A proclamation for the bond referendum
You may or may not see this one reported in the news. The Selma Town Council meeting last week got most of the attention by the media and potential new residents focused on the vote to annex five tracts of land into the town limits. That is appropriate, considering the volatile situation created by that very act.
Following the vote to annex, most of the crowd left the council chambers and did not stay for the remainder of the meeting. I did, since I already live within the town limits and am not personally being annexed. I personally want to find out all that my town is doing. Open meetings are one cornerstone of our republic.
One act by the town council that you may not know about is the passing of a resolution to support the upcoming bond referendum on May 8th. You may have read my previous column on that same topic, seen the billboards around the county, and heard about it in the media.
I don't know who paid for the billboards touting bond support, but I will be greatly unhappy if it was done with our own tax dollars. Our government has no business using such expense and propaganda for its own bond agenda. That should be left up to concerned citizens on both sides of the issue.
I was a bit dismayed that the proclamation to support the bond referenda was not read in open session in the town council meeting, so only those on the town council, in town government, and the media were given the content of the proclamation. I had to ask for a copy, and was graciously accommodated by Fran Davis, the Selma Town Clerk. Thank you, Ms. Davis. I am thankful for public access laws.
I did some rewriting of the proclamation, as I believe it should be written.
WHEREAS, the majority of the burden for paying taxes in Johnston County is unfairly borne by property owners, many of whom do not have children in public schools; and
WHEREAS, the school system already gets millions of dollars in financial support from the county, the state, and the federal government; and
WHEREAS, the school system population is growing as a direct result of the influx of illegal immigrants that are already given government benefits, and education not necessarily available to long term or native residents; and
WHEREAS, there are charter schools in this state that thrive with creative means of utilizing facilities for their academic institutions; and
WHEREAS, many of these same charter schools are able to finance new school construction without the benefit of the additional monies supplied to the public schools for school construction, which is the reason for the aforementioned school bond; and
WHEREAS, the public schools have a lower level of academic achievement today than any time in documented history of academics in this nation; and
WHEREAS, the very innovators of the concept of smaller class are the ones who are currently abandoning that concept as flawed, expensive, and non-productive; and
WHEREAS, the government has already indentured the taxpayers of this county, municipality, state, and nation with a high level of indebtedness far greater than at any time in history; and
WHEREAS, government construction and administration projects are notoriously inefficient and great wastes of taxpayer monies; and
WHEREAS, neither the Johnston County School System nor Johnston Community College have demonstrated sufficient efforts so as to ensure the utmost in stewardship and efficiency with existing taxpayer monies; and
WHEREAS, the taxpayers of this state have already been swindled by inefficient government initiatives such as "Smart Start" and "More at Four"; and
WHEREAS, private and home schools have, in general, been demonstrated to surpass the education quality of our public schools; and
WHEREAS, there is no freedom of choice as to where parents may send their children in the public school system, thereby creating competition in education thereby boosting academic performance; and
WHEREAS, recreational facilities are a nice thing to have for the county and municipalities but are not necessities thereof; and
WHEREAS, there are far more important things to spend taxpayer monies upon than recreation facilities such as infrastructure improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Selma encourages the county's voters to defeat the education and recreation facilities bond referendum scheduled for May 8, 2007.
Yeah, like that would ever happen.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Engage brain before dialing phone
Here is a voice mail comment from someone who obviously didn't seem to get at all what I wrote in my latest LaPlante's Rants column. For some reason, it sounds like she thinks I wrote negatively regarding the use of the term "Blacks", when I actually wrote that it was disrespectful for the authors of the NC Senate bill and media articles to have used the spelling "blacks". I personally find it disrespectful to not capitalize a proper noun when referring to an entire group of people. This lady obviously did not read and comprehend prior to dialing.
Column for April 12, 2007
Should NC apologize for slavery?
Would you apologize for something you did not do? How many times does an institution have to make amends for previous wrongs? Is the answer just once or ad infinitum? When it comes to the issue of slavery and racial oppression, apparently the answer is ad infinitum. Fayetteville Democrat, Senator Tony Rand is a sponsor of 86 different bills in the Senate this session. The one that has garnered the most attention is S1557, a joint resolution to formally apologize for the institution of slavery by the State of North Carolina.
The bill says, "Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:The General Assembly issues its apology for the practice of slavery in North Carolina and expresses its profound contrition for the official acts that sanctioned and perpetuated the denial of basic human rights and dignity to fellow humans." In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with recognizing the past wrongs of a governmental organization. I do take issue with the contrition aspect in this bill, however. I find it to be more of a political pandering than anything contrite.
Unless my math is very wrong, the Civil War ended 142 years or so ago. The 13th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (1865 and 1870) rectified the previously acceptable practice of slavery, as originally incorporated into the 1787 document. During that war, 360,000 Union soldiers died to help with the cause of abolition.
Make no mistake, the war was not anywhere near totally about abolition. It is more about slavery than many Southerners preach and far less so than many Yankees teach. Having lived in both the North and the South, I have heard both versions of history. After the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, abolition officially became a war goal. The proclamation itself freed nobody. The warfare to back it up freed millions.
Before you think that slavery was totally a racial issue, keep in mind that a good many slave owners were Black themselves. The Cherokee also owned many Black slaves. Many American Indians were sold into slavery and exported in the 1600's. Many Africans sold other Africans into slavery for importation to the North American continent.
I find it ironic that the main sponsors of a formal apology coming 150 years too late are Democrats, although the bill has passed the Senate with bi-partisan support. The Democrats are the ones who opposed abolition in the South and wanted to leave the topic alone in the North. The Republican Party began in the 1850's as an abolitionist party. The Democrats were the ones who supported Jim Crow laws. They are now the same party that tries to keep people in economic and social slavery, yet currently attract the very people to whom they are attempting to apologize.
Bringing up the issue of slavery today merely picks at a scab to reopen a sore wound. Sure, we should teach history, but teach it accurately. The good, the bad, and the ugly should all be taught as history for all to learn thereby. However, to dredge up the same topic to no real benefit is not a productive use of our time, our legislature, resources, or money.
I don't know about you, but I don't think that there are any people alive today that were under the bondage of slavery in this nation. Nor are there any people alive who perpetrated this gross injustice. Other than a "warm fuzzy to sooth the conscience", what does the apology do? Essentially, just waste time and money. The best apology is to encourage with social and economic freedom and to treat all with dignity, respect, and love.
Speaking of respect, in reading the Senate bill and most newspaper articles, slaves and their descendants are referred to as "blacks". It is not that this is a disrespectful term, but I noticed that not once did the bill's author or the media have sufficient respect to capitalize the word, since it refers to an entire race of people. I come from a French family, not a french family. Similarly, there should be enough respect for those to whom the bill's author believes an apology is due to at least capitalize the term "Blacks". Perhaps that is just my opinion, but I sure feel that it is accurate. For a free hour long monologue on this topic, contact me.
Would you apologize for something you did not do? How many times does an institution have to make amends for previous wrongs? Is the answer just once or ad infinitum? When it comes to the issue of slavery and racial oppression, apparently the answer is ad infinitum. Fayetteville Democrat, Senator Tony Rand is a sponsor of 86 different bills in the Senate this session. The one that has garnered the most attention is S1557, a joint resolution to formally apologize for the institution of slavery by the State of North Carolina.
The bill says, "Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring:The General Assembly issues its apology for the practice of slavery in North Carolina and expresses its profound contrition for the official acts that sanctioned and perpetuated the denial of basic human rights and dignity to fellow humans." In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with recognizing the past wrongs of a governmental organization. I do take issue with the contrition aspect in this bill, however. I find it to be more of a political pandering than anything contrite.
Unless my math is very wrong, the Civil War ended 142 years or so ago. The 13th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (1865 and 1870) rectified the previously acceptable practice of slavery, as originally incorporated into the 1787 document. During that war, 360,000 Union soldiers died to help with the cause of abolition.
Make no mistake, the war was not anywhere near totally about abolition. It is more about slavery than many Southerners preach and far less so than many Yankees teach. Having lived in both the North and the South, I have heard both versions of history. After the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, abolition officially became a war goal. The proclamation itself freed nobody. The warfare to back it up freed millions.
Before you think that slavery was totally a racial issue, keep in mind that a good many slave owners were Black themselves. The Cherokee also owned many Black slaves. Many American Indians were sold into slavery and exported in the 1600's. Many Africans sold other Africans into slavery for importation to the North American continent.
