PGPF Citizens Guide 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Left, The Right, and the State
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. just came out with a good book. "The Left, The Right and the State." The book reveals the way our government works today and I found this excerpt from the introduction to explain it perfectly.
Rockwell focuses on pointing out the problem with the economic policies of both the right and the left, while advocating liberty, and the classical liberal perspective. He points out that the root problem is the amount of power our federal government has been given.
The left wants the state to distribute wealth, to bring about equality, to rein in businesses, to give workers a boost, to provide for the poor, to protect the environment. I address many of these rationales in this book, with an eye toward particular topics in the news.
The right, on the other hand, wants the state to punish evildoers, to boost the family, to subsidize upright ways of living, to create security against foreign enemies, to make the culture cohere, and to go to war to give ourselves a sense of national identity. I also address these rationales.
So how are these competing interests resolved? They logroll and call it democracy. The left and right agree to let each other have their way, provided nothing is done to injure the interests of one or the other. The trick is to keep the balance. Who is in power is really about which way the log is rolling. And there you have the modern state in a nutshell. Although it has ancestors in such regimes as Lincoln's and Wilson's, the genesis of the modern state is in the interwar period, when the idea of the laissez-faire society fell into disrepute -- the result of the mistaken view that the free market brought us economic depression. So we had the New Deal, which was a democratic hybrid of socialism and fascism. The old liberals were nearly extinct.
The US then fought a war against the totalitarian state, allied to a totalitarian state, and the winner was leviathan itself. Our leviathan doesn't always have a chief executive who struts around in a military costume, but he enjoys powers that Caesars of old would have envied. The total state today is more soothing and slick than it was in its interwar infancy, but it is no less opposed to the ideals advanced in these pages. How much further would the state have advanced had Mises and Rothbard and many others not dedicated their lives to freedom? We must become the intellectual dissidents of our time, rejecting the demands for statism that come from the left and right. And we must advance a positive program of liberty, which is as radical, fresh, and true as it ever was.
Rockwell focuses on pointing out the problem with the economic policies of both the right and the left, while advocating liberty, and the classical liberal perspective. He points out that the root problem is the amount of power our federal government has been given.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Think Before You Vote
MAY 19th BALLOT
The May 19, 2009 California election ballot includes seven propositions. My positions on the Propositions are as follows:
NO: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E
YES: 1F and 13
Six of the above measures were voted onto the ballot in a special February legislative session in Sacramento. These measures were a negotiated effort between Arnold Schwarzenegger, the entire Democratic majority in the California State Legislature, and a handful of Republican legislators: Senator Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria), Senator Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield), Assemblyman Anthony Adams, Assembly GOP leader Mike Villines and Assemblyman Roger Niello.
The following sections review the content of each proposition, most of which have misleading titles and are nothing more than tax-grabs that will divert money from hard working, economically responsible Californians to special interest groups. I urge all Californians to become familiar with the May 19th Ballot in order to make fully informed decisions.
1A: BUDGET STABILZATION ACT
Proposition 1A will extend for as long as four years the approximately $16 billion tax increase that is part of the budget deal struck in Sacramento. Proposition 1A includes a provision that keeps the $16 billion tax increase package in place for four years instead of two. Included in the proposition would be the state sales tax (up from the current tax of 8% to 9%), a doubling of the state's vehicle license fee, and an increase of 0.25% in the state's personal income tax on every tax bracket.
MY RECOMMENATION: NO!!!!!
This is a serious tax increase masked as a spending cap.
Not only will it keep the recently approved tax increases going for another 2 years, it removes a tax credit of $200/year per child, which will burden California families even more.
For more information: Howard Jarvis Tax Association
1B: 1A-RIDER FOR SCHOOL FUNDING
Proposition 1B appears as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment and is an attempt to modify some of the terms of California Proposition 98 (1998). This proposition guarantees $8 billion in school payments, but it can only be enacted if it wins at the polls, and if Proposition 1A also wins.
MY RECOMMENATION: NO!!!!!
1B is designed to raid the supposed 1A Rainy Day Fund" to pay the Teachers Union. Proposition 98 already requires a minimum percentage of the state budget to be spent on K-14 education and an annual increase in education in the California budget. Also, the Legislature will have the ability to restore school funding without Prop. 1B.
For more information: California Proposition 98
1C: SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 12
Proposition 1C sells $5 billion of future proceeds of the state lottery for a lump sum to make up for various cuts to the state budget.
MY RECOMMENATION: NO!!!!!
This is the same old. We must demand real solutions,the economy is shot and can not be patched up any longer by bigger government and there love for inflation.
1D: CHILDREN and FAMILIES TRUST FUND ACT
Proposition 1D attempts to modify some of the terms of California Proposition 10 (1998). It redirects $608 million in "First 5" money set aside in Prop 10 revenues for early child development to other children's programs for five years.
