
I personally like to go to the firing range, but the town does not supply a shooting range for my enjoyment. There are more people who own firearms in Selma than go to the Rudy, I guarantee. Why would we not enjoy taxpayer subsidy for our recreation? Is it fair to subsidize one activity over another? For what purpose? The prestige of having a theater in our town, even if it is of little economic benefit? If we are going to subsidize businesses, since Selma chose to become "The Antique Mecca of the South", why would we not subsidize privately owned antique business to attract more patrons and boost sales tax revenues and the occupancy rate of downtown businesses? Why this one niche of business over others?
Let’s ask the citizens of Roanoke Rapids and Halifax County how the public expense of building a performance theater worked out for them. I drive to Roanoke Rapids regularly for business and pass by the empty theater often. They had a tenant with some major backing lined up and even performing regularly. Millions of dollars and several legal actions later, the town has ended up owning the entire complex and is deep in debt.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for allowing The Rudy to expand their own facility and am in support of even using the designated revenues set aside for marketing through The Johnston County Visitors Bureau to promote the theater along with other attractions in town. I am just not in favor of the town building their facility for them at taxpayer expense.
Friday, July 01, 2011
Column for June 30, 2011
Governor Beverly Perdue plays hypocritical politics with no real logic sometimes. I have come to the conclusion that she is not looking out for the best interests of the citizens of North Carolina but is rather looking out for the interests of herself and those who may keep her in power. I realize that this is not exactly a newsflash, but though I disagree with Old Bev on a good number of things, I have been trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. There were a few things that she did that gave me a glimmer of hope that she may be better than I originally feared, but she has been choking off the hope I was holding.
When 75% of your electorate support something, you had better take notice. Three quarters of North Carolinians (so I have read) were fully in support of the idea of having to prove your identity when casting a ballot in the state. The last I checked, we were still a sovereign state (at least the last time I read the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution we were, anyway). As a free state, we can decide how we wish to run elections.
Governor Perdue has vetoed a bill requiring people to show official photo identification at the polls. She said, “North Carolinians who are eligible to vote have a constitutionally guaranteed right to cast their ballots, and no one should put up obstacles to citizens exercising that right...This bill, as written, will unnecessarily and unfairly disenfranchise many eligible and legitimate voters. The legislature should pass a less extreme bill that allows for other forms of identification, such as those permitted under federal law.”
You see, that is the problem. People who are eligible to vote should have to prove that they are eligible. I have to show a photo ID when I cash a check, use a credit card, purchase alcohol, apply for a passport, open a bank account, request government documents, get stopped by a police officer for speeding, apply for a job, or any host of different activities. Why should voting be any different?
The argument that we would unnecessarily and unfairly disenfranchise eligible and legitimate voters is a specious one and quite frankly, you can use that argument to fertilize your garden, if you know what I mean. I do not buy the idea for one minute that a legitimate voter would have any problem producing a valid photo ID, whether it is a passport, driver’s license, or a state issued ID card. The only possible reason to not want a photo ID requirement is that you actually support election fraud, non-citizens voting, and are hoping that people who have no business voting for your overly liberal ideals will cast multiple ballots for you under fictitious, fraudulent, multiple, illegitimate, or unverifiable names.
As to the argument that we should scale back any proposed law to meet federal law requirements, I again point to the fact that this is North Carolina, not the federal government. We set up our own laws and are not required to merely duplicate some other guidelines. Anybody who thinks that federal government regulation should trump our own autonomy has either lost touch with how our government should and can operate or is completely ignorant thereof.
The hypocritical part is that at the same time, Old Bev did sign into law a bunch of bills that make her appear to protect North Carolina residents. Bills signed include tougher DWI penalties, the creation of a task force on fraud perpetrated against the elderly (not that a task force actually does anything but have meetings), mental illness care provision, new building code requirements, and the like. She just does not want to protect us against financial crisis and election fraud.
I mentioned that she sometimes does things with which I agree and that occasionally give me a ray of hope. Gov. Perdue signed a bill that improves existing gun laws (not that I am a fan of gun laws, but these provisions are at least providing more freedoms) and establishes the castle doctrine for home defense. That is a huge positive in my opinion. She also signed “The Founding Principles Act” requiring the teaching of US history in high school, and the “Government Reduction Act” which is intended to reduce state government by abolishing certain state boards, commissions and committees.
The blatant contradiction and hypocrisy here is hard for me, since I see the good, the bad, and the ugly in the decisions taken by our governor. I recognize the good decisions and want to have hope. But I have also seen the stupidity in action and that sort of cancels out the hope I had.
When 75% of your electorate support something, you had better take notice. Three quarters of North Carolinians (so I have read) were fully in support of the idea of having to prove your identity when casting a ballot in the state. The last I checked, we were still a sovereign state (at least the last time I read the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution we were, anyway). As a free state, we can decide how we wish to run elections.
Governor Perdue has vetoed a bill requiring people to show official photo identification at the polls. She said, “North Carolinians who are eligible to vote have a constitutionally guaranteed right to cast their ballots, and no one should put up obstacles to citizens exercising that right...This bill, as written, will unnecessarily and unfairly disenfranchise many eligible and legitimate voters. The legislature should pass a less extreme bill that allows for other forms of identification, such as those permitted under federal law.”
You see, that is the problem. People who are eligible to vote should have to prove that they are eligible. I have to show a photo ID when I cash a check, use a credit card, purchase alcohol, apply for a passport, open a bank account, request government documents, get stopped by a police officer for speeding, apply for a job, or any host of different activities. Why should voting be any different?
The argument that we would unnecessarily and unfairly disenfranchise eligible and legitimate voters is a specious one and quite frankly, you can use that argument to fertilize your garden, if you know what I mean. I do not buy the idea for one minute that a legitimate voter would have any problem producing a valid photo ID, whether it is a passport, driver’s license, or a state issued ID card. The only possible reason to not want a photo ID requirement is that you actually support election fraud, non-citizens voting, and are hoping that people who have no business voting for your overly liberal ideals will cast multiple ballots for you under fictitious, fraudulent, multiple, illegitimate, or unverifiable names.
As to the argument that we should scale back any proposed law to meet federal law requirements, I again point to the fact that this is North Carolina, not the federal government. We set up our own laws and are not required to merely duplicate some other guidelines. Anybody who thinks that federal government regulation should trump our own autonomy has either lost touch with how our government should and can operate or is completely ignorant thereof.
The hypocritical part is that at the same time, Old Bev did sign into law a bunch of bills that make her appear to protect North Carolina residents. Bills signed include tougher DWI penalties, the creation of a task force on fraud perpetrated against the elderly (not that a task force actually does anything but have meetings), mental illness care provision, new building code requirements, and the like. She just does not want to protect us against financial crisis and election fraud.
I mentioned that she sometimes does things with which I agree and that occasionally give me a ray of hope. Gov. Perdue signed a bill that improves existing gun laws (not that I am a fan of gun laws, but these provisions are at least providing more freedoms) and establishes the castle doctrine for home defense. That is a huge positive in my opinion. She also signed “The Founding Principles Act” requiring the teaching of US history in high school, and the “Government Reduction Act” which is intended to reduce state government by abolishing certain state boards, commissions and committees.
The blatant contradiction and hypocrisy here is hard for me, since I see the good, the bad, and the ugly in the decisions taken by our governor. I recognize the good decisions and want to have hope. But I have also seen the stupidity in action and that sort of cancels out the hope I had.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Column for June 23, 2011
I have had some interesting discussions lately on the purpose of government, the origins of government, and the rule of law. In this country, we are thankfully guaranteed a republican form of government as opposed to a democracy. That federal guarantee flows down to the states, counties, and municipalities, since we have representatives that we engage on our behalf from within the public (res publica, meaning roughly “public matter”, the root of the word, republic).
It is a public matter what happens in our government, and we should take note of things that are contrary to the public good. It has been said that “you get what you pay for”. That is not always axiomatic. It is a surety, however, that we pay for what we get. Keeping an eye on what we pay for is indeed a public matter.
Occasionally we contend with sheer hubris on the part of our hirelings in government. Here is a case in point. You may have read about the Town of Smithfield’s dismissal of their town manager. The town manager serves at the pleasure of the town council and when it is right to do so, they should indeed remove their hireling from his job. Ostensibly, the removal was for unapproved hefty pay raises for a number of Smithfield town employees. The town council did not give the assent to these pay raises; the town manager agreed to give them without seeking their approval. To be sure the town manager did not act solely on his own and he was not the only one who knew that unauthorized pay raises were being given. Not only has the town manager been fired but the town clerk has left her position in disgrace. The Smithfield town attorney has put in many hours of legal work and advice, and that has cost the town many more thousands of dollars.
In a down economy where every level of government has to cut spending (a lesson that North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue had to learn the hard way), it was a travesty to see a town have a scandal like that, the public trust betrayed, and needless cost incurred in hard financial times. The government does not exist to provide employment for people. Rather it exists to serve and protect the people of the town. It is the creation of the townsfolk. The townsfolk of Smithfield did not get what they were paying for but they sure are paying for what they got.
The other day I interacted with a public educator who complained about last week’s vote by the North Carolina General Assembly to override the governor’s veto of the budget. The budget made necessary cuts to education spending. Since it is the biggest budget item, it has to be on the chopping block like everything else on which the state spends our money. We were spending far too much money in many areas, including education. We had a lot of extra staff that were not necessary and were funded by temporary revenue sources. Cutting the extra is not wrong, it is the responsible thing to do. We the taxpayers, via our elected representatives, demanded that our schools be run more efficiently and responsibly.
If any teachers or staff members will lose their jobs, I sympathize. My wife has been out of work for over two years and I have been unemployed before, too. Our household budget is tighter than it has been in years. But I also understand the public good versus the individual good. As I told this one educator for the record, I have worked for the federal government, the state, and a municipality in my career, so yes, I understand government work and public sector employment. It is both because of this and being a taxpayer that I have little tolerance for whining by public employees. Instead of decrying having to pay more for health care benefits and perhaps a slight pay cut, their attitude has to be one of gratitude that they still have jobs. I personally know too many people out of work who wish they had such employment.
Again, it is not the job of government to supply employment, it is to serve the public. As is the case with our public schools and for the taxpayers in the Town of Smithfield, the public did not get what they paid for, but are certainly paying for what they got from government.
It is a public matter what happens in our government, and we should take note of things that are contrary to the public good. It has been said that “you get what you pay for”. That is not always axiomatic. It is a surety, however, that we pay for what we get. Keeping an eye on what we pay for is indeed a public matter.
Occasionally we contend with sheer hubris on the part of our hirelings in government. Here is a case in point. You may have read about the Town of Smithfield’s dismissal of their town manager. The town manager serves at the pleasure of the town council and when it is right to do so, they should indeed remove their hireling from his job. Ostensibly, the removal was for unapproved hefty pay raises for a number of Smithfield town employees. The town council did not give the assent to these pay raises; the town manager agreed to give them without seeking their approval. To be sure the town manager did not act solely on his own and he was not the only one who knew that unauthorized pay raises were being given. Not only has the town manager been fired but the town clerk has left her position in disgrace. The Smithfield town attorney has put in many hours of legal work and advice, and that has cost the town many more thousands of dollars.
In a down economy where every level of government has to cut spending (a lesson that North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue had to learn the hard way), it was a travesty to see a town have a scandal like that, the public trust betrayed, and needless cost incurred in hard financial times. The government does not exist to provide employment for people. Rather it exists to serve and protect the people of the town. It is the creation of the townsfolk. The townsfolk of Smithfield did not get what they were paying for but they sure are paying for what they got.
The other day I interacted with a public educator who complained about last week’s vote by the North Carolina General Assembly to override the governor’s veto of the budget. The budget made necessary cuts to education spending. Since it is the biggest budget item, it has to be on the chopping block like everything else on which the state spends our money. We were spending far too much money in many areas, including education. We had a lot of extra staff that were not necessary and were funded by temporary revenue sources. Cutting the extra is not wrong, it is the responsible thing to do. We the taxpayers, via our elected representatives, demanded that our schools be run more efficiently and responsibly.
If any teachers or staff members will lose their jobs, I sympathize. My wife has been out of work for over two years and I have been unemployed before, too. Our household budget is tighter than it has been in years. But I also understand the public good versus the individual good. As I told this one educator for the record, I have worked for the federal government, the state, and a municipality in my career, so yes, I understand government work and public sector employment. It is both because of this and being a taxpayer that I have little tolerance for whining by public employees. Instead of decrying having to pay more for health care benefits and perhaps a slight pay cut, their attitude has to be one of gratitude that they still have jobs. I personally know too many people out of work who wish they had such employment.
Again, it is not the job of government to supply employment, it is to serve the public. As is the case with our public schools and for the taxpayers in the Town of Smithfield, the public did not get what they paid for, but are certainly paying for what they got from government.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Column for Feb. 24, 2011
Well, Governor Bev Perdue finally did it. She submitted her budget and proposed to cut spending and jobs. All it took was a little discipline and courage. It isn't really all that hard. We had to do the same thing in our household. My wife has been out of work for two years now and we are living almost entirely on my salary. Some extra spending had to go. Essential items get paid for first, then other bills. If there is anything left over, then we contemplate our charitable giving budget, our dining budget, gift giving, and the like. The state of North Carolina should be no different in its approach.
The governor and I do not agree on all of the areas in which to cut spending. Just recently, I took the governor's budget cutting challenge that was on a state web site. I not only was able to balance the budget by cutting $2,633,800,000 in spending, I was also able to create a surplus of $1,233,800,000 according to the computer model. According to the model, I cut 27,027 jobs from the state's payroll.