I find it ironic that the main sponsors of a formal apology coming 150 years too late are Democrats, although the bill has passed the Senate with bi-partisan support. The Democrats are the ones who opposed abolition in the South and wanted to leave the topic alone in the North. The Republican Party began in the 1850's as an abolitionist party. The Democrats were the ones who supported Jim Crow laws. They are now the same party that tries to keep people in economic and social slavery, yet currently attract the very people to whom they are attempting to apologize.
Bringing up the issue of slavery today merely picks at a scab to reopen a sore wound. Sure, we should teach history, but teach it accurately. The good, the bad, and the ugly should all be taught as history for all to learn thereby. However, to dredge up the same topic to no real benefit is not a productive use of our time, our legislature, resources, or money.
I don't know about you, but I don't think that there are any people alive today that were under the bondage of slavery in this nation. Nor are there any people alive who perpetrated this gross injustice. Other than a "warm fuzzy to sooth the conscience", what does the apology do? Essentially, just waste time and money. The best apology is to encourage with social and economic freedom and to treat all with dignity, respect, and love.
Speaking of respect, in reading the Senate bill and most newspaper articles, slaves and their descendants are referred to as "blacks". It is not that this is a disrespectful term, but I noticed that not once did the bill's author or the media have sufficient respect to capitalize the word, since it refers to an entire race of people. I come from a French family, not a french family. Similarly, there should be enough respect for those to whom the bill's author believes an apology is due to at least capitalize the term "Blacks". Perhaps that is just my opinion, but I sure feel that it is accurate. For a free hour long monologue on this topic, contact me.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Column for April 5, 2007
When is enough, enough?
One battle cry during the American Revolutionary period was "No taxation without representation". Sometimes, I wonder if it is any better in America today than it was with no representation. All I have to do is to read the newspaper, the internet, or listen to news casts to just plain get annoyed. I sometimes feel almost numb to the constant assault upon the American taxpayer. I realize that the key is to be vigilant rather than to tune things out, but it sure isn't easy.
Just recently, we have seen proposals to annex property that is actually a form of taxation with promised future representation. There are bills before the U.S. Congress that fail to renew tax cuts that were only temporary. Here in North Carolina, there are proposals to continue in the tax raising mode. Our state representatives are also in the mode of increasing governmental control over the serfs of this state. For instance, did you know that there is a proposal to make you pay for and install two license plates on your automobile? There are all sorts of reasons for making this happen, none are sufficient to convince me of the need or justify the imposition and cost to the people who pay the bills in this state.
Does any thinking individual actually think that we are not taxed sufficiently in this state or nation to perform all facets of the purpose of government? Even at the county or town level? If we can find areas in which to actually cut spending at the town level, we can certainly find areas of waste, fraud, abuse, and unnecessary expenditure at each larger level of government. However, that is not sufficient for the insatiable appetite of government control.
One bill in particular, State Senate bill S1201, will put a 1% sales tax (though some call it a real estate transfer tax to soften the blow of its actual function) on people who sell their real estate. The idea is that the home seller will be responsible for coughing up 1% of the sales price of their property and handing it over to some bureaucrat. Of course, we all know that the government knows how to better spend your hard earned money than you do.
If that bill becomes law, you can kiss a good amount of home equity that you worked your tail off to build and call it your contribution...nay, your duty to serve your already bloated government. But this insidious bill does not stop there. Not only will this bill hurt you when you sell your home by taking away some of the money you would be putting towards your new home, it will do the same to hit you hard on your next car purchase.
The same bill would raise the sales tax on automobiles, more than doubling it. Yup, I can think of no better way than to make use of more of my money by giving it to some bloated bureaucracy. I mean, it is better used in the hands of a tremendously inefficient governmental operation than in paying down the debt of a new car loan, right?
Could the mindset that brought us this bill get any worse? Yes it could. The bill goes on to remove the deduction of the cost of the old car you want to trade in for your new car from the cost of your taxation. That means that not only are you going to pay double the tax on a new car, if this bill is passed, you are going to pay the tax on the entire retail of that same automobile, even though you are not paying the full price and are giving up your existing property in the deal.
The money grubbing attitude of government is enough to make one weary. How much more can we take of this? The paradigm that brought us the idea of constant taxing and spending is prolific in most all levels of government, but is certainly proportionate to the amount of taxpayers from which the money is forcibly extracted. The real sad thing about S1201 is that the tax hikes are to help replenish the highway trust fund, which was pillaged by the same state government, and that fund was never repaid, even when there was a huge surplus in revenue last year.
I used to be optimistic that we could stop or at least lessen the financial rape of the taxpayer, but I become less so as time goes by.
One battle cry during the American Revolutionary period was "No taxation without representation". Sometimes, I wonder if it is any better in America today than it was with no representation. All I have to do is to read the newspaper, the internet, or listen to news casts to just plain get annoyed. I sometimes feel almost numb to the constant assault upon the American taxpayer. I realize that the key is to be vigilant rather than to tune things out, but it sure isn't easy.
Just recently, we have seen proposals to annex property that is actually a form of taxation with promised future representation. There are bills before the U.S. Congress that fail to renew tax cuts that were only temporary. Here in North Carolina, there are proposals to continue in the tax raising mode. Our state representatives are also in the mode of increasing governmental control over the serfs of this state. For instance, did you know that there is a proposal to make you pay for and install two license plates on your automobile? There are all sorts of reasons for making this happen, none are sufficient to convince me of the need or justify the imposition and cost to the people who pay the bills in this state.
Does any thinking individual actually think that we are not taxed sufficiently in this state or nation to perform all facets of the purpose of government? Even at the county or town level? If we can find areas in which to actually cut spending at the town level, we can certainly find areas of waste, fraud, abuse, and unnecessary expenditure at each larger level of government. However, that is not sufficient for the insatiable appetite of government control.
One bill in particular, State Senate bill S1201, will put a 1% sales tax (though some call it a real estate transfer tax to soften the blow of its actual function) on people who sell their real estate. The idea is that the home seller will be responsible for coughing up 1% of the sales price of their property and handing it over to some bureaucrat. Of course, we all know that the government knows how to better spend your hard earned money than you do.
If that bill becomes law, you can kiss a good amount of home equity that you worked your tail off to build and call it your contribution...nay, your duty to serve your already bloated government. But this insidious bill does not stop there. Not only will this bill hurt you when you sell your home by taking away some of the money you would be putting towards your new home, it will do the same to hit you hard on your next car purchase.
The same bill would raise the sales tax on automobiles, more than doubling it. Yup, I can think of no better way than to make use of more of my money by giving it to some bloated bureaucracy. I mean, it is better used in the hands of a tremendously inefficient governmental operation than in paying down the debt of a new car loan, right?
Could the mindset that brought us this bill get any worse? Yes it could. The bill goes on to remove the deduction of the cost of the old car you want to trade in for your new car from the cost of your taxation. That means that not only are you going to pay double the tax on a new car, if this bill is passed, you are going to pay the tax on the entire retail of that same automobile, even though you are not paying the full price and are giving up your existing property in the deal.
The money grubbing attitude of government is enough to make one weary. How much more can we take of this? The paradigm that brought us the idea of constant taxing and spending is prolific in most all levels of government, but is certainly proportionate to the amount of taxpayers from which the money is forcibly extracted. The real sad thing about S1201 is that the tax hikes are to help replenish the highway trust fund, which was pillaged by the same state government, and that fund was never repaid, even when there was a huge surplus in revenue last year.
I used to be optimistic that we could stop or at least lessen the financial rape of the taxpayer, but I become less so as time goes by.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Column for March 29, 2007
Annexation deserves fair treatment by Council
Usually, I write my columns as much as three weeks in advance. When a topic hits me, I become a scribe. Sometimes, I wait until I see something local and timely. This time, I waited and was glad I did so.
The last Selma Town Council meeting had a public hearing regarding the town's plans for involuntary annexation. Many citizens came to the meeting to express their opinions either pro or con. There were no pro arguments to be had. What bothered me greatly was that the council placed an undue restriction on time allowed for commentary. This has not been done at previous meetings, and the time limit was not equally enforced on each speaker. Only the speakers deemed "thorny" to the time keeper seemed to get the three minute rule enforced.
I have differed with Tony Tetterton on other issues, but on this issue, I believe that he should have been heard in full. As a proxy for others, he could have offered a full presentation that fully outlined the problems with the report on the annexation project. Mr. Tetterton went to the trouble of preparing a full multi-media presentation on behalf of those who are being annexed. Quite frankly, if he went through this much effort and there was a full house of people all wanting to have their collective opinions heard, this would have been entirely appropriate.