Of course I believe that the computer model is purposely biased. There were options for increasing class size in K-12 schools by one, two, or three students. The same option was available for secondary education. I Seriously doubt that adding another few students per class is going to be detrimental to the education system and I seriously doubt the accuracy of the model. Somehow I have a hard time believing that by increasing class size by an average of 3 students per classroom, I would be cutting 18,027 jobs.
I understand the fears that many families have when being faced with job cuts. I was a state employee myself for several years. I have friends and family who work for state government. If layoffs come, who knows if they would be affected? Under the governor's plan, many unfilled job slots will be eliminated. 3,000 jobs will be cut from the state payroll that are presently filled by employees. The state is bloated with employees in some areas and lean in others. I know several state employees that are swamped with work while I have personally witnessed other positions that are overkill and unnecessary.
We have to determine what services are vital and what ones are not. That is what the governor promises to do in this budget, eliminating funding for 68 of what Perdue labeled as "nonessential programs". If they are "nonessential", then why were we paying for them to begin with?
Though I will give Beverly Perdue kudos for looking to cut the budget, I am still not as optimistic as many that we will actually end up with the sort of spending level we truly should have. I will say that at least our state executive seems to be more up front and honest about the problems of government spending that our national executive.
President Barack Hussein Obama has threatened to veto deep spending cuts proposed by Congress. Though the President was just on television giving lip service to responsible spending, he is threatening against responsible spending. What sort of double standard is that? You can not have it both ways. Either you support budget cuts or you don't. You can not be directly responsible for the most reckless spending that we have seen in the history of America, call for responsible spending, then take action against responsible spending. That is just political double-speak and twaddle. When the Department of Health and Human Services budget alone is bigger than the entire federal budget under Lyndon Johnson, something is seriously wrong.
We have far too many people dependent upon government for their means of supply. Whether that supply be the result of employment or social welfare programs, we can not maintain the previous levels of spending. If I borrowed 45% of everything I spent in my household on a consistent basis, I would rapidly be filing bankruptcy. The difference is that the government can print more money and issue more bonds and I can not.
If we had more people in elected office who cared more about the population in general rather than their own level of power and those who are most likely to help them attain it, we would have the very thing that James Madison wrote about our republic. Speaking of a government that applies both to the elected and the general population, he wrote,
The governor and I do not agree on all of the areas in which to cut spending. Just recently, I took the governor's budget cutting challenge that was on a state web site. I not only was able to balance the budget by cutting $2,633,800,000 in spending, I was also able to create a surplus of $1,233,800,000 according to the computer model. According to the model, I cut 27,027 jobs from the state's payroll.
Of course I believe that the computer model is purposely biased. There were options for increasing class size in K-12 schools by one, two, or three students. The same option was available for secondary education. I Seriously doubt that adding another few students per class is going to be detrimental to the education system and I seriously doubt the accuracy of the model. Somehow I have a hard time believing that by increasing class size by an average of 3 students per classroom, I would be cutting 18,027 jobs.
I understand the fears that many families have when being faced with job cuts. I was a state employee myself for several years. I have friends and family who work for state government. If layoffs come, who knows if they would be affected? Under the governor's plan, many unfilled job slots will be eliminated. 3,000 jobs will be cut from the state payroll that are presently filled by employees. The state is bloated with employees in some areas and lean in others. I know several state employees that are swamped with work while I have personally witnessed other positions that are overkill and unnecessary.
We have to determine what services are vital and what ones are not. That is what the governor promises to do in this budget, eliminating funding for 68 of what Perdue labeled as "nonessential programs". If they are "nonessential", then why were we paying for them to begin with?
Though I will give Beverly Perdue kudos for looking to cut the budget, I am still not as optimistic as many that we will actually end up with the sort of spending level we truly should have. I will say that at least our state executive seems to be more up front and honest about the problems of government spending that our national executive.
President Barack Hussein Obama has threatened to veto deep spending cuts proposed by Congress. Though the President was just on television giving lip service to responsible spending, he is threatening against responsible spending. What sort of double standard is that? You can not have it both ways. Either you support budget cuts or you don't. You can not be directly responsible for the most reckless spending that we have seen in the history of America, call for responsible spending, then take action against responsible spending. That is just political double-speak and twaddle. When the Department of Health and Human Services budget alone is bigger than the entire federal budget under Lyndon Johnson, something is seriously wrong.
We have far too many people dependent upon government for their means of supply. Whether that supply be the result of employment or social welfare programs, we can not maintain the previous levels of spending. If I borrowed 45% of everything I spent in my household on a consistent basis, I would rapidly be filing bankruptcy. The difference is that the government can print more money and issue more bonds and I can not.
If we had more people in elected office who cared more about the population in general rather than their own level of power and those who are most likely to help them attain it, we would have the very thing that James Madison wrote about our republic. Speaking of a government that applies both to the elected and the general population, he wrote,
"It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny."(Federalist Papers # 57). We have reached that degeneration already.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Column for Feb. 3, 2011
I am sitting in front of my computer with a raging head cold. My sinuses have been inflamed to the point that it feels like I have cement poured in my skull and I am just shy of coughing up my left lung. My wife has a cough that has lasted over three weeks, not responded to antibiotics, and today she came down with a fever. My seven-year-old had to stay home from school today with a migraine headache. My toddler has started to get a runny nose. I have to get to bed early because in the morning I have to take my toddler to UNC Children's Hospital for treatment of a birth defect. We are still dealing with my toddler's first but most stubborn ear infection that has lasted a solid month. If the infection does not go away, we may be looking at surgical intervention.
For over a week, we have been putting up with people spreading gossip, lies, and sowing family discord. My wife has had to endure a friend of the family passing away, an elderly family member passing away, and her childhood best friend dying of cancer. Granny has been in the ICU unit for days. One of my best friends just got into an auto wreck, and my water heater is on its way out.
My tax software purchase I had made prior to the beginning of the year to save a few dollars on the purchase price was canceled by the company for some unknown reason, so I had to purchase it again…at the higher price. One stream of income in our household is about to come to an end.
Have you ever had one of those days where you think to yourself that when you get to Heaven, you want to go up to Adam and Eve, punch him in the nose and slap her across the jaw? Then sarcastically thank them very much for ruining the perfect Earth created for us all? Then maybe follow that by, "What were you thinking???" Yeah, it has been that sort of week.
Ironically enough, a friend of mine posted on Facebook (while I was typing this column) "Ever want to say: try that again and they'll be tracing you in chalk!" The timing brought a chuckle to my heart. I wrote back, "If you only knew how this evening has gone, you would know how well that fits."
The bizarre thing is that some people would actually take the "they'll be tracing you in chalk" comment as a real threat rather than have a sense of humor about it. I just ran across that very thing last week. I said to someone who was running their mouth, (after emphatically requesting that this person desist from gossiping) "I could pimp slap you!" as a way of conveying my level of annoyance and desire that this person would just be quiet. The next thing I knew, people were accusing me of threatening violence upon this individual. I guess that people never heard of colloquialisms and sarcasm before.
I have a lot of unanswered questions in life. I hope that some day, God will answer a lot of questions that we still have when we get to see Him. I keep asking questions here on Earth. Sometimes he answers them, sometimes not. Sometimes I don't get an answer for years.
All right, so why did I write all of this? Quite simply, it was to say this. Through it all, we have not lost faith in God, in His goodness, or His provision. We will make it, regardless of what life throws at us. Everyone has tribulation to go through in life. We have our own to endure. The things I endure now are greater than before, but I also handle them differently. As I grow older I tend to have a different perspective on life and now consider many things petty that I used to think were insurmountable or extremely important.
There are some battles worth fighting and some trials worth enduring. It is how we grow and learn as people.
For over a week, we have been putting up with people spreading gossip, lies, and sowing family discord. My wife has had to endure a friend of the family passing away, an elderly family member passing away, and her childhood best friend dying of cancer. Granny has been in the ICU unit for days. One of my best friends just got into an auto wreck, and my water heater is on its way out.
My tax software purchase I had made prior to the beginning of the year to save a few dollars on the purchase price was canceled by the company for some unknown reason, so I had to purchase it again…at the higher price. One stream of income in our household is about to come to an end.
Have you ever had one of those days where you think to yourself that when you get to Heaven, you want to go up to Adam and Eve, punch him in the nose and slap her across the jaw? Then sarcastically thank them very much for ruining the perfect Earth created for us all? Then maybe follow that by, "What were you thinking???" Yeah, it has been that sort of week.
Ironically enough, a friend of mine posted on Facebook (while I was typing this column) "Ever want to say: try that again and they'll be tracing you in chalk!" The timing brought a chuckle to my heart. I wrote back, "If you only knew how this evening has gone, you would know how well that fits."
The bizarre thing is that some people would actually take the "they'll be tracing you in chalk" comment as a real threat rather than have a sense of humor about it. I just ran across that very thing last week. I said to someone who was running their mouth, (after emphatically requesting that this person desist from gossiping) "I could pimp slap you!" as a way of conveying my level of annoyance and desire that this person would just be quiet. The next thing I knew, people were accusing me of threatening violence upon this individual. I guess that people never heard of colloquialisms and sarcasm before.
I have a lot of unanswered questions in life. I hope that some day, God will answer a lot of questions that we still have when we get to see Him. I keep asking questions here on Earth. Sometimes he answers them, sometimes not. Sometimes I don't get an answer for years.
All right, so why did I write all of this? Quite simply, it was to say this. Through it all, we have not lost faith in God, in His goodness, or His provision. We will make it, regardless of what life throws at us. Everyone has tribulation to go through in life. We have our own to endure. The things I endure now are greater than before, but I also handle them differently. As I grow older I tend to have a different perspective on life and now consider many things petty that I used to think were insurmountable or extremely important.
There are some battles worth fighting and some trials worth enduring. It is how we grow and learn as people.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Column for August 19, 2010
Last week I wrote about the facade put on by politicians trying to look good so they will be re-elected. This hypocrisy is especially strong when they want to look like they are doing us constituents a favor by not taking more of our money from us. I also hit upon the hypocrisy of pitching tiny tax cuts and not bothering to try to keep the tax cuts we already had but are going to expire at the end of this year.
I decided that rather than take the word of any one particular media outlet about tax cuts, tax credits, and provisions that are going to expire, I would seek out that information my own self and spend some time reading about them. I found a 48-page document put out by the United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation full of sun setting tax provisions that simply astounded me.
I despise the federal income tax for several reasons. First, the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution forbids involuntary servitude. Working to involuntarily pay a percentage to the government is a form of servitude. Secondly, the tax code can be easily manipulated, amended, and made to be either rewarding or punitive towards or against a particular behavior, ideology, or political agenda. Thirdly, it is purposely lengthy and confusing so as to require professional assistance and cost an exorbitant amount of time and money with its compliance. The tax system should be so simple that you should be able to do your tax return on the back of a post card. Better yet, we should not have to file anything with the Internal Revenue Service, which would be the case with The Fair Tax.
If Congress were serious about economic recovery and freedom, most of the tax provisions about to expire would be made permanent. The lowest tax rate of 15% that was cut to 10% is about to revert back to 15%. That means that the poorest taxpayers are about to get a 50% tax increase as of January first. The marriage penalty for the standard deduction is about to make its re-appearance. The previously doubled per child tax credit is about to revert from $1000 back to $500. That particular tax credit provision helped benefit a lot of families, including my own, and now it is being taken away.
The "death tax" is about to rear its ugly head once again. People who worked hard to leave a large estate for their heirs will leave 55% less of it because the government will be taking that much of it. Over half of one's estate will be taken away by the government just because it is being left as an inheritance. To me, that is one of the most unethical taxes ever devised. People can work hard all their lives only to pay taxes on their income. Then they take those taxed dollars and invest, save, or purchase property. Investment dividends are taxed, and the property they buy with taxed money will be taxed annually. Then, those who were fortunate enough to have amassed even a small fortune to pass on to their survivors will be painted with the label of greedy while the government steals and devours over half of that wealth. By the way, for those who do save and invest for their futures are going to run across a return to a higher rate of dividend and capital gains taxes. This is all insidious and just plain evil.
On top of all of this, we are going to be hit with the costs associated with the new health care legislation. People like me who use flexible spending accounts will no longer be able to use those funds for non-prescription items, which will hurt the family budget.
Another big hit will come in the form of health care insurance benefit taxation. If your employer has a health care benefit, you will have to start paying taxes on the portion of the benefit paid by your employer. For people like me who chose an employer that has an excellent benefits package, we are going to have a much higher income tax burden as these benefits will also count as income.
There are too many tax provisions expiring or about to be enacted to mention in this column. Look it up for your own selves. We are going to get reamed by our already out of control, excessively spending government that thinks that you just don't pay enough in taxes as it is. We had a revolution in this country for less than this.
I decided that rather than take the word of any one particular media outlet about tax cuts, tax credits, and provisions that are going to expire, I would seek out that information my own self and spend some time reading about them. I found a 48-page document put out by the United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation full of sun setting tax provisions that simply astounded me.
I despise the federal income tax for several reasons. First, the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution forbids involuntary servitude. Working to involuntarily pay a percentage to the government is a form of servitude. Secondly, the tax code can be easily manipulated, amended, and made to be either rewarding or punitive towards or against a particular behavior, ideology, or political agenda. Thirdly, it is purposely lengthy and confusing so as to require professional assistance and cost an exorbitant amount of time and money with its compliance. The tax system should be so simple that you should be able to do your tax return on the back of a post card. Better yet, we should not have to file anything with the Internal Revenue Service, which would be the case with The Fair Tax.
If Congress were serious about economic recovery and freedom, most of the tax provisions about to expire would be made permanent. The lowest tax rate of 15% that was cut to 10% is about to revert back to 15%. That means that the poorest taxpayers are about to get a 50% tax increase as of January first. The marriage penalty for the standard deduction is about to make its re-appearance. The previously doubled per child tax credit is about to revert from $1000 back to $500. That particular tax credit provision helped benefit a lot of families, including my own, and now it is being taken away.
The "death tax" is about to rear its ugly head once again. People who worked hard to leave a large estate for their heirs will leave 55% less of it because the government will be taking that much of it. Over half of one's estate will be taken away by the government just because it is being left as an inheritance. To me, that is one of the most unethical taxes ever devised. People can work hard all their lives only to pay taxes on their income. Then they take those taxed dollars and invest, save, or purchase property. Investment dividends are taxed, and the property they buy with taxed money will be taxed annually. Then, those who were fortunate enough to have amassed even a small fortune to pass on to their survivors will be painted with the label of greedy while the government steals and devours over half of that wealth. By the way, for those who do save and invest for their futures are going to run across a return to a higher rate of dividend and capital gains taxes. This is all insidious and just plain evil.
On top of all of this, we are going to be hit with the costs associated with the new health care legislation. People like me who use flexible spending accounts will no longer be able to use those funds for non-prescription items, which will hurt the family budget.
Another big hit will come in the form of health care insurance benefit taxation. If your employer has a health care benefit, you will have to start paying taxes on the portion of the benefit paid by your employer. For people like me who chose an employer that has an excellent benefits package, we are going to have a much higher income tax burden as these benefits will also count as income.
There are too many tax provisions expiring or about to be enacted to mention in this column. Look it up for your own selves. We are going to get reamed by our already out of control, excessively spending government that thinks that you just don't pay enough in taxes as it is. We had a revolution in this country for less than this.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Column for August 12, 2010
For those who are on the internet a lot, like myself, you probably get a good amount of "spam" email. For those who are not inclined to be in the cyberworld, spam is not just processed meat, it is a term used for junk electronic mail. I got what I consider a spam email from Congressman Bob Etheridge.
I opened the email to see what old Bob "Who are you?" Etheridge had to say this time. Here is some of what he had to say.
"My top priorities in the U.S. House of Representatives have been jobs, jobs, and jobs. Specifically, I support common sense policies that will create an economy that works for the middle class so every North Carolinian who is willing to work hard has the opportunity to make the most of his or her God-given abilities."
Well, I have a hard time disagreeing with him so far. Is a Democrat allowed to say "God-given"? I would have thought that would be viewed by liberals as a "separation of church and state" issue. What else did Bob have in store?
"We need to rebuild America and restore the American Dream. Economic recovery in our country will be powered by small businesses. I have been working to enact eight separate tax cuts for small businesses to jumpstart hiring and boost the economy."
He is correct. We do need to rebuild America. Small business is indeed the engine that keeps America going. I find it amusing that both a man and a political party that have been supportive of massive spending and tax increases would recognize that tax cuts are what stimulate the economy. Tax cuts worked for John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. Why then do Democrats feel the need to pass Cap and Trade, health care legislation, and financial regulation packages that will only increase taxes, increase federal spending, and increase government intrusion into the economic and business sector?
This is simply talking out of both sides of one's mouth. You can not have it both ways. Either you are for tax cuts or you are for tax and spending increases. If tax cuts are so beneficial, then why does Congress propose these piddly little tax cuts while refusing to make the previous tax cuts under the Bush administration permanent? The answer is easy to find further down in the letter.
Congressman Etheridge continued, "The recent recession cost us 8 million American jobs—and years of policies that favored the special interests cost us 4.6 million American manufacturing jobs. Although too many people are out of work and family budgets are getting squeezed, bold action to correct the failed policies of the past has started to turn our economy around."
This is a classic case of blame everything bad on George Bush. In fact, the current recession is primarily because of the direct involvement in the economy by the Democrat controlled Congress in conjunction with a willing President Obama.
Don't get me wrong, I am not letting the Republicans slide on this at all. Republicans had control of Congress for years and did not act like they were in power. They were also corrupt and spent money in huge quantities, as well. I blame them just as much as I blame Democrats for the huge borrowing and spending problems that eventually led to an economic crash. These spending issues were hugely magnified and sped along under President Obama and his far left, socialistic agenda. Etheridge is claiming he is working to solve the very problems he helped create.
Since I only have so much space in which to critique, I will choose one last item. Etheridge wrote, "Long term, we need budget discipline and smart investments like Pell Grants and higher education assistance and school construction."
I wholeheartedly agree that we need budget discipline, but we will never achieve it when congressmen like Bob Etheridge vote for spending programs that will cost trillions of dollars. As to Pell Grants, education assistance, and school construction, I have yet to find anywhere in the United States Constitution that gives the power to Congress to either spend money on these things or regulate them.
Bob Etheridge's letter is unfortunately typical of most politicians in office today. They take credit for things they did not do, blame others for their own failings, try to "have it both ways" in order to look good, and attempt to tickle the ears of a predominantly ignorant constituency. Remember this when you vote in November.
I opened the email to see what old Bob "Who are you?" Etheridge had to say this time. Here is some of what he had to say.
"My top priorities in the U.S. House of Representatives have been jobs, jobs, and jobs. Specifically, I support common sense policies that will create an economy that works for the middle class so every North Carolinian who is willing to work hard has the opportunity to make the most of his or her God-given abilities."
Well, I have a hard time disagreeing with him so far. Is a Democrat allowed to say "God-given"? I would have thought that would be viewed by liberals as a "separation of church and state" issue. What else did Bob have in store?
"We need to rebuild America and restore the American Dream. Economic recovery in our country will be powered by small businesses. I have been working to enact eight separate tax cuts for small businesses to jumpstart hiring and boost the economy."
He is correct. We do need to rebuild America. Small business is indeed the engine that keeps America going. I find it amusing that both a man and a political party that have been supportive of massive spending and tax increases would recognize that tax cuts are what stimulate the economy. Tax cuts worked for John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. Why then do Democrats feel the need to pass Cap and Trade, health care legislation, and financial regulation packages that will only increase taxes, increase federal spending, and increase government intrusion into the economic and business sector?
This is simply talking out of both sides of one's mouth. You can not have it both ways. Either you are for tax cuts or you are for tax and spending increases. If tax cuts are so beneficial, then why does Congress propose these piddly little tax cuts while refusing to make the previous tax cuts under the Bush administration permanent? The answer is easy to find further down in the letter.
Congressman Etheridge continued, "The recent recession cost us 8 million American jobs—and years of policies that favored the special interests cost us 4.6 million American manufacturing jobs. Although too many people are out of work and family budgets are getting squeezed, bold action to correct the failed policies of the past has started to turn our economy around."
This is a classic case of blame everything bad on George Bush. In fact, the current recession is primarily because of the direct involvement in the economy by the Democrat controlled Congress in conjunction with a willing President Obama.
Don't get me wrong, I am not letting the Republicans slide on this at all. Republicans had control of Congress for years and did not act like they were in power. They were also corrupt and spent money in huge quantities, as well. I blame them just as much as I blame Democrats for the huge borrowing and spending problems that eventually led to an economic crash. These spending issues were hugely magnified and sped along under President Obama and his far left, socialistic agenda. Etheridge is claiming he is working to solve the very problems he helped create.
Since I only have so much space in which to critique, I will choose one last item. Etheridge wrote, "Long term, we need budget discipline and smart investments like Pell Grants and higher education assistance and school construction."
I wholeheartedly agree that we need budget discipline, but we will never achieve it when congressmen like Bob Etheridge vote for spending programs that will cost trillions of dollars. As to Pell Grants, education assistance, and school construction, I have yet to find anywhere in the United States Constitution that gives the power to Congress to either spend money on these things or regulate them.
Bob Etheridge's letter is unfortunately typical of most politicians in office today. They take credit for things they did not do, blame others for their own failings, try to "have it both ways" in order to look good, and attempt to tickle the ears of a predominantly ignorant constituency. Remember this when you vote in November.
Friday, August 06, 2010
Column for August 5, 2010
My family and I just returned from a wonderful two-week vacation in New England. It probably went better than most any vacation I have taken to date. There were still so many things left on my list of possible activities that we still have plenty of activities left for our next vacation.
The only bad part of the trip was the trip itself. In my 23 years of driving from North Carolina to New Hampshire and back, this was possibly the worst travel I have experienced. I continuously kept thinking to myself "I hope that North Carolina does not end up like this".
I know that each trip up or down the eastern seaboard, I am going to be hit with frequent tolls. I figured from experience that I will have to pay between $20 and $30 in tolls each way if I was going to take what is usually the most expedient route. The total was somewhere down the middle, at about $25 or so.
Some tolls were only a dollar or two. Some were $5 or over $9, depending upon where it was. The most expensive stretch of highway in the United States has to be through Delaware. In all, Interstate 95 goes through Delaware for about thirteen miles. Delaware is a small state, after all. I paid $4 on one end and $3 on the other end. That makes the toll rate about 54 cents per mile to travel through that tiny state.
Let's face the fact about highway tolls. Tolls are nothing but another form of taxation. Some may call them user fees, but they are taxes nonetheless. Ostensibly, tolls are enacted to help with highway maintenance and construction. Of course we all know how that concept works. North Carolina has raided the highway trust fund for use in the general fund. The Social Security trust fund was raided long ago to add to the US Treasury's general fund. I have no doubt that the North Carolina lottery trust fund will eventually end up as part of the NC general fund.
I can not remember in my 23 years of traveling up to New England a trip without some sort of construction going on in Connecticut along the interstate. This trip it took one hour to move four miles. On one of the busiest sections of American highway, I-95 coming out of New York City and through Connecticut, evening construction brought three lanes down to only one. Planning lane closures like that should be a capital offense.
The sad thing about it is that there are signs posted about how my tax dollars are helping fund that construction through the so-called stimulus spending under the Obama administration. Not only did I get to pay for tolls and taxed that way, I got to be taxed through federal income tax to help pay for inconvenient, incessant construction. In fact, federal dollars go into just about every stretch of major highway, so tolls are double taxation, even for non-residents of the state in question.
I saw more stimulus signage for paving projects in Massachusetts on roads that were already in excellent condition. I was wondering why they were in the middle of paving a perfectly good stretch of interstate.
While stuck in southern Connecticut, all I could think about is how every doggone trip that direction I run across construction in that state and how it reminds me of I-40 through Research Triangle Park. The construction there seems to have been going on for twenty years.
While sitting in lines at various tollbooths, especially without an E-Z Pass account since I don't normally encounter tolls in NC, all I could think of is that North Carolina wants to put toll booths on I-95 at our northern and southern borders. I-95 is indeed one of the most traveled corridors in all of America. Putting tollbooths along the interstate would certainly bring in revenue and soon recover booth construction costs. However, it is not a matter of finding more revenue, it is a matter of spending more than we take in as a state.
Tollbooths being nothing more than another form of taxation, I am just glad that I don't frequently travel either north or south of the NC border should we get them. But wait! North Carolina is also talking about putting tollbooths on the new outer loop of I-540 in Raleigh. If we give an inch for a tollbooth, we are going to end up having many miles taken from us, as well as dollar bills. And the insult to us taxpayers is that we will be taxed for the implementation and construction of the new taxation system and its maintenance.
The only bad part of the trip was the trip itself. In my 23 years of driving from North Carolina to New Hampshire and back, this was possibly the worst travel I have experienced. I continuously kept thinking to myself "I hope that North Carolina does not end up like this".
I know that each trip up or down the eastern seaboard, I am going to be hit with frequent tolls. I figured from experience that I will have to pay between $20 and $30 in tolls each way if I was going to take what is usually the most expedient route. The total was somewhere down the middle, at about $25 or so.
Some tolls were only a dollar or two. Some were $5 or over $9, depending upon where it was. The most expensive stretch of highway in the United States has to be through Delaware. In all, Interstate 95 goes through Delaware for about thirteen miles. Delaware is a small state, after all. I paid $4 on one end and $3 on the other end. That makes the toll rate about 54 cents per mile to travel through that tiny state.
Let's face the fact about highway tolls. Tolls are nothing but another form of taxation. Some may call them user fees, but they are taxes nonetheless. Ostensibly, tolls are enacted to help with highway maintenance and construction. Of course we all know how that concept works. North Carolina has raided the highway trust fund for use in the general fund. The Social Security trust fund was raided long ago to add to the US Treasury's general fund. I have no doubt that the North Carolina lottery trust fund will eventually end up as part of the NC general fund.
I can not remember in my 23 years of traveling up to New England a trip without some sort of construction going on in Connecticut along the interstate. This trip it took one hour to move four miles. On one of the busiest sections of American highway, I-95 coming out of New York City and through Connecticut, evening construction brought three lanes down to only one. Planning lane closures like that should be a capital offense.
The sad thing about it is that there are signs posted about how my tax dollars are helping fund that construction through the so-called stimulus spending under the Obama administration. Not only did I get to pay for tolls and taxed that way, I got to be taxed through federal income tax to help pay for inconvenient, incessant construction. In fact, federal dollars go into just about every stretch of major highway, so tolls are double taxation, even for non-residents of the state in question.
I saw more stimulus signage for paving projects in Massachusetts on roads that were already in excellent condition. I was wondering why they were in the middle of paving a perfectly good stretch of interstate.
While stuck in southern Connecticut, all I could think about is how every doggone trip that direction I run across construction in that state and how it reminds me of I-40 through Research Triangle Park. The construction there seems to have been going on for twenty years.
While sitting in lines at various tollbooths, especially without an E-Z Pass account since I don't normally encounter tolls in NC, all I could think of is that North Carolina wants to put toll booths on I-95 at our northern and southern borders. I-95 is indeed one of the most traveled corridors in all of America. Putting tollbooths along the interstate would certainly bring in revenue and soon recover booth construction costs. However, it is not a matter of finding more revenue, it is a matter of spending more than we take in as a state.