There have been long winded presentations about energy savings, how electric rates are calculated, and for slide shows made about the town. I do not belittle those projects or the information. However, if the council can take the time for these presentations, it would seem that they could take the time to discuss an issue that would affect an entire subdivision full of residents, as well as other areas just outside the town. I found the time restriction and refusal to hear the presentation unjust and hypocritical. For the meaningful and impactful things such as involuntary annexation, there is no time, but for a presentation about where to have polling places, there was time to spare in the same meeting. The simple request for the town to actually choose a polling location in a timely fashion could have been accomplished in three sentences. Instead, it took the time that a presentation from a group of potentially forcibly added citizens could have taken.
When an entire group of citizens offer to relinquish their three minutes of their rightful time to a proxy such as Mr. Tetterton so that he can speak collectively for them, I find it arrogant to deny that request. Furthermore, when there is an entire page of problems enumerated by the group about the report upon which the decision to annex will be made, then it is only prudent to listen.
I am already on record as opposing involuntary annexation except in specific cases, as I wrote a month ago in this very column. I am very much for private property rights. Unless someone is getting all the benefits of being a resident of the town such as the roads, street lighting, water, sewer, fire protection, ISO insurance ratings, and local development but not paying the supporting taxation whereas a neighbor does, then there is an inequity. When there is a whole group not benefiting from all of these things except paying the fire district tax, I believe that they have the right to stay outside the town. The fiat of five people should not decide the taxation fate of a large number of private homes.
If the town council will not allow the property owners their time to be heard in full, I will offer the time on my own internet talk show which is heard each week. More information can be found on troylaplante.com. A letter to the editor that was in last week's paper is another way of communicating the issue. Either way, the information should be heard by the town for consideration.
In the end, if there are problems and errors in the annexation report, then they need to be seriously addressed by the council and the town attorney. Private property rights need to be taken into account. In addition, those potentially affected need to be treated fairly, equally, and with respect.
Usually, I write my columns as much as three weeks in advance. When a topic hits me, I become a scribe. Sometimes, I wait until I see something local and timely. This time, I waited and was glad I did so.
The last Selma Town Council meeting had a public hearing regarding the town's plans for involuntary annexation. Many citizens came to the meeting to express their opinions either pro or con. There were no pro arguments to be had. What bothered me greatly was that the council placed an undue restriction on time allowed for commentary. This has not been done at previous meetings, and the time limit was not equally enforced on each speaker. Only the speakers deemed "thorny" to the time keeper seemed to get the three minute rule enforced.
I have differed with Tony Tetterton on other issues, but on this issue, I believe that he should have been heard in full. As a proxy for others, he could have offered a full presentation that fully outlined the problems with the report on the annexation project. Mr. Tetterton went to the trouble of preparing a full multi-media presentation on behalf of those who are being annexed. Quite frankly, if he went through this much effort and there was a full house of people all wanting to have their collective opinions heard, this would have been entirely appropriate.
There have been long winded presentations about energy savings, how electric rates are calculated, and for slide shows made about the town. I do not belittle those projects or the information. However, if the council can take the time for these presentations, it would seem that they could take the time to discuss an issue that would affect an entire subdivision full of residents, as well as other areas just outside the town. I found the time restriction and refusal to hear the presentation unjust and hypocritical. For the meaningful and impactful things such as involuntary annexation, there is no time, but for a presentation about where to have polling places, there was time to spare in the same meeting. The simple request for the town to actually choose a polling location in a timely fashion could have been accomplished in three sentences. Instead, it took the time that a presentation from a group of potentially forcibly added citizens could have taken.
When an entire group of citizens offer to relinquish their three minutes of their rightful time to a proxy such as Mr. Tetterton so that he can speak collectively for them, I find it arrogant to deny that request. Furthermore, when there is an entire page of problems enumerated by the group about the report upon which the decision to annex will be made, then it is only prudent to listen.
I am already on record as opposing involuntary annexation except in specific cases, as I wrote a month ago in this very column. I am very much for private property rights. Unless someone is getting all the benefits of being a resident of the town such as the roads, street lighting, water, sewer, fire protection, ISO insurance ratings, and local development but not paying the supporting taxation whereas a neighbor does, then there is an inequity. When there is a whole group not benefiting from all of these things except paying the fire district tax, I believe that they have the right to stay outside the town. The fiat of five people should not decide the taxation fate of a large number of private homes.
If the town council will not allow the property owners their time to be heard in full, I will offer the time on my own internet talk show which is heard each week. More information can be found on troylaplante.com. A letter to the editor that was in last week's paper is another way of communicating the issue. Either way, the information should be heard by the town for consideration.
In the end, if there are problems and errors in the annexation report, then they need to be seriously addressed by the council and the town attorney. Private property rights need to be taken into account. In addition, those potentially affected need to be treated fairly, equally, and with respect.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Column for March 22, 2007
Fighting eminent domain abuse
Usually, I strongly encourage government jobs to be done as cheaply and efficiently as possible. I believe that the government has the responsibility to be efficient and accountable with the tax payer funds they take and use from the citizenry. Just recently, however, I was reading news accounts that make me want the government to actually spend more money, a lot more money than originally planned. The Clayton bypass road project just got a few million dollars more expensive, and I am actually glad to see it.
It is a heinous thing when the government takes money from taxpayers unjustly and spends it with flagrant disregard for monetary, ethical, or legal sensibility. It is just as bad, perhaps even worse, when the government makes an obvious attempt to steal from a single citizen or family.
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Occasionally, the federal government, states, and municipalities will abuse their authority in taking private property.
Sometimes the execution of eminent domain is for public use. Other times it is solely for increasing tax base, such as in the Kelo vs. New London, Connecticut decision. That was one horrific and unjust decision. Basically, that decision stated that a municipal government may condemn a property and/or take it by eminent domain powers, then turn that property over to private developers. The developers would in turn make that property more valuable with construction and use that would produce more tax revenue. Either way, it is the legal theft of personal property to give to other private citizens to generate increased tax revenue. That is just immoral and does not serve the public good. Sure, more tax revenue is better for the rest of the tax payers, but the infringement of personal property rights is not a good and just thing.
Locally, we saw eminent domain abuse by the State of North Carolina. That state attempted to shaft property owners by not paying the fair value of the property being taken for the US 70 Clayton bypass. Donald and Edna Williamson are a couple that were getting hosed by the State of North Carolina and were not being paid the fair value for their property. Not only did the State condemn their property and then grossly undervalue it, their justification for the undervaluation was based upon a situation they themselves created for the property years ago when they took some of that farm for eminent domain use.
The first eminent domain property taken to build a highway left the remaining property with no main highway access, only service road access. Allegedly, that made the property less valuable. That is not a situation created by the couple who owned the property. It was solely a creation of the state. Now the state wants more of their property to do more highway construction. The state has undervalued the property, based upon the fact that they created a lack of access to the property previously. The polite way of saying it would be that it is ethically challenged behavior.
The couple put up a fight, had a private appraisal of their land, and won in court. To attempt to shaft the property owner while taking away their land "without just compensation" is disgraceful. I am glad to see that they won their case and will get their true, just compensation for their loss.
It should not have to come to a couple putting up a legal fight, spending money on private appraisers, and on legal fees. However, if that is what it takes to fight back against tyranny, then it must be done.
When you go to the polls and vote (and we have votes coming up in May and November), vote for issues and people who will protect your rights, not infringe upon them. If you are facing unjust eminent domain or even forced annexation, stand up and fight for what is right. We are the people. Supposedly, "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is our domain. We must be vigilant to hold said government accountable to be ethical and to protect the rights of us, the people.
Usually, I strongly encourage government jobs to be done as cheaply and efficiently as possible. I believe that the government has the responsibility to be efficient and accountable with the tax payer funds they take and use from the citizenry. Just recently, however, I was reading news accounts that make me want the government to actually spend more money, a lot more money than originally planned. The Clayton bypass road project just got a few million dollars more expensive, and I am actually glad to see it.
It is a heinous thing when the government takes money from taxpayers unjustly and spends it with flagrant disregard for monetary, ethical, or legal sensibility. It is just as bad, perhaps even worse, when the government makes an obvious attempt to steal from a single citizen or family.
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Occasionally, the federal government, states, and municipalities will abuse their authority in taking private property.
Sometimes the execution of eminent domain is for public use. Other times it is solely for increasing tax base, such as in the Kelo vs. New London, Connecticut decision. That was one horrific and unjust decision. Basically, that decision stated that a municipal government may condemn a property and/or take it by eminent domain powers, then turn that property over to private developers. The developers would in turn make that property more valuable with construction and use that would produce more tax revenue. Either way, it is the legal theft of personal property to give to other private citizens to generate increased tax revenue. That is just immoral and does not serve the public good. Sure, more tax revenue is better for the rest of the tax payers, but the infringement of personal property rights is not a good and just thing.
Locally, we saw eminent domain abuse by the State of North Carolina. That state attempted to shaft property owners by not paying the fair value of the property being taken for the US 70 Clayton bypass. Donald and Edna Williamson are a couple that were getting hosed by the State of North Carolina and were not being paid the fair value for their property. Not only did the State condemn their property and then grossly undervalue it, their justification for the undervaluation was based upon a situation they themselves created for the property years ago when they took some of that farm for eminent domain use.
The first eminent domain property taken to build a highway left the remaining property with no main highway access, only service road access. Allegedly, that made the property less valuable. That is not a situation created by the couple who owned the property. It was solely a creation of the state. Now the state wants more of their property to do more highway construction. The state has undervalued the property, based upon the fact that they created a lack of access to the property previously. The polite way of saying it would be that it is ethically challenged behavior.
The couple put up a fight, had a private appraisal of their land, and won in court. To attempt to shaft the property owner while taking away their land "without just compensation" is disgraceful. I am glad to see that they won their case and will get their true, just compensation for their loss.
It should not have to come to a couple putting up a legal fight, spending money on private appraisers, and on legal fees. However, if that is what it takes to fight back against tyranny, then it must be done.
When you go to the polls and vote (and we have votes coming up in May and November), vote for issues and people who will protect your rights, not infringe upon them. If you are facing unjust eminent domain or even forced annexation, stand up and fight for what is right. We are the people. Supposedly, "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is our domain. We must be vigilant to hold said government accountable to be ethical and to protect the rights of us, the people.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Column for March 15, 2007
Protect the 2nd Amendment
For those of you who follow my column and/or blog, you know that I am a huge advocate for liberty. I don't care who you are, as long as you are on American soil and are here legally, I believe that you are blessed with a great amount of freedom. The key in this nation is to preserve those freedoms. Even if we are "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights", we still must be vigilant about preservation of those rights.
If the Declaration of Independence is correct and these rights are given by God, not man, then man must not infringe upon the rights of fellow citizens. Unfortunately, history is replete with despots, dictators, and freedom haters. Men love to exert control over other men. What amazes me is that we actually elect people who would abridge our civil liberties.
I was only a tot when "Mr. Conservative", Barry Goldwater was serving in the U.S. Senate. Though interested in politics and civics, I was not as aware of the national political climate as I am now, as a middle aged man. Thus, I was not as aware of Goldwater's politics as I am now. I have read his book, "Conscience of a Conservative" and seen documentaries about his life. One thing that I loved about Goldwater was his unwavering dedication to the principles of liberty. There are a few areas in which we disagree, namely abortion and gay rights. Those areas, not being enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and being public situational ethics issues, are not a matter of liberty to me.
One issue that is a sore subject with me is the Second Amendment debate. For years, I have seen the debate of the right to keep and bear arms rage on. There are those who would attempt to interpret the text of the simple amendment to mean that only the military should have weapons, not the public. Of course one has to bend the meaning and read into the text in order to arrive at that conclusion. It is the same way with the right to have an abortion. It is not in the Constitution and one has to make that up.
Others believe just what the amendment says, meaning the words "shall not be infringed" means just that. I would simply say, "What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?" James Madison thought it so important that he originally wanted to have the text inserted into the main body of the new constitution rather than be an amendment added as part of the "Bill of Rights". I am a firearms enthusiast and fully support the Second Amendment.
There is currently proposed in Congress H.R. 1022, the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007". Real so called "assault weapons" have been highly regulated and generally illegal for the average citizen to own since the 1930's. It is sheer ignorance, fear, and efforts to control that lead to gun bans. I have handled many of the guns on the list that some in Congress want to ban. The proposed ban is not to protect law enforcement, it is control law abiding citizens. Criminals do not abide by the law, which is the definition of a criminal.
I am thankful that the previous Congress allowed the original "assault weapons ban" to expire without renewal. Now, with a Democrat controlled Congress, we are again seeing attempts to infringe upon YOUR rights. My advice is to get all the guns you can now before a Democrat is elected President and signs a bill that would infringe upon your rights, offend people like Barry Goldwater, and make me want to get on a rooftop with a so called assault weapon. [edited at request of paper's editor to read "makes me fully comprehend why the writers of the Constitution felt that the citizenry should be armed in the first place."
The infringement of gun rights, however, is not limited just to our federal government. I have seen such infringement happen by our own Johnston County and state governments. With action and vigilance, perhaps liberty will be restored and preserved.
Please don't form opinions about issues such as this out of emotion, ignorance, or irrational fear. Get educated. If you support the 2nd Amendment, join a group like Gun Owners of America and contact your elected representatives. Get involved and preserve freedom.
For those of you who follow my column and/or blog, you know that I am a huge advocate for liberty. I don't care who you are, as long as you are on American soil and are here legally, I believe that you are blessed with a great amount of freedom. The key in this nation is to preserve those freedoms. Even if we are "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights", we still must be vigilant about preservation of those rights.
If the Declaration of Independence is correct and these rights are given by God, not man, then man must not infringe upon the rights of fellow citizens. Unfortunately, history is replete with despots, dictators, and freedom haters. Men love to exert control over other men. What amazes me is that we actually elect people who would abridge our civil liberties.
I was only a tot when "Mr. Conservative", Barry Goldwater was serving in the U.S. Senate. Though interested in politics and civics, I was not as aware of the national political climate as I am now, as a middle aged man. Thus, I was not as aware of Goldwater's politics as I am now. I have read his book, "Conscience of a Conservative" and seen documentaries about his life. One thing that I loved about Goldwater was his unwavering dedication to the principles of liberty. There are a few areas in which we disagree, namely abortion and gay rights. Those areas, not being enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and being public situational ethics issues, are not a matter of liberty to me.
One issue that is a sore subject with me is the Second Amendment debate. For years, I have seen the debate of the right to keep and bear arms rage on. There are those who would attempt to interpret the text of the simple amendment to mean that only the military should have weapons, not the public. Of course one has to bend the meaning and read into the text in order to arrive at that conclusion. It is the same way with the right to have an abortion. It is not in the Constitution and one has to make that up.
Others believe just what the amendment says, meaning the words "shall not be infringed" means just that. I would simply say, "What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?" James Madison thought it so important that he originally wanted to have the text inserted into the main body of the new constitution rather than be an amendment added as part of the "Bill of Rights". I am a firearms enthusiast and fully support the Second Amendment.
There is currently proposed in Congress H.R. 1022, the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007". Real so called "assault weapons" have been highly regulated and generally illegal for the average citizen to own since the 1930's. It is sheer ignorance, fear, and efforts to control that lead to gun bans. I have handled many of the guns on the list that some in Congress want to ban. The proposed ban is not to protect law enforcement, it is control law abiding citizens. Criminals do not abide by the law, which is the definition of a criminal.
I am thankful that the previous Congress allowed the original "assault weapons ban" to expire without renewal. Now, with a Democrat controlled Congress, we are again seeing attempts to infringe upon YOUR rights. My advice is to get all the guns you can now before a Democrat is elected President and signs a bill that would infringe upon your rights, offend people like Barry Goldwater, and make me want to get on a rooftop with a so called assault weapon. [edited at request of paper's editor to read "makes me fully comprehend why the writers of the Constitution felt that the citizenry should be armed in the first place."
The infringement of gun rights, however, is not limited just to our federal government. I have seen such infringement happen by our own Johnston County and state governments. With action and vigilance, perhaps liberty will be restored and preserved.
Please don't form opinions about issues such as this out of emotion, ignorance, or irrational fear. Get educated. If you support the 2nd Amendment, join a group like Gun Owners of America and contact your elected representatives. Get involved and preserve freedom.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Column for March 8, 2007
Corporate welfare programs are bad policy
Well, it figures. I rarely miss being a spectator at a Town Council meeting in Selma. Each of the few times I have, I miss interesting developments in the town’s government. The last meeting, I missed the agreement to lease the Harrison school property to a charter school and the plan for economic development incentives here in town. I think the charter school plan is an innovative use of otherwise unused property. The proposed economic development zone and incentives, however, I am not so keen about.