Tollbooths being nothing more than another form of taxation, I am just glad that I don't frequently travel either north or south of the NC border should we get them. But wait! North Carolina is also talking about putting tollbooths on the new outer loop of I-540 in Raleigh. If we give an inch for a tollbooth, we are going to end up having many miles taken from us, as well as dollar bills. And the insult to us taxpayers is that we will be taxed for the implementation and construction of the new taxation system and its maintenance.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Column for April 22, 2010
My lovely bride and I had the pleasure of being chaperons for our boy's first grade class field trip to the North Carolina Zoo in Asheboro last week. It was a beautiful day for such an excursion. Two days later I led a field trip of my own. I took my boy, nephew, future brother-in-law, and his son to the North Carolina Aquarium at Pine Knoll Shores and Fort Macon. Yes, I was feeling the burn on Saturday, too.
The zoo trip was free for our son because of a funding grant, but we had to pay $9 each for admission. Normally the entrance fee for adults is $10, but since we were part of a group, we got a whole dollar discount each. The aquarium entrance fee was $34 for all 5 of us. That amounted to about a dollar a minute. The aquarium is smaller than I am used to, but is still a nice little fish zoo. The land animal zoo in Asheboro, by contrast, is a lot larger and more expansive than I am used to.
Here is the rub in all of this. If had known how all of this worked in terms of finances, we could have bought a $50 family membership and gotten in as often as we want, at no extra charge at either attraction. I did not know this until we were already at the aquarium and I sighed at the cost of admission for us all. I was told that if I wanted to pay another $16, I could get a family membership. Since I have no idea if we will visit the zoo or another aquarium in the next year or not, I passed on it. I wish I could have applied my zoo admission to the aquarium admission for a membership, though.
So why am I annoyed other than that? I look at the zoo and aquarium the same way I do at toll roads. I am already paying for the existence of the road, zoo, or aquarium with my tax dollars. If I choose to use the very thing for which I am helping to pay, I am charged for it yet again. That amounts to double taxation. Granted, the second taxation is voluntary, but usage fees or admission charges are nothing more than a tax to enjoy the public facilities for which we already pay.
I realize that it is expensive to keep animals, maintain grounds, keep fish alive in gigantic tanks, etc. That is part and parcel of having a zoo or aquarium. Fort Macon, on the other hand, I am sure does not cost nearly as much to run, even though it is a state park, has a nice new building, and park rangers on staff. Admission to Fort Macon is free, and it is one of my favorite day trip destinations.
I joined the Friends of Fort Macon organization. There are similar such groups for libraries, zoos, aquariums, animal shelters, and the like. Their purpose is generally for preservation, fund raising, and enhancement efforts. I am fine with that concept. I love private organizations and donation efforts for the public benefit and for those who are enthusiastic about preservation and about being benefactors.
I do believe that a zoo, aquariums, historic sites, and state parks are definitely worth having and serve the public good. I would prefer, however, that they be free for all North Carolina taxpayers. At one time, I was able to go to the aquarium at Manteo without an admission charge. I wish that were the case still. I don't like paying for the same service twice, whether it is for a zoo, and aquarium, or public highway.
I feel that same way about public education, which is why I support school voucher programs. If you send your child to private school, you are taxed for public schools and have to pay tuition for a private school. How about services at your local county courthouse? How many services do we pay for twice? If you pay high gas taxes and income taxes like we do in North Carolina then have to pay a toll as is planned for sections of I-540 in Raleigh, people are paying twice for the same stretch of road.
Maybe if we did not spend money on all sorts of entitlement programs and cut out wasteful spending, we could actually afford to have public attractions that do not cost North Carolina residents twice.
The zoo trip was free for our son because of a funding grant, but we had to pay $9 each for admission. Normally the entrance fee for adults is $10, but since we were part of a group, we got a whole dollar discount each. The aquarium entrance fee was $34 for all 5 of us. That amounted to about a dollar a minute. The aquarium is smaller than I am used to, but is still a nice little fish zoo. The land animal zoo in Asheboro, by contrast, is a lot larger and more expansive than I am used to.
Here is the rub in all of this. If had known how all of this worked in terms of finances, we could have bought a $50 family membership and gotten in as often as we want, at no extra charge at either attraction. I did not know this until we were already at the aquarium and I sighed at the cost of admission for us all. I was told that if I wanted to pay another $16, I could get a family membership. Since I have no idea if we will visit the zoo or another aquarium in the next year or not, I passed on it. I wish I could have applied my zoo admission to the aquarium admission for a membership, though.
So why am I annoyed other than that? I look at the zoo and aquarium the same way I do at toll roads. I am already paying for the existence of the road, zoo, or aquarium with my tax dollars. If I choose to use the very thing for which I am helping to pay, I am charged for it yet again. That amounts to double taxation. Granted, the second taxation is voluntary, but usage fees or admission charges are nothing more than a tax to enjoy the public facilities for which we already pay.
I realize that it is expensive to keep animals, maintain grounds, keep fish alive in gigantic tanks, etc. That is part and parcel of having a zoo or aquarium. Fort Macon, on the other hand, I am sure does not cost nearly as much to run, even though it is a state park, has a nice new building, and park rangers on staff. Admission to Fort Macon is free, and it is one of my favorite day trip destinations.
I joined the Friends of Fort Macon organization. There are similar such groups for libraries, zoos, aquariums, animal shelters, and the like. Their purpose is generally for preservation, fund raising, and enhancement efforts. I am fine with that concept. I love private organizations and donation efforts for the public benefit and for those who are enthusiastic about preservation and about being benefactors.
I do believe that a zoo, aquariums, historic sites, and state parks are definitely worth having and serve the public good. I would prefer, however, that they be free for all North Carolina taxpayers. At one time, I was able to go to the aquarium at Manteo without an admission charge. I wish that were the case still. I don't like paying for the same service twice, whether it is for a zoo, and aquarium, or public highway.
I feel that same way about public education, which is why I support school voucher programs. If you send your child to private school, you are taxed for public schools and have to pay tuition for a private school. How about services at your local county courthouse? How many services do we pay for twice? If you pay high gas taxes and income taxes like we do in North Carolina then have to pay a toll as is planned for sections of I-540 in Raleigh, people are paying twice for the same stretch of road.
Maybe if we did not spend money on all sorts of entitlement programs and cut out wasteful spending, we could actually afford to have public attractions that do not cost North Carolina residents twice.
Friday, April 09, 2010
Column for April 8, 2010
"If you can find it in the Yellow Pages, government should not be doing it." I have heard that saying many times and I am very much in agreement with that sentiment. Whether it is landscaping, trash pick up, water supply, or electricity delivery, if I can find it in the Yellow Pages, then perhaps it is worth investigating termination of government services and leaving such services to the private sector. That is unless our own governmental bodies can perform such services more efficiently and cheaply than private industry can.
For instance, if Selma wants flowers planted around our downtown (oops, perhaps I should call it "Uptown", but the "rose by any other name" principle applies) and town employees can do so efficiently and cost effectively as opposed to hiring a landscape crew, then I am all for it.
However, I am not as concerned about pansies in downtown as I am about our electricity bills. Last November, one mayoral candidate ran on a platform that included lowering electricity rates in town. Though I agree with that sentiment, short of selling off the town's electricity system, laying off employees, and letting Progress Energy sell us our electricity, it ain't gonna happen. But I am all for that very idea.
I have absolutely nothing against town employees working a job they are paid to perform. This is not personal; it is a matter of efficient government and personal finance. The town electrical workers do a good job at what they do. I remember when the last hurricane hit this area several years ago and I sat under my carport when a transformer blew out just a couple of houses over. We got to watch some town electrical workers quickly and efficiently replace the dead equipment during the eye of the storm, restoring electricity within a few hours.
My wife and I stared in amazement at our latest town electricity bill. It was the highest we have ever had in over seven years of living here in the booming metropolis we call Selma. For a fairly mild month and only a 29-day billing cycle, we were stunned. So I did a little research to see if things would have been cheaper if we got our electricity directly from Progress Energy instead of the town.
I have heard for several years that our electricity rates were not appreciably higher than those of Progress Energy were. In effect, the town is a wholesale customer through Electricities. State law allows municipalities to purchase power wholesale and retail to its constituents. The town buys low and sells high. I have no problem with a business making a profit, but when a town gouges its citizens, I tend to get irate.
I went to the Progress Energy web site and downloaded the current electricity rate. They currently charge $6.75 per month base rate plus 9.557 cents per kilowatt-hour. Selma customers pay $7.50 base rate plus about 13 cents per kilowatt-hour. I did the math and that equates to approximately $100 on my bill this month. Therefore, I paid an extra $100 in TAXES this month to the Town of Selma. Yes, I said taxes, not electricity bill payments. If it is above the normal cost that I can purchase through the local power provider and the town gets the revenue, then this is a tax, not a payment for product or service.
The good thing I can say is that the town has finally dropped the line item for a fuel recovery surcharge. Basically we had an extra charge for a long time that was called a fee when it was really a rate hike without formally calling for a rate hike or having to publicize a rate hike. Whether that surcharge was dropped or the rate was changed to accommodate the increase, I don't care, as long as the bill is more honest in presentation. We do, however, continue to have a sales tax. So we pay extra on our electricity rates and then get taxed on that overage, making it even more insulting. It is a tax on a tax.
Whenever Progress Energy proposes a rate hike for residential customers, they have to get that hike approved through the state utilities regulation authorities. When they decide to hike rates on wholesale customers, such as the Town of Selma and every other Electricities member municipality, I am told that no such approval is necessary. I got that straight from a former Selma Town Manager. That means that we are subject to much more capricious energy prices than retail customers are.
I have long questioned the value of owning our own public utility. When I lived in Smithfield prior to buying my house in Selma, I was outside of their town's municipal grid and fortunately could pay lower electricity rates. Since I now live smack in the middle of Selma, I am captive to higher rates.
I firmly believe that we as a town should investigate the savings we could have by eliminating personnel costs, operations, vehicles, facilities, and the like by not owning our own public utility. I am willing to wager that we could operate the town for a year on the proceeds of a sale of the town's power grid to Progress Energy. I am all for it and my tax bill will go down $100 a month. Of course that $100 differential is not deductible on my income tax return as local taxation, but it should be.
For instance, if Selma wants flowers planted around our downtown (oops, perhaps I should call it "Uptown", but the "rose by any other name" principle applies) and town employees can do so efficiently and cost effectively as opposed to hiring a landscape crew, then I am all for it.
However, I am not as concerned about pansies in downtown as I am about our electricity bills. Last November, one mayoral candidate ran on a platform that included lowering electricity rates in town. Though I agree with that sentiment, short of selling off the town's electricity system, laying off employees, and letting Progress Energy sell us our electricity, it ain't gonna happen. But I am all for that very idea.
I have absolutely nothing against town employees working a job they are paid to perform. This is not personal; it is a matter of efficient government and personal finance. The town electrical workers do a good job at what they do. I remember when the last hurricane hit this area several years ago and I sat under my carport when a transformer blew out just a couple of houses over. We got to watch some town electrical workers quickly and efficiently replace the dead equipment during the eye of the storm, restoring electricity within a few hours.
My wife and I stared in amazement at our latest town electricity bill. It was the highest we have ever had in over seven years of living here in the booming metropolis we call Selma. For a fairly mild month and only a 29-day billing cycle, we were stunned. So I did a little research to see if things would have been cheaper if we got our electricity directly from Progress Energy instead of the town.
I have heard for several years that our electricity rates were not appreciably higher than those of Progress Energy were. In effect, the town is a wholesale customer through Electricities. State law allows municipalities to purchase power wholesale and retail to its constituents. The town buys low and sells high. I have no problem with a business making a profit, but when a town gouges its citizens, I tend to get irate.
I went to the Progress Energy web site and downloaded the current electricity rate. They currently charge $6.75 per month base rate plus 9.557 cents per kilowatt-hour. Selma customers pay $7.50 base rate plus about 13 cents per kilowatt-hour. I did the math and that equates to approximately $100 on my bill this month. Therefore, I paid an extra $100 in TAXES this month to the Town of Selma. Yes, I said taxes, not electricity bill payments. If it is above the normal cost that I can purchase through the local power provider and the town gets the revenue, then this is a tax, not a payment for product or service.
The good thing I can say is that the town has finally dropped the line item for a fuel recovery surcharge. Basically we had an extra charge for a long time that was called a fee when it was really a rate hike without formally calling for a rate hike or having to publicize a rate hike. Whether that surcharge was dropped or the rate was changed to accommodate the increase, I don't care, as long as the bill is more honest in presentation. We do, however, continue to have a sales tax. So we pay extra on our electricity rates and then get taxed on that overage, making it even more insulting. It is a tax on a tax.
Whenever Progress Energy proposes a rate hike for residential customers, they have to get that hike approved through the state utilities regulation authorities. When they decide to hike rates on wholesale customers, such as the Town of Selma and every other Electricities member municipality, I am told that no such approval is necessary. I got that straight from a former Selma Town Manager. That means that we are subject to much more capricious energy prices than retail customers are.
I have long questioned the value of owning our own public utility. When I lived in Smithfield prior to buying my house in Selma, I was outside of their town's municipal grid and fortunately could pay lower electricity rates. Since I now live smack in the middle of Selma, I am captive to higher rates.