I have never been a fan of corporate welfare programs. Here in North Carolina, we have seen our share of them. Dell, Google, FedEx, Honda, and other industries have been lured to the state with multi million dollar incentive packages at taxpayer expense. Here in Johnston County, we have seen our share, as well.
From what I have read in the media, the Selma Town Council and Town Manager seem to be supporting the recent plan for local town to offer tax rebates to encourage business development. First, if we just plain lowered taxes across the board, business would be encouraged. The high tax rates we already pay are a disincentive for development. Government regulation adds to the high costs of doing business, as well. Here in Selma, we already have an increased property tax rate plus sales tax, income tax, FICA, and federal taxes. If that burden was lessened, we would not have such a hard time with getting businesses started and continuing. Present businesses would have more to invest in their companies and ordinary people may be able to start their own businesses.
The current plan is to rebate people who build and improve property along a specific, generally undevelopable stretch of road in Selma, the differential in rate of the property tax paid for five years. I understand the concept and the reasons behind the tax rebates. However, I think that the five year plan is a bit of over kill and akin to the deals that Dell and others have gotten. I realize that after five years, a business will have their normal tax rate and may (not a definite, since businesses come and go) pay full freight then.
The area targeted in Selma is not ripe for development primarily because of what is there. Exit 98 is one of the worst exits for access and egress on the interstate. No business will solve that challenge to development. It is not right off Highway 70, a major throughway like at exit 97. There is a major railroad crossing there, a train station, the town electrical department, and a propane farm. A restaurant or bank would just be "out of the way and out of sorts" from the already settled area and would not really conform to either the surrounding area or usage thereof. That is why I believe that the stretch in question is certainly not ripe for development. It really has less to do with encouraging building there and more to do with the uselessness of the terrain. I believe that the reality is that no incentives would really make that area attractive to development.
The same proposal is going across Johnston County. I am all for encouraging business. However, corporate welfare programs at taxpayer expense, no matter how large or small, are inherently unfair to all other taxpayers. Sure, the local proposals are relatively small. But do we just join the bandwagon of the practice of corporate welfare for development or do we stand on principle? To compare something recent in the news, if Jim Black had just a little bit of corruption while in office rather than a heap big amount, would it have been acceptable or fair? Not to be cliché, but I believe that a little leaven will leaven the whole lump.
Don’t send me hate mail claiming that I don’t understand business and am not for developing our area, or am a regressive. Sure, I can handle that, no problem. But, better than your letters, emails, or phone calls would be your commentary at the public hearing that will be held on the subject. Show up and let your voice be heard where it counts.
Well, it figures. I rarely miss being a spectator at a Town Council meeting in Selma. Each of the few times I have, I miss interesting developments in the town’s government. The last meeting, I missed the agreement to lease the Harrison school property to a charter school and the plan for economic development incentives here in town. I think the charter school plan is an innovative use of otherwise unused property. The proposed economic development zone and incentives, however, I am not so keen about.
I have never been a fan of corporate welfare programs. Here in North Carolina, we have seen our share of them. Dell, Google, FedEx, Honda, and other industries have been lured to the state with multi million dollar incentive packages at taxpayer expense. Here in Johnston County, we have seen our share, as well.
From what I have read in the media, the Selma Town Council and Town Manager seem to be supporting the recent plan for local town to offer tax rebates to encourage business development. First, if we just plain lowered taxes across the board, business would be encouraged. The high tax rates we already pay are a disincentive for development. Government regulation adds to the high costs of doing business, as well. Here in Selma, we already have an increased property tax rate plus sales tax, income tax, FICA, and federal taxes. If that burden was lessened, we would not have such a hard time with getting businesses started and continuing. Present businesses would have more to invest in their companies and ordinary people may be able to start their own businesses.
The current plan is to rebate people who build and improve property along a specific, generally undevelopable stretch of road in Selma, the differential in rate of the property tax paid for five years. I understand the concept and the reasons behind the tax rebates. However, I think that the five year plan is a bit of over kill and akin to the deals that Dell and others have gotten. I realize that after five years, a business will have their normal tax rate and may (not a definite, since businesses come and go) pay full freight then.
The area targeted in Selma is not ripe for development primarily because of what is there. Exit 98 is one of the worst exits for access and egress on the interstate. No business will solve that challenge to development. It is not right off Highway 70, a major throughway like at exit 97. There is a major railroad crossing there, a train station, the town electrical department, and a propane farm. A restaurant or bank would just be "out of the way and out of sorts" from the already settled area and would not really conform to either the surrounding area or usage thereof. That is why I believe that the stretch in question is certainly not ripe for development. It really has less to do with encouraging building there and more to do with the uselessness of the terrain. I believe that the reality is that no incentives would really make that area attractive to development.
The same proposal is going across Johnston County. I am all for encouraging business. However, corporate welfare programs at taxpayer expense, no matter how large or small, are inherently unfair to all other taxpayers. Sure, the local proposals are relatively small. But do we just join the bandwagon of the practice of corporate welfare for development or do we stand on principle? To compare something recent in the news, if Jim Black had just a little bit of corruption while in office rather than a heap big amount, would it have been acceptable or fair? Not to be cliché, but I believe that a little leaven will leaven the whole lump.
Don’t send me hate mail claiming that I don’t understand business and am not for developing our area, or am a regressive. Sure, I can handle that, no problem. But, better than your letters, emails, or phone calls would be your commentary at the public hearing that will be held on the subject. Show up and let your voice be heard where it counts.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Column for March 1, 2007
Flipping the switch on "Old Sparky"
I highly value human life. I can say for a certainty that God values life, as well. That is why he put the ultimate price on the taking of innocent life. He is the one who invented the death penalty, not man. God is not schizophrenic, so I figure that he didn't change his mind on the topic of murder and the punishment thereof.
The State of North Carolina is heatedly debating the death penalty. Death penalty opponents claim that the proposed moratorium on executions is not an attempt to thwart the existence of the death penalty in this state. I don't buy it at all. There is an agenda at work here.
Medical boards have decided that it is unethical for a doctor to comply with the law and have a physician participate in lethal injection executions. It was a stupid requirement in the law to begin with. Let's change the law. Either that or allow the judicial process to strike down that provision. That won't happen, though, since the liberal judiciary only takes activist stands on liberal issues, not conservative. Personally, I hate judicial activism with a passion. I do believe that it can cut both ways, though. It just doesn't.
Genesis 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
Romans 13:3-4 "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
What part of both then New and Old Testament is so hard to comprehend in this?
Not that I relish the thought of taking someone's life or seeing someone "step into eternity" and into Hell, but I just believe what those verses say. I believe it to the point that I would be willing to perform the execution myself. I have no problem flipping the switch on "Old Sparky", pulling the trigger, or jabbing someone with a needle if that is the sentence. I do not say that I will not have a few feelings of my own to sort out afterwards, but I do believe it to be righteous and therefore believe it to be just and right.
I just wish that our elected officials had the guts to have the same resolve. I am tired of hearing about the moratorium, protesters, and from whiners. I have seen several articles and watched news reports in the local media about the death penalty, a moratorium on executions, and power plays to cease the use of the death penalty indefinitely.
In our state legislature, committee recommended legislation that would let convicts appeal their death sentences if they can allege that the sentences were based on racial discrimination. How in the world is the sentence based upon race? If someone committed murder, then they get whacked themselves. Simple. It does not matter about the race of the convict. The only fact that should matter is "has he/she been found guilty of murder?" If the answer is "yes", then it is time to whack a convict.
Our Lieutenant Governor, Beverly Perdue has publicly stated that the state should impose a moratorium on executions until some esoteric, supposedly "constitutional" questions about how the state carries out the death penalty are resolved. What constitutional questions? How is something as easy as lethal injection cruel and unusual for punishment? Personally, I believe it to be too easy a form of execution. The victim of the murder they committed probably died a far more violent or painful death. It is painless and non violent. The end result is the same, but the convict gets off light.
To our elected representatives and all opponents of the death penalty, grow a spine, let government be a terror to evil, bear not the sword in vain, be the minister of God, and execute wrath upon him that does evil.