I firmly believe that we as a town should investigate the savings we could have by eliminating personnel costs, operations, vehicles, facilities, and the like by not owning our own public utility. I am willing to wager that we could operate the town for a year on the proceeds of a sale of the town's power grid to Progress Energy. I am all for it and my tax bill will go down $100 a month. Of course that $100 differential is not deductible on my income tax return as local taxation, but it should be.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Column for Feb. 18, 2010
I found that on occasion spend money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. I have been doing so since Friday. I guess that it is my part to continue a stimulus package for the local economy.
Actually, I just got my federal tax refund. It is the biggest refund I have ever gotten. With some deductions that have come my way this year and others I have just not taken advantage of, I did well on tax year 2009.
A few things strike me again this year as they do every year. With our current taxation system, we often lose sight of just how much we actually do pay in taxes. I started keeping tally of all the small taxes I pay such as property taxes, vehicle registration, and even some sales taxes. Doggone that adds up. I paid the most I have ever paid in federal and state income taxes this past year. I guess that is a good problem to have since it means I made more money than I ever have before. That is a good thing since my wife has been out of work for a year now.
I guarantee that if we had to cut a monthly check for our individual shares of taxes rather than have some form of payroll deduction, we would tar and feather some revenue agents in this country as was done in the 1700's.
I am glad that I was able to get as much back this year as I did. It is enabling me to get a few home improvements done, do some increased giving, cover some unexpected medical expenses, do more grocery and baby supply shopping, replace a bedding set, and even purchase some personal wants. I would trade that all in for a more fair tax system, though.
Tax refunds are just that, a refund of an overpayment of taxes. We eagerly await them every year, although we have just lent that money to the government interest free. If it was the other way around, I guarantee that we would be subject to penalties and interest. Ask me how I know.
I would prefer a tax system that is based upon consumption rather than income levels. That way, all people pay the same rate just as we do with the state sales tax. Everybody pays the same rates and pays more if they spend more. Spending money is a voluntary act and that means that you have control over the amount of taxes you actually pay.
If I could actually get my entire paycheck every two weeks under an alternative tax system rather than have taxes siphoned off and I get a net check, I would love it. If only there was a different system out there. Wait a minute…there is! It is called The Fair Tax and you can find out more on the internet at www.fairtax.org. Under that tax system, we would pay in effect a national sales tax rather than a national income tax. The price of goods would not go up since current prices have built into them the inherent cost of business income taxes. When the income tax is non-existent, there is no need to increase the cost of goods to cover the cost of taxation. An alternative embedded sales tax within the price of a product would be about the same we pay now.
One thing about the Fair Tax is that it is much closer to the original concept of taxation as laid out by the Founding Fathers. There was a great amount of hatred towards the idea of direct taxation during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government was limited to taxing the states for the cost of running the government. It was up to each state to dole out their fair share of revenue to the national treasury. By so doing, states could punish or manipulate the national government by withholding their share of the burden.
During The Philadelphia Convention, imposts and duties on imports and exports were heavily discussed. Essentially, duties on imports amount to a tax on the consumption of goods. The Fair Tax is very close to that same concept. Therefore I find it to be much closer to the core of American values.
Any tax code in which behavior can be influenced, encouraged, or punished is inherently unjust and fully open to corruption. Any system that taxes some people at a higher rate than others and some even pay no taxes at all is just plain immoral. The Fair Tax for the most part eliminates these concerns. There are a few provisions in the Fair Tax I would like to see changed, but it seems to be the most perfect form of taxation out there. I would much rather pay taxes under it, even if I did get a huge tax refund this year.
Actually, I just got my federal tax refund. It is the biggest refund I have ever gotten. With some deductions that have come my way this year and others I have just not taken advantage of, I did well on tax year 2009.
A few things strike me again this year as they do every year. With our current taxation system, we often lose sight of just how much we actually do pay in taxes. I started keeping tally of all the small taxes I pay such as property taxes, vehicle registration, and even some sales taxes. Doggone that adds up. I paid the most I have ever paid in federal and state income taxes this past year. I guess that is a good problem to have since it means I made more money than I ever have before. That is a good thing since my wife has been out of work for a year now.
I guarantee that if we had to cut a monthly check for our individual shares of taxes rather than have some form of payroll deduction, we would tar and feather some revenue agents in this country as was done in the 1700's.
I am glad that I was able to get as much back this year as I did. It is enabling me to get a few home improvements done, do some increased giving, cover some unexpected medical expenses, do more grocery and baby supply shopping, replace a bedding set, and even purchase some personal wants. I would trade that all in for a more fair tax system, though.
Tax refunds are just that, a refund of an overpayment of taxes. We eagerly await them every year, although we have just lent that money to the government interest free. If it was the other way around, I guarantee that we would be subject to penalties and interest. Ask me how I know.
I would prefer a tax system that is based upon consumption rather than income levels. That way, all people pay the same rate just as we do with the state sales tax. Everybody pays the same rates and pays more if they spend more. Spending money is a voluntary act and that means that you have control over the amount of taxes you actually pay.
If I could actually get my entire paycheck every two weeks under an alternative tax system rather than have taxes siphoned off and I get a net check, I would love it. If only there was a different system out there. Wait a minute…there is! It is called The Fair Tax and you can find out more on the internet at www.fairtax.org. Under that tax system, we would pay in effect a national sales tax rather than a national income tax. The price of goods would not go up since current prices have built into them the inherent cost of business income taxes. When the income tax is non-existent, there is no need to increase the cost of goods to cover the cost of taxation. An alternative embedded sales tax within the price of a product would be about the same we pay now.
One thing about the Fair Tax is that it is much closer to the original concept of taxation as laid out by the Founding Fathers. There was a great amount of hatred towards the idea of direct taxation during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government was limited to taxing the states for the cost of running the government. It was up to each state to dole out their fair share of revenue to the national treasury. By so doing, states could punish or manipulate the national government by withholding their share of the burden.
During The Philadelphia Convention, imposts and duties on imports and exports were heavily discussed. Essentially, duties on imports amount to a tax on the consumption of goods. The Fair Tax is very close to that same concept. Therefore I find it to be much closer to the core of American values.
Any tax code in which behavior can be influenced, encouraged, or punished is inherently unjust and fully open to corruption. Any system that taxes some people at a higher rate than others and some even pay no taxes at all is just plain immoral. The Fair Tax for the most part eliminates these concerns. There are a few provisions in the Fair Tax I would like to see changed, but it seems to be the most perfect form of taxation out there. I would much rather pay taxes under it, even if I did get a huge tax refund this year.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Column for Sept. 10, 2009
I found an article in this newspaper interesting. You, the taxpayers, are paying for local businesses to borrow money for their businesses. To quote the article, "A $75,000 loan fund, made available to the town of Selma through a USDA grant, has made it possible for six Selma businesses to finance their operations in the midst of a tough market." This is not the first such program I have read about here in Selma.
Let me start with this disclaimer. I have absolutely no issue with any business or business owner that would take advantage of a program for them to finance a business. I get it. I was a business owner, myself. I just have a problem with a government that would use taxpayer money for such purposes.
I owned three small businesses that were running concurrently. Two of them were profitable. The third made a profit, as well, but was more of a hobby with which I made a few dollars or did work pro bono. My two main businesses were both at the point where I had to either expand or get out of business, since the growth was overwhelming on one and as a result, the other was being neglected and was more of a nuisance to keep running, though profitable.
I owned a used book business that grew huge on the internet and I really needed to either open a brick and mortar retail location or get some warehouse space. I had more books than the town library stuffed in my home. Like all businesses, the revenue was in direct proportion to the amount of effort expended in the endeavor. Already having a decent full time job, I could not afford the time to make book sales a full time job in addition to my regular one. Unfortunately, my business partner decided to be a slacker and failed to put any appreciable effort into the venture, although it was rather profitable and easy to do. If I had been more engaged full time in that business as a livelihood, I might very well have considered the revolving loan program provided through the USDA grant to the Town of Selma.
I am looking at the US Department of Agriculture web site right now. There are many programs that they administer for rural areas. They are involved in water and environment programs, housing loans, tourism promotion, rural economy loans and grants, utility services, etc.
I have been racking my brain trying to find where the US Constitution authorizes these activities. The 10th Amendment seems to reserve any such things for the individual states. Furthermore, since these programs are administered through the USDA, I am trying to figure out what business development in downtown Selma has to do with agriculture. The last I knew, we did not grow corn, wheat, tobacco, hogs, or cows in antique shops, bridal stores, and furniture factories. Again, it is hard to blame a business for taking advantage of a program. It is not hard to fault a government entity for violating its constitutional authority, forcibly taking billions of dollars of tax money and giving it away to towns, and earmark that money for private enterprise.
From a taxpayer perspective, there is possibly one good part to the program. The money from the USDA is a grant and not a loan to the town. If this were a loan to the town, we would have been taxed on the one end to provide the original funds and then taxed on the other end by the town to pay back the money. Being taxed twice to provide loans to small business is just plain unethical; not that taxing us once for the program is exactly in and of itself ethical, either.
Are you fed up with the level of federal taxation? Look no further than programs such as this. Not every good idea necessarily should be implemented or is fair to all. Multiply this single grant of $75,000 times the literally thousands of rural areas in the country that have similar grants, and we have budgets of billions of dollars. If we are to ever get spending under control on the federal level (not to mention state, county, and municipal levels), then we have to start somewhere. I, for one, am tired of paying for others' businesses and households to operate. I have my own household to keep rolling financially.
When does it all end, people? With how much public debt and taxation are we going to saddle future generations? When are we as a nation going to abide by our own constitution?
Let me start with this disclaimer. I have absolutely no issue with any business or business owner that would take advantage of a program for them to finance a business. I get it. I was a business owner, myself. I just have a problem with a government that would use taxpayer money for such purposes.
I owned three small businesses that were running concurrently. Two of them were profitable. The third made a profit, as well, but was more of a hobby with which I made a few dollars or did work pro bono. My two main businesses were both at the point where I had to either expand or get out of business, since the growth was overwhelming on one and as a result, the other was being neglected and was more of a nuisance to keep running, though profitable.
I owned a used book business that grew huge on the internet and I really needed to either open a brick and mortar retail location or get some warehouse space. I had more books than the town library stuffed in my home. Like all businesses, the revenue was in direct proportion to the amount of effort expended in the endeavor. Already having a decent full time job, I could not afford the time to make book sales a full time job in addition to my regular one. Unfortunately, my business partner decided to be a slacker and failed to put any appreciable effort into the venture, although it was rather profitable and easy to do. If I had been more engaged full time in that business as a livelihood, I might very well have considered the revolving loan program provided through the USDA grant to the Town of Selma.
I am looking at the US Department of Agriculture web site right now. There are many programs that they administer for rural areas. They are involved in water and environment programs, housing loans, tourism promotion, rural economy loans and grants, utility services, etc.
I have been racking my brain trying to find where the US Constitution authorizes these activities. The 10th Amendment seems to reserve any such things for the individual states. Furthermore, since these programs are administered through the USDA, I am trying to figure out what business development in downtown Selma has to do with agriculture. The last I knew, we did not grow corn, wheat, tobacco, hogs, or cows in antique shops, bridal stores, and furniture factories. Again, it is hard to blame a business for taking advantage of a program. It is not hard to fault a government entity for violating its constitutional authority, forcibly taking billions of dollars of tax money and giving it away to towns, and earmark that money for private enterprise.
From a taxpayer perspective, there is possibly one good part to the program. The money from the USDA is a grant and not a loan to the town. If this were a loan to the town, we would have been taxed on the one end to provide the original funds and then taxed on the other end by the town to pay back the money. Being taxed twice to provide loans to small business is just plain unethical; not that taxing us once for the program is exactly in and of itself ethical, either.
Are you fed up with the level of federal taxation? Look no further than programs such as this. Not every good idea necessarily should be implemented or is fair to all. Multiply this single grant of $75,000 times the literally thousands of rural areas in the country that have similar grants, and we have budgets of billions of dollars. If we are to ever get spending under control on the federal level (not to mention state, county, and municipal levels), then we have to start somewhere. I, for one, am tired of paying for others' businesses and households to operate. I have my own household to keep rolling financially.
When does it all end, people? With how much public debt and taxation are we going to saddle future generations? When are we as a nation going to abide by our own constitution?
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Column for July 23, 2009
As usual, since I have been a resident of Selma, I have been following the news about the upcoming municipal election. I peek at what is happening in other towns, but obviously my main focus is upon the town in which I reside, as it should be with residents of every town.
Many people neglect the municipal level of elections and instead focus on the national political scene and maybe even state level. However, no level of government affects your daily life more than the municipal level. Unfortunately, this is most often the most neglected level in terms of voter participation, media coverage, and even candidate participation.
It is at the municipal level (and often the county level) that decisions are taken regarding the water you drink, the electricity you use, the sewer rates you pay, and the property and sales taxes you pay. It is also where you are told whether or not you can build a home or business, whether you have to repair or tear down a dilapidated house, if you have to mow your lawn, and sometimes even how fast you can drive.
The deadline for filing for municipal elections has come and gone already. This year's election will either be very interesting or very dull. I have not decided which. I guess that time will help me with that conclusion.
Incumbents Debbie Johnson and Jackie Lacy have filed for re-election to the Town Council, and Charles Hester has filed for the mayor's job yet again. Hester has two opponents for the upcoming election and there are a total of five people running for just two seats on the Council.
Four years ago, Debbie Johnson was quoted as saying that she was not sure if she was going to run in that election cycle, but she did anyway. Four years later, she apparently thinks that she is a good enough representative to stay in office for yet another term.
Jackie Lacy is an interesting case. I have been to many Council meetings and observed all members of the Council and the Mayor. I like Jackie as an individual, but as a representative in government, I am underwhelmed. I have plenty of more commentary on the ladies, but I choose to exercise self-restraint.
Mayor Hester has been a controversial individual for both of his two-year terms. Though I appreciate the propensity to actually lead, it is no secret that I strongly disagree with his dictatorial methodology and bullying tactics. I don't care how long one has spent in the military in a previous career, a municipality (or any other representative republic) is no place for those tactics. I agree with many of Hester's views but I equally, vehemently disagree with others.
With two opponents this year, it will be interesting to see how the vote is split and whether that will help or hinder Mayor Phineas T. Bluster. With less than a 25 vote swing in the last election, Chucky could have lost to a relatively unknown candidate. In all probability, had the polls not closed an hour later than normal in the east precinct, yielding time to make numerous phone calls and truck in voters for his cause, we would have had a new mayor.
Here is something I want everyone to remember regarding the incumbents. It was under the watch of Debbie Johnson and Jackie Lacy that we got the spending and budget crunch Selma had that resulted in employee layoffs, budget cuts, questionable accounting practices, and are now on our third town manager. It was under theirs and Hester's watch that we had property taxes raised three out of four years, had attempts at forced annexation, and attempts to control private properties up to two miles outside the town limits…all for money and power.
Speaking of property taxes, Tommy Holmes is running again for the town council. Though he and I agree on taxation, one can hardly be a "one issue" candidate year after year. I don't know if Tommy will make any headway this year, and I hope that he actually chooses to participate in candidate forums rather than sit them out yet again this election cycle.
The bottom line, my philosophy is not that we should kick out all incumbents and put in all new leadership. However, the quote from success guru Tony Robbins is axiomatic when applied to elections, not just business. "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten." Will voters remember this in November? I doubt it.
Many people neglect the municipal level of elections and instead focus on the national political scene and maybe even state level. However, no level of government affects your daily life more than the municipal level. Unfortunately, this is most often the most neglected level in terms of voter participation, media coverage, and even candidate participation.
It is at the municipal level (and often the county level) that decisions are taken regarding the water you drink, the electricity you use, the sewer rates you pay, and the property and sales taxes you pay. It is also where you are told whether or not you can build a home or business, whether you have to repair or tear down a dilapidated house, if you have to mow your lawn, and sometimes even how fast you can drive.
The deadline for filing for municipal elections has come and gone already. This year's election will either be very interesting or very dull. I have not decided which. I guess that time will help me with that conclusion.
Incumbents Debbie Johnson and Jackie Lacy have filed for re-election to the Town Council, and Charles Hester has filed for the mayor's job yet again. Hester has two opponents for the upcoming election and there are a total of five people running for just two seats on the Council.
Four years ago, Debbie Johnson was quoted as saying that she was not sure if she was going to run in that election cycle, but she did anyway. Four years later, she apparently thinks that she is a good enough representative to stay in office for yet another term.
Jackie Lacy is an interesting case. I have been to many Council meetings and observed all members of the Council and the Mayor. I like Jackie as an individual, but as a representative in government, I am underwhelmed. I have plenty of more commentary on the ladies, but I choose to exercise self-restraint.
Mayor Hester has been a controversial individual for both of his two-year terms. Though I appreciate the propensity to actually lead, it is no secret that I strongly disagree with his dictatorial methodology and bullying tactics. I don't care how long one has spent in the military in a previous career, a municipality (or any other representative republic) is no place for those tactics. I agree with many of Hester's views but I equally, vehemently disagree with others.
With two opponents this year, it will be interesting to see how the vote is split and whether that will help or hinder Mayor Phineas T. Bluster. With less than a 25 vote swing in the last election, Chucky could have lost to a relatively unknown candidate. In all probability, had the polls not closed an hour later than normal in the east precinct, yielding time to make numerous phone calls and truck in voters for his cause, we would have had a new mayor.
Here is something I want everyone to remember regarding the incumbents. It was under the watch of Debbie Johnson and Jackie Lacy that we got the spending and budget crunch Selma had that resulted in employee layoffs, budget cuts, questionable accounting practices, and are now on our third town manager. It was under theirs and Hester's watch that we had property taxes raised three out of four years, had attempts at forced annexation, and attempts to control private properties up to two miles outside the town limits…all for money and power.
Speaking of property taxes, Tommy Holmes is running again for the town council. Though he and I agree on taxation, one can hardly be a "one issue" candidate year after year. I don't know if Tommy will make any headway this year, and I hope that he actually chooses to participate in candidate forums rather than sit them out yet again this election cycle.
The bottom line, my philosophy is not that we should kick out all incumbents and put in all new leadership. However, the quote from success guru Tony Robbins is axiomatic when applied to elections, not just business. "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten." Will voters remember this in November? I doubt it.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Column for April 3, 2008
What in the world are people thinking?
I just fail to comprehend the mindset that some people employ when it comes to the state of affairs in America. Maybe it is because I read notes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, read biographies of people like John Adams, and watch historical documentaries for leisure. Then again, I read "The Godfather" and watch the movie from time to time, as well.
Just this evening (I am writing this on Monday) I was asked opinion on the upcoming Presidential Election with the choice basically of Obama, Clinton, or McCain. My whole answer was that it looks like people may have to vote for the lesser of three evils. In this case, this expression could not be more appropriate. It is, however, merely indicative of the national, apostate paradigm.
I was reading a news article just today on the latest new powers proposed for the Federal Reserve. I guess the facts that "The Fed" is not exactly Constitutional, nor that the Federal Reserve Board are not really accountable to anybody is important to most in government. The proposal would cover everything from regulation of mortgage lending to insurance agencies, to investment brokerages.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quoted as saying, "We must take steps now to provide help to families who are hurting." I am sorry, but it is not the government's job to help every family who is having issues. I have been literally bankrupt in my life (though I never filed as such) but worked hard to overcome my situation. If I borrowed more to buy a house than I could afford, it would seem that it is my own fault for obligating myself to such a commitment and not the lender's fault. That is why we have record defaults and foreclosures. More regulation will not solve problems like that. I took advantage of the great lending market five years ago, as did millions of other people. I have just paid my mortgage every month and I did not buy more house than I could afford.
We already have The Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates the financial markets. The Federal Reserve, an almost autonomous body would have broader powers to look after financial markets and risks. The very idea of risk is the definition of what makes a free market economy. Some take risks and win, others take risks and lose. I take risks three times a month as I put money into my ongoing investments; others do the same to whatever extent suits them. That risk sometimes pays off for me, other times not so much. Nonetheless, it is my risk to take…or not.
Barack Obama is on record as wanting to raise the capital gains tax and provide universal health care. Hillary Clinton is determined to get us some sort of health care system that will take over one seventh of the economy. John McCain wants to legitimize twelve million lawbreakers and provide amnesty to illegal aliens in this country. McCain is famous for McCain-Feingold, a law that limits free speech during campaign season under the guise of campaign finance reform.
Now, our so called champion of "compassionate conservatism" President and left wing Congress want to illegally place more regulatory power into the hands of an un-elected body of bureaucrats and tinker with an already reportedly precarious economy.
Closer to home, I have been reading about revamping the Triangle Transportation Authority and giving it another name and maybe a new focus. I still hear about toll roads in North Carolina. I hear about school systems asking for 12% increases in budgets. Some counties in the state are still talking about a land transfer or sales tax increase.
Why do we allow such things to happen? Why do we just "take it in the teeth" as citizens? Just today (Monday) I watched a reenactment of a tax collector getting tarred and feathered in the 1700's because of excessive and unfair taxes and trade practices. Yet I look on the horizon and see that we are about to elect either one of two Socialists or a pseudo conservative to the highest office in America. What are people thinking? In which parallel universe or Twilight Zone episode am I living? Still, I thank God that this is not my home, because people are sure trying to ruin this one.
I just fail to comprehend the mindset that some people employ when it comes to the state of affairs in America. Maybe it is because I read notes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, read biographies of people like John Adams, and watch historical documentaries for leisure. Then again, I read "The Godfather" and watch the movie from time to time, as well.
Just this evening (I am writing this on Monday) I was asked opinion on the upcoming Presidential Election with the choice basically of Obama, Clinton, or McCain. My whole answer was that it looks like people may have to vote for the lesser of three evils. In this case, this expression could not be more appropriate. It is, however, merely indicative of the national, apostate paradigm.
I was reading a news article just today on the latest new powers proposed for the Federal Reserve. I guess the facts that "The Fed" is not exactly Constitutional, nor that the Federal Reserve Board are not really accountable to anybody is important to most in government. The proposal would cover everything from regulation of mortgage lending to insurance agencies, to investment brokerages.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quoted as saying, "We must take steps now to provide help to families who are hurting." I am sorry, but it is not the government's job to help every family who is having issues. I have been literally bankrupt in my life (though I never filed as such) but worked hard to overcome my situation. If I borrowed more to buy a house than I could afford, it would seem that it is my own fault for obligating myself to such a commitment and not the lender's fault. That is why we have record defaults and foreclosures. More regulation will not solve problems like that. I took advantage of the great lending market five years ago, as did millions of other people. I have just paid my mortgage every month and I did not buy more house than I could afford.
We already have The Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates the financial markets. The Federal Reserve, an almost autonomous body would have broader powers to look after financial markets and risks. The very idea of risk is the definition of what makes a free market economy. Some take risks and win, others take risks and lose. I take risks three times a month as I put money into my ongoing investments; others do the same to whatever extent suits them. That risk sometimes pays off for me, other times not so much. Nonetheless, it is my risk to take…or not.
Barack Obama is on record as wanting to raise the capital gains tax and provide universal health care. Hillary Clinton is determined to get us some sort of health care system that will take over one seventh of the economy. John McCain wants to legitimize twelve million lawbreakers and provide amnesty to illegal aliens in this country. McCain is famous for McCain-Feingold, a law that limits free speech during campaign season under the guise of campaign finance reform.
Now, our so called champion of "compassionate conservatism" President and left wing Congress want to illegally place more regulatory power into the hands of an un-elected body of bureaucrats and tinker with an already reportedly precarious economy.
Closer to home, I have been reading about revamping the Triangle Transportation Authority and giving it another name and maybe a new focus. I still hear about toll roads in North Carolina. I hear about school systems asking for 12% increases in budgets. Some counties in the state are still talking about a land transfer or sales tax increase.
Why do we allow such things to happen? Why do we just "take it in the teeth" as citizens? Just today (Monday) I watched a reenactment of a tax collector getting tarred and feathered in the 1700's because of excessive and unfair taxes and trade practices. Yet I look on the horizon and see that we are about to elect either one of two Socialists or a pseudo conservative to the highest office in America. What are people thinking? In which parallel universe or Twilight Zone episode am I living? Still, I thank God that this is not my home, because people are sure trying to ruin this one.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Column for March 20, 2008
If done right, and responsibly, the streetscape plan would be nice
I watched with interest the short presentation on the proposed streetscape plan for Selma at the last Town Council meeting. This is not a new plan. Basically a three year old plan has been recycled for consideration. For those familiar with the project, Smithfield just underwent a similar streetscape project. To their credit, Smithfield's downtown district does look a lot better than it used to.
Personally, I like planned neighborhoods with business districts nearby that have nicely planned streets. I also like things places such as South Pointe Mall in Durham and the new North Hills in Raleigh. They are very attractive. Those looks, of course, come with a price. For Selma, the proposed plan would be about $1.5 million. Personally, I do like the idea as well as the price tag and believe it to be worth the price. I find it to be a good investment in the town on several levels. I have sat down and pondered the pros and cons of having such a project in Selma. I have contacted people involved in the Smithfield project so that I can have more input for my thought process. Here are my concerns, including both pros and cons.
For the pro side, there would be an obvious benefit as to the aesthetics of "uptown" (just because you call something "uptown" as opposed to "downtown" does not change its character. A rose by any other name...yadda, yadda). The sidewalks would look better, the streets and crosswalks would look better, and the traffic lights hanging on a wire would be replaced by a better system. There would be more town pride, and we may realize more visitors to downtown in the long term. I spoke with one of the coordinators for the Smithfield project, and he said that as yet, there are not quantifiable increases in the business volume in their downtown as a direct result of the project. Is it still a worthy idea? I believe so, provided that we do it properly.
The last major streetscape project in Selma, as I understand it, was 50 or so years ago. Sidewalks were laid and oak trees planted along the streets. Since I live on the west side of Selma, I can mainly speak for what I see on my side of town, since that is where I walk, drive, and spend time the most. The sidewalks are torn up, uneven, and trees diseased and unkempt. Roots have grown up, trees grown into the path of travel both on the roadways and sidewalks, and even block the views of traffic getting onto the main roads from driveways and side streets. Basically, the nice idea was executed but left to languish in the mire of malaise and neglect.
The current project will have beautiful sidewalks. I live just two blocks from edge of the proposed work. I can not walk my dog around the block without tripping over uneven and broken sidewalks. Some areas of town have no sidewalks at all. In that regard, the town should be more concerned about liability of sidewalk surfaces than it was over the liability of an old water tower a year and a half ago. I would hate to see the trees and sidewalks of the new project fall into the same state of neglect and disrepair as the last major overhaul. If we as a town are going to commit to such a project, we need to obligate ourselves to long term maintenance and planning.
Another thing that bothers me about the project is the proposed method of funding. I have written previously about my disdain for using federal government loans, especially the USDA program, for financing. Sure, the loans are low interest and available. The same USDA project has also helped fund almost putting Howell Theater out of business by funding the construction for the Dickinson Theater near Factory Stores. Yup, your tax money helped about kill a local business. Never mind the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to lend money to towns. What do a movie theater and town sidewalks have to do with agriculture or the USDA, anyway? We as tax payers pay for the original funding to the end up in Washington, DC. Then, we as taxpayers fork out to pay the loan back at the local level. Every time you buy a movie ticket at the 10 screen theater, you are helping pay yourselves back as taxpayers.