I highly value human life. I can say for a certainty that God values life, as well. That is why he put the ultimate price on the taking of innocent life. He is the one who invented the death penalty, not man. God is not schizophrenic, so I figure that he didn't change his mind on the topic of murder and the punishment thereof.The State of North Carolina is heatedly debating the death penalty. Death penalty opponents claim that the proposed moratorium on executions is not an attempt to thwart the existence of the death penalty in this state. I don't buy it at all. There is an agenda at work here.
Medical boards have decided that it is unethical for a doctor to comply with the law and have a physician participate in lethal injection executions. It was a stupid requirement in the law to begin with. Let's change the law. Either that or allow the judicial process to strike down that provision. That won't happen, though, since the liberal judiciary only takes activist stands on liberal issues, not conservative. Personally, I hate judicial activism with a passion. I do believe that it can cut both ways, though. It just doesn't.
Genesis 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
Romans 13:3-4 "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
What part of both then New and Old Testament is so hard to comprehend in this?
Not that I relish the thought of taking someone's life or seeing someone "step into eternity" and into Hell, but I just believe what those verses say. I believe it to the point that I would be willing to perform the execution myself. I have no problem flipping the switch on "Old Sparky", pulling the trigger, or jabbing someone with a needle if that is the sentence. I do not say that I will not have a few feelings of my own to sort out afterwards, but I do believe it to be righteous and therefore believe it to be just and right.
I just wish that our elected officials had the guts to have the same resolve. I am tired of hearing about the moratorium, protesters, and from whiners. I have seen several articles and watched news reports in the local media about the death penalty, a moratorium on executions, and power plays to cease the use of the death penalty indefinitely.
In our state legislature, committee recommended legislation that would let convicts appeal their death sentences if they can allege that the sentences were based on racial discrimination. How in the world is the sentence based upon race? If someone committed murder, then they get whacked themselves. Simple. It does not matter about the race of the convict. The only fact that should matter is "has he/she been found guilty of murder?" If the answer is "yes", then it is time to whack a convict.
Our Lieutenant Governor, Beverly Perdue has publicly stated that the state should impose a moratorium on executions until some esoteric, supposedly "constitutional" questions about how the state carries out the death penalty are resolved. What constitutional questions? How is something as easy as lethal injection cruel and unusual for punishment? Personally, I believe it to be too easy a form of execution. The victim of the murder they committed probably died a far more violent or painful death. It is painless and non violent. The end result is the same, but the convict gets off light.
To our elected representatives and all opponents of the death penalty, grow a spine, let government be a terror to evil, bear not the sword in vain, be the minister of God, and execute wrath upon him that does evil.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Column for Feb. 22, 2007
The abomination that is the income tax
Having just done my income taxes this year, I again contemplate the abomination of income taxes. Personally, I believe that income taxes violate the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution. Also, I firmly believe that we should repeal the 16th Amendment.
The North Carolina income tax is based upon the federal income tax system. Basically, it starts where the federal system leaves off, makes some additions and adjustments, and assesses a liability. It is unethical based just upon the idea that it is forced taxation upon one's labor. Non-compliance results in loss of property, legal action, and even prison time. In my opinion, it is forced labor to benefit others and akin to slavery. It is more insidious when you consider the idea that many do not pay their share of a tax burden and live to suckle off the labor of others by the government forcibly taking money from law abiding, tax paying, productive citizens and giving it to those who do nothing to receive their governmental milk from a fat teat.
Wednesday, I did our state and federal tax returns. Here is the part that is totally evil about the North Carolina income tax system. Did you know that if you got a refund from last year's taxes that the amount of your refund is considered income for the following tax year and therefore subject to income tax? If in tax year 2005 you got a refund of $500 (to make up a figure) from the state in 2006, you are supposed to claim an extra $500 of income for tax year 2006.
That is pure evil and double taxation. I pay my taxes with taxed dollars. The state takes and holds my money without any interest or consideration. When the taxes collected exceed the amount actually owed, I am due back the overage. Again, this is money paid above and beyond what I would owe. The state treasury holds this money for a year and does not pay interest on it. Then, I am supposed to be grateful to get a refund of my own money. That already taxed money is then considered income a second time and I have to pay taxes on it yet again. That is just plain unethical.
North Carolina has one of the highest tax burdens in the Southeast. We are getting as bad as some states in the Northeast, notorious for high taxes. I read some statistic that showed that Massachusetts has a similar burden percentage wise as we pay here, after all taxes are figured.
Where does it stop? The Beatles' song “Tax Man” is not all that far off. We pay the highest gasoline tax in the Southeast. We pay taxes on our income. If we invest that taxed money to make more money, we get taxed on the profit. If we buy retail goods with our taxed money, we are taxed yet again. If we save that taxed money, we get taxed on the interest. If we buy automobiles with our taxed money, we pay sales tax, a yearly property tax, and a yearly registration tax. If we buy property with that taxed money, we get taxed on the property. If you think you own that property, just stop paying tax on it for a few years. If you pass along your already taxed money and taxed property to an heir, it is taxed yet again.
We pay federal income tax, state income tax, sales tax, property tax, excise taxes, and the list goes on. North Carolina is more brutal in income tax enforcement and collection than the federal IRS. To top it all off, the state graciously taxes us on "income" that has already been taxed.
This is why I love the Fair Tax Plan. Information on that plan is available on the internet at fairtax.org. There are a few things perhaps not taken into account in that plan, but it is still far more fair than income tax. I would even be in favor of a flat tax, provided that ALL people pay it, regardless of income level.
I understand the need for taxes. What politicians don't seem to understand is the need for fairness.
Having just done my income taxes this year, I again contemplate the abomination of income taxes. Personally, I believe that income taxes violate the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution. Also, I firmly believe that we should repeal the 16th Amendment.
The North Carolina income tax is based upon the federal income tax system. Basically, it starts where the federal system leaves off, makes some additions and adjustments, and assesses a liability. It is unethical based just upon the idea that it is forced taxation upon one's labor. Non-compliance results in loss of property, legal action, and even prison time. In my opinion, it is forced labor to benefit others and akin to slavery. It is more insidious when you consider the idea that many do not pay their share of a tax burden and live to suckle off the labor of others by the government forcibly taking money from law abiding, tax paying, productive citizens and giving it to those who do nothing to receive their governmental milk from a fat teat.
Wednesday, I did our state and federal tax returns. Here is the part that is totally evil about the North Carolina income tax system. Did you know that if you got a refund from last year's taxes that the amount of your refund is considered income for the following tax year and therefore subject to income tax? If in tax year 2005 you got a refund of $500 (to make up a figure) from the state in 2006, you are supposed to claim an extra $500 of income for tax year 2006.
That is pure evil and double taxation. I pay my taxes with taxed dollars. The state takes and holds my money without any interest or consideration. When the taxes collected exceed the amount actually owed, I am due back the overage. Again, this is money paid above and beyond what I would owe. The state treasury holds this money for a year and does not pay interest on it. Then, I am supposed to be grateful to get a refund of my own money. That already taxed money is then considered income a second time and I have to pay taxes on it yet again. That is just plain unethical.
North Carolina has one of the highest tax burdens in the Southeast. We are getting as bad as some states in the Northeast, notorious for high taxes. I read some statistic that showed that Massachusetts has a similar burden percentage wise as we pay here, after all taxes are figured.
Where does it stop? The Beatles' song “Tax Man” is not all that far off. We pay the highest gasoline tax in the Southeast. We pay taxes on our income. If we invest that taxed money to make more money, we get taxed on the profit. If we buy retail goods with our taxed money, we are taxed yet again. If we save that taxed money, we get taxed on the interest. If we buy automobiles with our taxed money, we pay sales tax, a yearly property tax, and a yearly registration tax. If we buy property with that taxed money, we get taxed on the property. If you think you own that property, just stop paying tax on it for a few years. If you pass along your already taxed money and taxed property to an heir, it is taxed yet again.
We pay federal income tax, state income tax, sales tax, property tax, excise taxes, and the list goes on. North Carolina is more brutal in income tax enforcement and collection than the federal IRS. To top it all off, the state graciously taxes us on "income" that has already been taxed.
This is why I love the Fair Tax Plan. Information on that plan is available on the internet at fairtax.org. There are a few things perhaps not taken into account in that plan, but it is still far more fair than income tax. I would even be in favor of a flat tax, provided that ALL people pay it, regardless of income level.
I understand the need for taxes. What politicians don't seem to understand is the need for fairness.
Friday, February 16, 2007
I didn't know that I am in the Wilson's Mills paper, too.
A couple of weeks ago, I was at a local restaurant here in Selma and one of the employees recognized my name on my credit card. She told me that she has been reading my column in "The Wilson's Mills News". I didn't know that my column was being published in that paper, too. I knew it was in "The Selma News", but I didn't know that the column was being carried in both papers. Today I picked up a copy of "The Wilson's Mills News" and there I was. Cool. Thanks, Rick.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Column for Feb. 15, 2007
Involuntary Annexation Issues
After reading and writing lately about the subject of annexation, I decided that perhaps I should include this topic in the Rants column. I wrote about this topic on the internet, I have been reading about the annexation public hearings in Selma, and wanted to address the subject.
I am a big supporter of private property rights. That means I have a hard time with government taking property, over regulating property use, and over taxation of property (with property taxation at all, for that matter). One problem I see going on a lot is involuntary annexation of property by municipalities.
The City of Fayetteville had a big involuntary annexation fight a while back. An entire region was annexed against the will of the residents, who at the time, lived in the unincorporated area of the county. They received no city services or benefits of being incorporated. However, they ended up paying the price of taxation simply to be called Fayetteville residents.
The town on Selma is looking to annex a bunch of acreage into the city limits. I have absolutely no problem with annexation that is agreeable to the affected property owners. When it is done under protest, I have a big problem with it. Don't get me wrong, I am all for “enlarging our tent” so to speak, but there are ethical constraints in doing so. I am never for extorting money from property owners who do not wish to have their property voluntarily annexed into a municipality.
There is one instance in which I do support involuntary annexation, however. If the property or properties in question are surrounded by annexed property and the properties are deriving benefits from the town. By that I mean if they property owners benefit from improved water, sewer, garbage removal, utilities, property value, streets, etc. as a result of being contiguous to the town limits, then I find it appropriate to annex such a property into the town. Selma recently had such a case here in town on Ricks Road. There are some properties for which it just make sense to be a part of the town limits.
The entire idea behind annexation of additional properties into the corporate limits of a town is for growth and planning control, but more importantly, the property tax revenue. Building the tax base is a popular reason, probably the only real reason, for involuntary annexation. It is all about the money.
I fully support building up our tax base. I want to share the load for the tax burden in town, myself. I want more people paying taxes here. The more people who share the burden, the smaller my burden should be. Of course, that never works in reality. Spending will increase, fiscal responsibility often is disregarded when more revenue comes in, and we end up paying the same or more in taxes, anyway. Only through fiscal restraint will this be overcome. Do we have the resolve to do so? Do we elect men and women with that resolve? Think about these things this November.
For these reasons, House Bill 39 has been introduced in the North Carolina General Assembly to stop involuntary annexation action by municipalities. The bill is on the NC General Assembly web site. The bill unfortunately creates more bureaucracy in the form of a new commission to work on the topic. That is just what we don't need...more governmental red tape and expenditure.
What the bill does do is to suspend all involuntary annexations that are in process and to prohibit future such annexations. For any such annexations to proceed, the new bureaucracy must give approval and recommendations.
One local representative, James Langdon, is a co-sponsor of the bill. I applaud the effort of lawmakers here in North Carolina to protect the property rights of citizens. Like I said, I am fully in support of protection of rights. I am also in favor of a town's autonomy. Town governments, however, often step over their proper place, as evidenced by the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo Decision. Though the Kelo Decision deals with eminent domain rather than annexation, the principle is the same.
I encourage you to contact your state representatives with your support or dissent on a bill that will strongly affect your own town.
After reading and writing lately about the subject of annexation, I decided that perhaps I should include this topic in the Rants column. I wrote about this topic on the internet, I have been reading about the annexation public hearings in Selma, and wanted to address the subject.
I am a big supporter of private property rights. That means I have a hard time with government taking property, over regulating property use, and over taxation of property (with property taxation at all, for that matter). One problem I see going on a lot is involuntary annexation of property by municipalities.
The City of Fayetteville had a big involuntary annexation fight a while back. An entire region was annexed against the will of the residents, who at the time, lived in the unincorporated area of the county. They received no city services or benefits of being incorporated. However, they ended up paying the price of taxation simply to be called Fayetteville residents.
The town on Selma is looking to annex a bunch of acreage into the city limits. I have absolutely no problem with annexation that is agreeable to the affected property owners. When it is done under protest, I have a big problem with it. Don't get me wrong, I am all for “enlarging our tent” so to speak, but there are ethical constraints in doing so. I am never for extorting money from property owners who do not wish to have their property voluntarily annexed into a municipality.
There is one instance in which I do support involuntary annexation, however. If the property or properties in question are surrounded by annexed property and the properties are deriving benefits from the town. By that I mean if they property owners benefit from improved water, sewer, garbage removal, utilities, property value, streets, etc. as a result of being contiguous to the town limits, then I find it appropriate to annex such a property into the town. Selma recently had such a case here in town on Ricks Road. There are some properties for which it just make sense to be a part of the town limits.
The entire idea behind annexation of additional properties into the corporate limits of a town is for growth and planning control, but more importantly, the property tax revenue. Building the tax base is a popular reason, probably the only real reason, for involuntary annexation. It is all about the money.
I fully support building up our tax base. I want to share the load for the tax burden in town, myself. I want more people paying taxes here. The more people who share the burden, the smaller my burden should be. Of course, that never works in reality. Spending will increase, fiscal responsibility often is disregarded when more revenue comes in, and we end up paying the same or more in taxes, anyway. Only through fiscal restraint will this be overcome. Do we have the resolve to do so? Do we elect men and women with that resolve? Think about these things this November.
For these reasons, House Bill 39 has been introduced in the North Carolina General Assembly to stop involuntary annexation action by municipalities. The bill is on the NC General Assembly web site. The bill unfortunately creates more bureaucracy in the form of a new commission to work on the topic. That is just what we don't need...more governmental red tape and expenditure.
What the bill does do is to suspend all involuntary annexations that are in process and to prohibit future such annexations. For any such annexations to proceed, the new bureaucracy must give approval and recommendations.
One local representative, James Langdon, is a co-sponsor of the bill. I applaud the effort of lawmakers here in North Carolina to protect the property rights of citizens. Like I said, I am fully in support of protection of rights. I am also in favor of a town's autonomy. Town governments, however, often step over their proper place, as evidenced by the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo Decision. Though the Kelo Decision deals with eminent domain rather than annexation, the principle is the same.
I encourage you to contact your state representatives with your support or dissent on a bill that will strongly affect your own town.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Reader feedback left today on my feedback line
I welcome reader feedback on my column. My feedback line is 919-975-2210. Feel free to leave a message there. All feedback left is subject to being blogged here.
Column for Feb. 8, 2007
Think about Iraq before drawing conclusions
Who hasn't heard all the chatter about President Bush's decision to put more troops in Iraq? If you have not heard it yet, I figure that you must live in a cave and your only news source is this small town newspaper you are currently reading. There are critics that support such an action, there are many who do not. The loudest voices, or at least those that get press coverage, seem to be those opposed to the so called "troop surge" deployment.
Here is the problem. The majority of those who are in opposition to the troop deployment are not ideologically opposed to warfare. They are merely opposed to anything that a conservative will do while in office, if you can actually categorize George W. Bush as a conservative. I personally have a hard time with that label for him, but he is still an improvement over the alternatives we could have had. Many of the same men and women in Congress who approved The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
I personally opposed the war in Iraq on one primary basis. There was no declaration of war. If we are going to declare war, then let us follow Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution which vests this authority in Congress and nobody else. They do not have the authority to grant the use of military force against another nation, only to declare war upon it. Yet Congress did so anyway. Thus, our entire action in Iraq, not to mention Vietnam and Korea is illegitimate.
I take issue, however, with those who advocate our withdrawal from Iraq on that basis. The fact is that no matter how improper it is that we entered Iraq, we are indeed there and our leaving would throw Iraq into even more chaos. After victory over Japan, we set up military leaders to be governors. We need to do much the same in the Middle East.
There has been much pressure to allow Iraq to have a "democracy" and run their own show. How can you explain to someone who has never tasted pizza what pizza tastes like? Or someone who was born blind what the color orange looks like? It is no different in the Middle East and self governance. People who have never had the freedom to choose their own leaders don't yet comprehend the freedom, lifestyle, nor responsibility that accompanies that form of government. As long as I am on the topic, we all need to stop using the word democracy as a synonym for the word republic. The two are vastly different. We do not live in a democracy in this nation. The Pledge of Allegiance has it correct when it says, "and to the republic for which it stands", not "and to the democracy".