I am not keen on obligating the town and our future generations for the next 40 years to pay for something that only costs $1.5 million. If we plan things correctly, we should be able to fund a lot of that ourselves. I don't care if we have to be creative and offer the opportunity for people to donate money to supply the bricks for the sidewalks or buy the trees. I will gladly pay for some bricks my own self. This is, after all, my town. I am sure that people can, for the right price, purchase vanity bricks with the names of donors in them for all to see and walk upon. People could purchase memorial stones (such as the stars on the sidewalks of Hollywood) of prominent Selma citizens past and present. For that matter, I don't care if the new traffic light poles look like giant Coca Cola bottles or Butterfinger candy bars, as long as they are not purchased with taxpayer money. OK, I exaggerate, but you get the idea.
It was suggested that a special local tax be levied to fund the project, but I am certainly not fond of increased taxation, and I am not sure that such a tax would help in Selma, considering the difference between our town's business district and that of Smithfield, where the tax did help fund their project. If I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I would perhaps choose the USDA funding that I so abhor.
Either way, if we are to have a streetscape project, we truly need to get creative with financing, we need to have long term commitment to maintenance of the project once complete, and perhaps we need to look at taking care of the last major project and fixing its issues for the sake of aesthetics and liability before tackling a new one. To me, the last part makes sense and I feel it would perhaps be a wiser use of tax money. It would also contribute to making Selma "A Charming Place to Be". Sure, a new streetscape project would certainly do that, and I support the idea of a new project. However, I also hate to do so at the expense of previously abrogated responsibilities.
I watched with interest the short presentation on the proposed streetscape plan for Selma at the last Town Council meeting. This is not a new plan. Basically a three year old plan has been recycled for consideration. For those familiar with the project, Smithfield just underwent a similar streetscape project. To their credit, Smithfield's downtown district does look a lot better than it used to.
Personally, I like planned neighborhoods with business districts nearby that have nicely planned streets. I also like things places such as South Pointe Mall in Durham and the new North Hills in Raleigh. They are very attractive. Those looks, of course, come with a price. For Selma, the proposed plan would be about $1.5 million. Personally, I do like the idea as well as the price tag and believe it to be worth the price. I find it to be a good investment in the town on several levels. I have sat down and pondered the pros and cons of having such a project in Selma. I have contacted people involved in the Smithfield project so that I can have more input for my thought process. Here are my concerns, including both pros and cons.
For the pro side, there would be an obvious benefit as to the aesthetics of "uptown" (just because you call something "uptown" as opposed to "downtown" does not change its character. A rose by any other name...yadda, yadda). The sidewalks would look better, the streets and crosswalks would look better, and the traffic lights hanging on a wire would be replaced by a better system. There would be more town pride, and we may realize more visitors to downtown in the long term. I spoke with one of the coordinators for the Smithfield project, and he said that as yet, there are not quantifiable increases in the business volume in their downtown as a direct result of the project. Is it still a worthy idea? I believe so, provided that we do it properly.
The last major streetscape project in Selma, as I understand it, was 50 or so years ago. Sidewalks were laid and oak trees planted along the streets. Since I live on the west side of Selma, I can mainly speak for what I see on my side of town, since that is where I walk, drive, and spend time the most. The sidewalks are torn up, uneven, and trees diseased and unkempt. Roots have grown up, trees grown into the path of travel both on the roadways and sidewalks, and even block the views of traffic getting onto the main roads from driveways and side streets. Basically, the nice idea was executed but left to languish in the mire of malaise and neglect.
The current project will have beautiful sidewalks. I live just two blocks from edge of the proposed work. I can not walk my dog around the block without tripping over uneven and broken sidewalks. Some areas of town have no sidewalks at all. In that regard, the town should be more concerned about liability of sidewalk surfaces than it was over the liability of an old water tower a year and a half ago. I would hate to see the trees and sidewalks of the new project fall into the same state of neglect and disrepair as the last major overhaul. If we as a town are going to commit to such a project, we need to obligate ourselves to long term maintenance and planning.
Another thing that bothers me about the project is the proposed method of funding. I have written previously about my disdain for using federal government loans, especially the USDA program, for financing. Sure, the loans are low interest and available. The same USDA project has also helped fund almost putting Howell Theater out of business by funding the construction for the Dickinson Theater near Factory Stores. Yup, your tax money helped about kill a local business. Never mind the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to lend money to towns. What do a movie theater and town sidewalks have to do with agriculture or the USDA, anyway? We as tax payers pay for the original funding to the end up in Washington, DC. Then, we as taxpayers fork out to pay the loan back at the local level. Every time you buy a movie ticket at the 10 screen theater, you are helping pay yourselves back as taxpayers.
I am not keen on obligating the town and our future generations for the next 40 years to pay for something that only costs $1.5 million. If we plan things correctly, we should be able to fund a lot of that ourselves. I don't care if we have to be creative and offer the opportunity for people to donate money to supply the bricks for the sidewalks or buy the trees. I will gladly pay for some bricks my own self. This is, after all, my town. I am sure that people can, for the right price, purchase vanity bricks with the names of donors in them for all to see and walk upon. People could purchase memorial stones (such as the stars on the sidewalks of Hollywood) of prominent Selma citizens past and present. For that matter, I don't care if the new traffic light poles look like giant Coca Cola bottles or Butterfinger candy bars, as long as they are not purchased with taxpayer money. OK, I exaggerate, but you get the idea.
It was suggested that a special local tax be levied to fund the project, but I am certainly not fond of increased taxation, and I am not sure that such a tax would help in Selma, considering the difference between our town's business district and that of Smithfield, where the tax did help fund their project. If I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I would perhaps choose the USDA funding that I so abhor.
Either way, if we are to have a streetscape project, we truly need to get creative with financing, we need to have long term commitment to maintenance of the project once complete, and perhaps we need to look at taking care of the last major project and fixing its issues for the sake of aesthetics and liability before tackling a new one. To me, the last part makes sense and I feel it would perhaps be a wiser use of tax money. It would also contribute to making Selma "A Charming Place to Be". Sure, a new streetscape project would certainly do that, and I support the idea of a new project. However, I also hate to do so at the expense of previously abrogated responsibilities.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Column for March 13, 2008
Why not just call it what it is?
Just the night before writing this column, I had an excellent dream. I dreamt that the head of a governmental agency at a local county decided to charge a fee for a service on top of its customary, nominal charge. That move caused a lot of anger and protests amongst the public, since people understood that the additional fee for service was just another way of passing a tax increase without having a formal increase voted on and passed by the elected officials for that county. Now that was actually a pleasant dream to me. The idea of recognizing that the fees associated with government services for which we already pay with our tax dollars are just another form of taxation was an epiphany to many people in my dream. The idea of so many people having such a revelation, however, would be just a dream, I fear.
Calling something by another name does not negate the impact or reality of the thing. For instance, I looked at my fuel bill recently. There was a fuel surcharge for delivering propane. It does not take over $3 worth of diesel fuel to deliver a few gallons of propane along a route. However, bury that charge as a line item surcharge rather than jacking up the rate per gallon, and the cost may be hidden in the lines on the bill that show taxes charged. Just call it what it is, a rate hike.
I remember getting into a rather tense discussion with a pastor and his staff at a Triangle area church which I used to attend many years ago. As a matter of fact, I used to be on part time staff there. I was paid a paltry $300 per month for my work there. I do not say paltry in that I was disappointed in the rate of pay. Rather I say that I had asked to work free, as my labor of love to serve my God. The pastor insisted on paying for my labors, and I acquiesced. During this time of employment, I got to see the monthly budget for the church. Both the pastor and his wife were employed at this fairly large congregation which taught along the lines of many televangelists you may have seen over the years. There were numerous checks written to the two of them each month.
Whether the check was for a housing allowance, a car allowance, an insurance allowance, salary, etc., the bottom line is that all checks were to them and went into their checking account. To me, that is income, regardless of how the IRS categorizes it. If it is money coming in, it is income. On my job, I get one check and out of it I have to pay my housing, my insurance, my transportation expenses, etc. Ergo, each check to them, in my humble yet most accurate opinion, is in fact income. Call it what it is. It is money coming in, therefore, income. That pastor and his wife were taking home (not before taxes, mind you) in excess of $100,000 per year. I do not begrudge anyone earning that amount at all. I do, however, have a problem with not admitting that it is what it is, income.
During that same time frame, the church congregation gave thousands of dollars in cash to the pastor and his wife as love gifts for pastoral appreciation celebrations. The congregation gave money for birthday, anniversary, and Christmas gifts each and every year. Some gifts were very expensive. Here I was in one of the lowest income years of my life after a lay-off and the church elders were pushing for more and more monetary gifts to send the pastor and his wife on an all expense paid vacation. Three times, the church leaders twisted the arms of the parishioners for more money to send the couple on a vacation, while they were already earning plenty of money with which to pay for their own trip. Many congregation members were shamed into giving when they could not afford to pay their utility bills or feed their own families. By contrast, I said that I was in a money crunch and I called it like I saw it. The couple was making six figures a year and they can afford their own doggone vacation, thank you. This of course, went over like the proverbial turd in a punch bowl, and my employment was short lived from that point forward.
I learned a lot from that incident. People who wish to squeeze money out of you are willing to change the name of what it is that they are doing and resent someone calling it what it really is. Whether it is a charlatan trying to pry money from your wallet, a utility company wanting to find a way to get more cash each billing cycle, or a power and money hungry bureaucracy, people will lie, obfuscate, and play semantics to get what they want. They resist heavily those who wish to speak the truth.
My encouragement is that all would be blunt and bold enough to call it like it is. Call a tax a tax. Call a lie a lie. When facing the upcoming elections, see past the rhetoric of "change". Call taxation, socialism, and amnesty plans exactly what they are. When dealing with businesses, governmental agencies, and organizations, call their actions as they truly are and do not allow semantics to dissuade you from the truth.
Just the night before writing this column, I had an excellent dream. I dreamt that the head of a governmental agency at a local county decided to charge a fee for a service on top of its customary, nominal charge. That move caused a lot of anger and protests amongst the public, since people understood that the additional fee for service was just another way of passing a tax increase without having a formal increase voted on and passed by the elected officials for that county. Now that was actually a pleasant dream to me. The idea of recognizing that the fees associated with government services for which we already pay with our tax dollars are just another form of taxation was an epiphany to many people in my dream. The idea of so many people having such a revelation, however, would be just a dream, I fear.
Calling something by another name does not negate the impact or reality of the thing. For instance, I looked at my fuel bill recently. There was a fuel surcharge for delivering propane. It does not take over $3 worth of diesel fuel to deliver a few gallons of propane along a route. However, bury that charge as a line item surcharge rather than jacking up the rate per gallon, and the cost may be hidden in the lines on the bill that show taxes charged. Just call it what it is, a rate hike.
I remember getting into a rather tense discussion with a pastor and his staff at a Triangle area church which I used to attend many years ago. As a matter of fact, I used to be on part time staff there. I was paid a paltry $300 per month for my work there. I do not say paltry in that I was disappointed in the rate of pay. Rather I say that I had asked to work free, as my labor of love to serve my God. The pastor insisted on paying for my labors, and I acquiesced. During this time of employment, I got to see the monthly budget for the church. Both the pastor and his wife were employed at this fairly large congregation which taught along the lines of many televangelists you may have seen over the years. There were numerous checks written to the two of them each month.
Whether the check was for a housing allowance, a car allowance, an insurance allowance, salary, etc., the bottom line is that all checks were to them and went into their checking account. To me, that is income, regardless of how the IRS categorizes it. If it is money coming in, it is income. On my job, I get one check and out of it I have to pay my housing, my insurance, my transportation expenses, etc. Ergo, each check to them, in my humble yet most accurate opinion, is in fact income. Call it what it is. It is money coming in, therefore, income. That pastor and his wife were taking home (not before taxes, mind you) in excess of $100,000 per year. I do not begrudge anyone earning that amount at all. I do, however, have a problem with not admitting that it is what it is, income.
During that same time frame, the church congregation gave thousands of dollars in cash to the pastor and his wife as love gifts for pastoral appreciation celebrations. The congregation gave money for birthday, anniversary, and Christmas gifts each and every year. Some gifts were very expensive. Here I was in one of the lowest income years of my life after a lay-off and the church elders were pushing for more and more monetary gifts to send the pastor and his wife on an all expense paid vacation. Three times, the church leaders twisted the arms of the parishioners for more money to send the couple on a vacation, while they were already earning plenty of money with which to pay for their own trip. Many congregation members were shamed into giving when they could not afford to pay their utility bills or feed their own families. By contrast, I said that I was in a money crunch and I called it like I saw it. The couple was making six figures a year and they can afford their own doggone vacation, thank you. This of course, went over like the proverbial turd in a punch bowl, and my employment was short lived from that point forward.I learned a lot from that incident. People who wish to squeeze money out of you are willing to change the name of what it is that they are doing and resent someone calling it what it really is. Whether it is a charlatan trying to pry money from your wallet, a utility company wanting to find a way to get more cash each billing cycle, or a power and money hungry bureaucracy, people will lie, obfuscate, and play semantics to get what they want. They resist heavily those who wish to speak the truth.
My encouragement is that all would be blunt and bold enough to call it like it is. Call a tax a tax. Call a lie a lie. When facing the upcoming elections, see past the rhetoric of "change". Call taxation, socialism, and amnesty plans exactly what they are. When dealing with businesses, governmental agencies, and organizations, call their actions as they truly are and do not allow semantics to dissuade you from the truth.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Column for Feb. 14, 2008
I had several topics I wanted to cover, but none would take up a full column, so I decided to go with the "LaPlante's Rants" being plural rather than singular concept. So, here it goes.