Last May, my wife and I got a dog that was abused and neglected. Some of you may have seen her story on television. She did not readily and fully adjust to the idea of freedom from abuse, plentiful food, or the ability to play and frolic. She apparently had been abused by a male at some time and was terrified of me. All the dogs that were rescued at the same time were the same way, we found out. It took time for her to realize that she had the freedom, love, and comforts available to her that she did. Likewise, it will take time for an entire culture to adjust. Furthermore, when a large part of the culture is ideologically and religiously opposed to such freedom, there will be great instability and strife. Make no mistake that the predominantly Islamic culture will not take to the idea of freedom of the masses readily. We have already experienced this, otherwise our troops would not be dying there.
The bottom line is that when forming your opinions on the topic, do so according to facts and logic, not according to emotion or what is politically expedient. I want to say more, but I have run out of room in this week's column.
Who hasn't heard all the chatter about President Bush's decision to put more troops in Iraq? If you have not heard it yet, I figure that you must live in a cave and your only news source is this small town newspaper you are currently reading. There are critics that support such an action, there are many who do not. The loudest voices, or at least those that get press coverage, seem to be those opposed to the so called "troop surge" deployment.
Here is the problem. The majority of those who are in opposition to the troop deployment are not ideologically opposed to warfare. They are merely opposed to anything that a conservative will do while in office, if you can actually categorize George W. Bush as a conservative. I personally have a hard time with that label for him, but he is still an improvement over the alternatives we could have had. Many of the same men and women in Congress who approved The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
I personally opposed the war in Iraq on one primary basis. There was no declaration of war. If we are going to declare war, then let us follow Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution which vests this authority in Congress and nobody else. They do not have the authority to grant the use of military force against another nation, only to declare war upon it. Yet Congress did so anyway. Thus, our entire action in Iraq, not to mention Vietnam and Korea is illegitimate.
I take issue, however, with those who advocate our withdrawal from Iraq on that basis. The fact is that no matter how improper it is that we entered Iraq, we are indeed there and our leaving would throw Iraq into even more chaos. After victory over Japan, we set up military leaders to be governors. We need to do much the same in the Middle East.
There has been much pressure to allow Iraq to have a "democracy" and run their own show. How can you explain to someone who has never tasted pizza what pizza tastes like? Or someone who was born blind what the color orange looks like? It is no different in the Middle East and self governance. People who have never had the freedom to choose their own leaders don't yet comprehend the freedom, lifestyle, nor responsibility that accompanies that form of government. As long as I am on the topic, we all need to stop using the word democracy as a synonym for the word republic. The two are vastly different. We do not live in a democracy in this nation. The Pledge of Allegiance has it correct when it says, "and to the republic for which it stands", not "and to the democracy".
Last May, my wife and I got a dog that was abused and neglected. Some of you may have seen her story on television. She did not readily and fully adjust to the idea of freedom from abuse, plentiful food, or the ability to play and frolic. She apparently had been abused by a male at some time and was terrified of me. All the dogs that were rescued at the same time were the same way, we found out. It took time for her to realize that she had the freedom, love, and comforts available to her that she did. Likewise, it will take time for an entire culture to adjust. Furthermore, when a large part of the culture is ideologically and religiously opposed to such freedom, there will be great instability and strife. Make no mistake that the predominantly Islamic culture will not take to the idea of freedom of the masses readily. We have already experienced this, otherwise our troops would not be dying there.
The bottom line is that when forming your opinions on the topic, do so according to facts and logic, not according to emotion or what is politically expedient. I want to say more, but I have run out of room in this week's column.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Column for February 1, 2007
We need to return to Constitutional ideals
Did anyone actually watch The State of the Union Address this year? In years past, I would sit and listen to the long speech made even longer by endless applause and ovations. I have a hard time with all of that political grandstanding by both sides of the aisle. I did not watch the State of the Union speech this year. Instead, I watched the recorded episodes of this season's "American Idol" program. I would rather read the speech in its full text later.
If you have read my columns for any length of time, you know I am a strong conservative/neo-libertarian. I believe in actual adherence to our Constitution, otherwise it is just a nice, old piece of paper with ink on it.
Just once, I would love to see a true State of the Union address given. Article II Section 3 of the US Constitution says: "He [the President] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them".
Note that it does not say that the State of the Union is to be once per year, nor does it say that it is to be a speech before both houses of Congress. For that matter, it does not even specify that it shall be a speech at all. The speeches rarely actually contain "information of the state of the union". Recommendations to Congress of "such measures he shall judge necessary and expedient" have been replaced with grand plans of expansion of the government and personal agenda items. This happens regardless of the party affiliation of the President.
President Bush made the statement, "America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government." HELLO? Under the GOP control of both houses of Congress and The White House, Republicans have spent more than the Democrats ever did. Government expanded at a nearly unprecedented rate of growth.
Another mind boggler from the speech was "My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: A taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all." I truly wish he meant that statement.
What is lacking? How about content such as our annual revenue and expenditure figures? How about annual debt figures? I would love to see an honest assessment of our national strengths and weaknesses. Sure, the speech has things such as "we are facing (insert problem here) in our (insert program name here)" generic things, but nothing concrete that actually states what our union status presently is.
Here is one blatant lie in the speech. "The United States has no right, no desire and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." My rebuttal is but one word...Iraq.
President Bush then went on to talk about "democracies" in the Middle East, Ukraine, Afghanistan, etc. First and foremost, STOP USING THE TERM DEMOCRACY! We are NOT a democracy. We never have been and hopefully never will be. I didn't see the term "republic" used in the speech. Article IV, section 4 of the US Constitution states "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government". This should be a guarantee that a republic will be our form of federal government to be modeled for individual states to follow.
What needs to happen is that each new Congressman, Senator, President, judge, and federal employee needs to have a civics lesson prior to taking office or employment. After all, the President's oath of office is, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If only that were true and all unconstitutional legislation was eliminated or at least vetoed. I wish we had at least a president who would see things that way. It is easier to have one man than 535 to think clearly, one would think. Maybe I am wrong.
Did anyone actually watch The State of the Union Address this year? In years past, I would sit and listen to the long speech made even longer by endless applause and ovations. I have a hard time with all of that political grandstanding by both sides of the aisle. I did not watch the State of the Union speech this year. Instead, I watched the recorded episodes of this season's "American Idol" program. I would rather read the speech in its full text later.
If you have read my columns for any length of time, you know I am a strong conservative/neo-libertarian. I believe in actual adherence to our Constitution, otherwise it is just a nice, old piece of paper with ink on it.
Just once, I would love to see a true State of the Union address given. Article II Section 3 of the US Constitution says: "He [the President] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them".
Note that it does not say that the State of the Union is to be once per year, nor does it say that it is to be a speech before both houses of Congress. For that matter, it does not even specify that it shall be a speech at all. The speeches rarely actually contain "information of the state of the union". Recommendations to Congress of "such measures he shall judge necessary and expedient" have been replaced with grand plans of expansion of the government and personal agenda items. This happens regardless of the party affiliation of the President.
President Bush made the statement, "America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government." HELLO? Under the GOP control of both houses of Congress and The White House, Republicans have spent more than the Democrats ever did. Government expanded at a nearly unprecedented rate of growth.
Another mind boggler from the speech was "My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: A taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all." I truly wish he meant that statement.
What is lacking? How about content such as our annual revenue and expenditure figures? How about annual debt figures? I would love to see an honest assessment of our national strengths and weaknesses. Sure, the speech has things such as "we are facing (insert problem here) in our (insert program name here)" generic things, but nothing concrete that actually states what our union status presently is.
Here is one blatant lie in the speech. "The United States has no right, no desire and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." My rebuttal is but one word...Iraq.
President Bush then went on to talk about "democracies" in the Middle East, Ukraine, Afghanistan, etc. First and foremost, STOP USING THE TERM DEMOCRACY! We are NOT a democracy. We never have been and hopefully never will be. I didn't see the term "republic" used in the speech. Article IV, section 4 of the US Constitution states "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government". This should be a guarantee that a republic will be our form of federal government to be modeled for individual states to follow.
What needs to happen is that each new Congressman, Senator, President, judge, and federal employee needs to have a civics lesson prior to taking office or employment. After all, the President's oath of office is, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." If only that were true and all unconstitutional legislation was eliminated or at least vetoed. I wish we had at least a president who would see things that way. It is easier to have one man than 535 to think clearly, one would think. Maybe I am wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