I just finished filing my annual federal and state tax returns. Even with a good tax software program that I use every year, it was a real challenge this year. I had to deal with capital gains tax, stock options, medical bills, and more receipts than to which I am accustomed. I could have saved a few hours of my own time, corporations save tons of money, and Americans save plenty of time and money by having a simple tax code. I am a huge supporter of the so-called Fair Tax. We could replace our entire income tax and FICA tax system with a single national consumption tax. This would save so much time and money and none of us would have to fight with a tax code thicker than The Bible. It would also tax us according to our spending rather than the enslavement of our labors, all would pay taxes including illegal aliens and criminals, and we would not have an easily manipulated, punitive tax code.
I am very frustrated with the amount of taxes I have paid that will potentially going to people who do not work as I do, much less file tax returns. I personally know people who have what has been aptly termed a learned helplessness. There are people who frustrate me by leeching off the government, friends, and family. Why in the world do people cry total poverty, yet will run out to Wal-Mart to buy the latest DVD releases, get tattoos, buy cartons of tobacco products, pay for high speed internet, and satellite television? It is all a matter of priorities. I realize that there are truly those who are destitute in this world, but I am so tired of people begging to borrow money from me when they could simply do some planning on their own, exercise some self restraint, and do for themselves. In addition, many people could do much better on their own rather than waiting for the rest of us taxpayers to pay for their paltry monthly handout.
I recently had need to send a certified letter across the state. I paid the extra postage for the certified mail service, which also allowed for status tracking on the internet. I am glad that I could get an online status, since the post office is incredibly inefficient at returning mail such as mine that was refused for delivery. The letter took only one day to arrive for delivery, but after the recipient's refusal, I am still waiting for the return of the letter over two weeks later. Nobody at the post office can tell me where the letter is and why it has not yet been returned, even though there is a tracking bar code affixed to it. If UPS, FedEx, and DHL can track a package along every step of the delivery process, why can not the United States Postal Service do the same? Over five years later, my mother is still waiting for a Mothers' Day gift I sent her. When I got a PO Box, mail was taking six days to be forwarded from my home address in Selma to the PO Box. The mail was routed from Selma to Raleigh and then back to Selma to be placed into my box, just thirty feet from where the mail was placed to be routed through Raleigh. I was told that this was to make the mail process more efficient. If this is modern efficiency, I would prefer old fashioned common sense. Nothing will get better or service levels increase, but our postal rates will.
Speaking of the post office, what is it with these lazy people in Selma who are so lazy and inconsiderate that they will literally park the wrong way on the street in a no parking zone? It is literally scary to see someone cutting across traffic, going the wrong way, and then parking illegally. I see this most every day that I am at the post office. Many times I see that the offenders have handicapped parking placards and yet totally ignore the specific parking spot created just for them. Are people that lazy and selfish?
OK, one last one. My company recognizes Presidents' Day next Monday as a company holiday. I have a good friend who has to work that day where she works. That lack of a work holiday was a result of substituting Martin Luther King Day for Presidents' Day as a recognized holiday. It is bad enough that Presidents' Day was created to not recognize both the individual holidays of Abraham Lincoln's and George Washington's birthdays. There is no way I can possibly equate the celebration of Martin Luther King to the celebration of two truly great leaders of American history. This has nothing to do with race, just accomplishment, history, and importance of effect on this nation. Furthermore, I do have a problem with the idea of creating a holiday to appease a numerical minority.
As much as I would like to expound upon that last one, my space for this week's column has been taken up and my multiple rant packed column is now done for this edition.
I just finished filing my annual federal and state tax returns. Even with a good tax software program that I use every year, it was a real challenge this year. I had to deal with capital gains tax, stock options, medical bills, and more receipts than to which I am accustomed. I could have saved a few hours of my own time, corporations save tons of money, and Americans save plenty of time and money by having a simple tax code. I am a huge supporter of the so-called Fair Tax. We could replace our entire income tax and FICA tax system with a single national consumption tax. This would save so much time and money and none of us would have to fight with a tax code thicker than The Bible. It would also tax us according to our spending rather than the enslavement of our labors, all would pay taxes including illegal aliens and criminals, and we would not have an easily manipulated, punitive tax code.
I am very frustrated with the amount of taxes I have paid that will potentially going to people who do not work as I do, much less file tax returns. I personally know people who have what has been aptly termed a learned helplessness. There are people who frustrate me by leeching off the government, friends, and family. Why in the world do people cry total poverty, yet will run out to Wal-Mart to buy the latest DVD releases, get tattoos, buy cartons of tobacco products, pay for high speed internet, and satellite television? It is all a matter of priorities. I realize that there are truly those who are destitute in this world, but I am so tired of people begging to borrow money from me when they could simply do some planning on their own, exercise some self restraint, and do for themselves. In addition, many people could do much better on their own rather than waiting for the rest of us taxpayers to pay for their paltry monthly handout.
I recently had need to send a certified letter across the state. I paid the extra postage for the certified mail service, which also allowed for status tracking on the internet. I am glad that I could get an online status, since the post office is incredibly inefficient at returning mail such as mine that was refused for delivery. The letter took only one day to arrive for delivery, but after the recipient's refusal, I am still waiting for the return of the letter over two weeks later. Nobody at the post office can tell me where the letter is and why it has not yet been returned, even though there is a tracking bar code affixed to it. If UPS, FedEx, and DHL can track a package along every step of the delivery process, why can not the United States Postal Service do the same? Over five years later, my mother is still waiting for a Mothers' Day gift I sent her. When I got a PO Box, mail was taking six days to be forwarded from my home address in Selma to the PO Box. The mail was routed from Selma to Raleigh and then back to Selma to be placed into my box, just thirty feet from where the mail was placed to be routed through Raleigh. I was told that this was to make the mail process more efficient. If this is modern efficiency, I would prefer old fashioned common sense. Nothing will get better or service levels increase, but our postal rates will.
Speaking of the post office, what is it with these lazy people in Selma who are so lazy and inconsiderate that they will literally park the wrong way on the street in a no parking zone? It is literally scary to see someone cutting across traffic, going the wrong way, and then parking illegally. I see this most every day that I am at the post office. Many times I see that the offenders have handicapped parking placards and yet totally ignore the specific parking spot created just for them. Are people that lazy and selfish?
OK, one last one. My company recognizes Presidents' Day next Monday as a company holiday. I have a good friend who has to work that day where she works. That lack of a work holiday was a result of substituting Martin Luther King Day for Presidents' Day as a recognized holiday. It is bad enough that Presidents' Day was created to not recognize both the individual holidays of Abraham Lincoln's and George Washington's birthdays. There is no way I can possibly equate the celebration of Martin Luther King to the celebration of two truly great leaders of American history. This has nothing to do with race, just accomplishment, history, and importance of effect on this nation. Furthermore, I do have a problem with the idea of creating a holiday to appease a numerical minority.
As much as I would like to expound upon that last one, my space for this week's column has been taken up and my multiple rant packed column is now done for this edition.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Column for Jan. 31, 2008
Remember, grant money is not free. We pay for it either way.
Is grant money from the federal government that is awarded to local towns or states free money? How about grant money that is given to private corporations or citizens? Is there any such thing as free money? Of course not. If it comes from our tax dollars one way or another.
I read with interest the news that the Town of Selma was awarded $850,000 in grant money last week. The money is intended for "community revitalization, infrastructure improvements, and the construction of affordable housing". Selma was one of eighteen municipalities that received grants. The money was supplied through U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and was doled out through the NC government. Also, I read that the towns of Pine Level, Henderson, and Dunn were awarded grant money through the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the purposes of safety, operational expenses, and fire equipment acquisition.
Perhaps we would have more ability to do things locally if the federal and state governments did not siphon off so much money into Washington, DC. Second, even though these are "grants", they are still coming from tax dollars. Furthermore, the purpose of the grants are to be for "rehabilitation of housing" and the construction of "affordable housing". The term affordable is subjective. The idea of my tax dollars being taken from me, a man who works a full time, skilled labor job, on the threat of force if I do not comply voluntarily to dole out my hard earned money, and having those dollars inefficiently laundered through the world's largest bureaucracy only to be filtered down to another bureaucracy, then to another, then to private citizens for them to pay minimal money for housing or to renovate their existing homes is just plain repugnant. It is insulting. It is unfair. It is a disincentive to succeed. It is communistic and evil.
There were 18 towns in NC that got the HUD grants and three FEMA grants in the state. Multiply this times hundreds of towns across the country each year and you can see how our tax dollars are being wasted on programs that are not even supposed to exist. Take this program and multiply it by the countless such programs that some communistic or ignorant fools have pushed through Congress, and some well meaning but selfish President who wants to get re-elected and play politics with our tax money have passed, and the amount of money is mind boggling.
Perhaps the only thing more insidious than the idea of a grant from the federal government to a municipality is the concept of the federal government providing a loan to a local municipality other local government for the purposes of infrastructure development and community revitalization. In such instances, we are taxed at the federal level to provide the loan and then get taxed on the local level to pay the loan back to the federal government.
I had an email discussion with a close friend about an article from 1955 in "Housekeeping Monthly". I have a copy of this article on my personal web site. The article was full of tips for women on how to take care of their husbands, how to run the home, how to relieve personal and family stress, and the like. This conservative lady asserted that the article was from 1955 and this was 2008. Below is my response, which is related to my disdain for such government spending.
"In 1955, most women did stay at home and take care of the kids and do the house work. Unfortunately, our tax burden increased substantially necessitating a dual income family. Also, the women's liberation movement only hurt the family structure. The 1960's forward really hurt with the hedonism, atheistic, and hyper libertine agendas. That led to a decline in the family unit, an emphasis on self reliance instead of family reliance, a rise in births out of wedlock, single parent families, divorce, and the need for women to work outside the home." By family versus self reliance, I was referring to the idea of only thinking of one's own self, not supporting the family unit but instead believing that one can and should only rely on one's own self. For instance, a woman can and should be able to stay at home and raise her children rather than paying some low income earner with a different set of values to raise them for her.
It is bad enough that we have a high percentage of our money taken in the form of taxation of various types and from various levels of government. To have my tax dollars, which could be used to renovate my own home (which I have been trying to work on more and more lately) and have them sucked into a giant bureaucracy and given to someone else to renovate their home is a travesty. It angers me, and it should you, too. I believe that I know how to spend my money better than some bureaucrat does.
Is grant money from the federal government that is awarded to local towns or states free money? How about grant money that is given to private corporations or citizens? Is there any such thing as free money? Of course not. If it comes from our tax dollars one way or another.
I read with interest the news that the Town of Selma was awarded $850,000 in grant money last week. The money is intended for "community revitalization, infrastructure improvements, and the construction of affordable housing". Selma was one of eighteen municipalities that received grants. The money was supplied through U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and was doled out through the NC government. Also, I read that the towns of Pine Level, Henderson, and Dunn were awarded grant money through the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the purposes of safety, operational expenses, and fire equipment acquisition.
Perhaps we would have more ability to do things locally if the federal and state governments did not siphon off so much money into Washington, DC. Second, even though these are "grants", they are still coming from tax dollars. Furthermore, the purpose of the grants are to be for "rehabilitation of housing" and the construction of "affordable housing". The term affordable is subjective. The idea of my tax dollars being taken from me, a man who works a full time, skilled labor job, on the threat of force if I do not comply voluntarily to dole out my hard earned money, and having those dollars inefficiently laundered through the world's largest bureaucracy only to be filtered down to another bureaucracy, then to another, then to private citizens for them to pay minimal money for housing or to renovate their existing homes is just plain repugnant. It is insulting. It is unfair. It is a disincentive to succeed. It is communistic and evil.
There were 18 towns in NC that got the HUD grants and three FEMA grants in the state. Multiply this times hundreds of towns across the country each year and you can see how our tax dollars are being wasted on programs that are not even supposed to exist. Take this program and multiply it by the countless such programs that some communistic or ignorant fools have pushed through Congress, and some well meaning but selfish President who wants to get re-elected and play politics with our tax money have passed, and the amount of money is mind boggling.
Perhaps the only thing more insidious than the idea of a grant from the federal government to a municipality is the concept of the federal government providing a loan to a local municipality other local government for the purposes of infrastructure development and community revitalization. In such instances, we are taxed at the federal level to provide the loan and then get taxed on the local level to pay the loan back to the federal government.
I had an email discussion with a close friend about an article from 1955 in "Housekeeping Monthly". I have a copy of this article on my personal web site. The article was full of tips for women on how to take care of their husbands, how to run the home, how to relieve personal and family stress, and the like. This conservative lady asserted that the article was from 1955 and this was 2008. Below is my response, which is related to my disdain for such government spending.
"In 1955, most women did stay at home and take care of the kids and do the house work. Unfortunately, our tax burden increased substantially necessitating a dual income family. Also, the women's liberation movement only hurt the family structure. The 1960's forward really hurt with the hedonism, atheistic, and hyper libertine agendas. That led to a decline in the family unit, an emphasis on self reliance instead of family reliance, a rise in births out of wedlock, single parent families, divorce, and the need for women to work outside the home." By family versus self reliance, I was referring to the idea of only thinking of one's own self, not supporting the family unit but instead believing that one can and should only rely on one's own self. For instance, a woman can and should be able to stay at home and raise her children rather than paying some low income earner with a different set of values to raise them for her.
It is bad enough that we have a high percentage of our money taken in the form of taxation of various types and from various levels of government. To have my tax dollars, which could be used to renovate my own home (which I have been trying to work on more and more lately) and have them sucked into a giant bureaucracy and given to someone else to renovate their home is a travesty. It angers me, and it should you, too. I believe that I know how to spend my money better than some bureaucrat does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