MY RECOMMENATION: NO!!!!!
This money was originally taken via a tax on millionaires for these programs. Not only is the title misleading, but as already heavily taxed citizens leave the state, the current “extra” monies funding these functional programs will decrease -- which actually threatens their existence.
For more information: California Proposition 10; League of Women Voters
1E: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT
Proposition 1E is an attempt to modify some of the terms of California Proposition 63 (2004) by shifting $227 million in voter-approved funding from Prop 63 for two years to pay for the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program, a low-income child development program.
MY RECOMMENATION: NO!!!!!
This is the taking of funds from already approved initiatives; this money was originally taken via a special tax on millionaires for these programs. As with 1D, the title and nature of this program is misleading.
For more information: Lawsuit Challenges Prop. 1E Ballot Label; California Proposition 63; League of Women Voters
1F: SCA8
Proposition 1F prohibits the state commission that sets salary levels for members of the California State Legislature from increasing those salaries in any year with a budget deficit.
MY RECOMMENATION: YES!!!!!
Legislators should not get a pay raise when other Californians have to tighten their belt. A common sense proposition, at last!
PROPOSITION 13: SCA4
Proposition 13 prohibits tax assessors from re-evaluating new construction for property tax purposes when the point of the new construction is to seismically retrofit an existing building.
MY RECOMMENATION: YES!!!!!
We need to support businesses that enhance the safety of their workplaces, not tax and punish them.
RECAP,
NO: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E
YES: 1F and 13
It is ironic that my two yes votes are on propositions that have no words in the name of the bill. When not thinking with clear reason, it is easy to appeal to the emotional connotation of words used in the title of legislation. It's hard to vote no on bills that hold the name CHILDREN AND FAMILIES TRUST ACT, because it is worded in a way that is completely misleading. So think, use your brains, and make your decision a sound one.
The May 19, 2009 California election ballot includes seven propositions. My positions on the Propositions are as follows:
NO: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E
YES: 1F and 13
Six of the above measures were voted onto the ballot in a special February legislative session in Sacramento. These measures were a negotiated effort between Arnold Schwarzenegger, the entire Democratic majority in the California State Legislature, and a handful of Republican legislators: Senator Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria), Senator Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto), Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield), Assemblyman Anthony Adams, Assembly GOP leader Mike Villines and Assemblyman Roger Niello.
The following sections review the content of each proposition, most of which have misleading titles and are nothing more than tax-grabs that will divert money from hard working, economically responsible Californians to special interest groups. I urge all Californians to become familiar with the May 19th Ballot in order to make fully informed decisions.
1A: BUDGET STABILZATION ACT
Proposition 1A will extend for as long as four years the approximately $16 billion tax increase that is part of the budget deal struck in Sacramento. Proposition 1A includes a provision that keeps the $16 billion tax increase package in place for four years instead of two. Included in the proposition would be the state sales tax (up from the current tax of 8% to 9%), a doubling of the state's vehicle license fee, and an increase of 0.25% in the state's personal income tax on every tax bracket.
MY RECOMMENATION: NO!!!!!
This is a serious tax increase masked as a spending cap.
Not only will it keep the recently approved tax increases going for another 2 years, it removes a tax credit of $200/year per child, which will burden California families even more.
For more information: Howard Jarvis Tax Association
1B: 1A-RIDER FOR SCHOOL FUNDING
Proposition 1B appears as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment and is an attempt to modify some of the terms of California Proposition 98 (1998). This proposition guarantees $8 billion in school payments, but it can only be enacted if it wins at the polls, and if Proposition 1A also wins.
MY RECOMMENATION: NO!!!!!
1B is designed to raid the supposed 1A Rainy Day Fund" to pay the Teachers Union. Proposition 98 already requires a minimum percentage of the state budget to be spent on K-14 education and an annual increase in education in the California budget. Also, the Legislature will have the ability to restore school funding without Prop. 1B.
For more information: California Proposition 98
1C: SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 12
Proposition 1C sells $5 billion of future proceeds of the state lottery for a lump sum to make up for various cuts to the state budget.
MY RECOMMENATION: NO!!!!!
This is the same old. We must demand real solutions,the economy is shot and can not be patched up any longer by bigger government and there love for inflation.
1D: CHILDREN and FAMILIES TRUST FUND ACT
Proposition 1D attempts to modify some of the terms of California Proposition 10 (1998). It redirects $608 million in "First 5" money set aside in Prop 10 revenues for early child development to other children's programs for five years.
MY RECOMMENATION: NO!!!!!
This money was originally taken via a tax on millionaires for these programs. Not only is the title misleading, but as already heavily taxed citizens leave the state, the current “extra” monies funding these functional programs will decrease -- which actually threatens their existence.
For more information: California Proposition 10; League of Women Voters
1E: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT
Proposition 1E is an attempt to modify some of the terms of California Proposition 63 (2004) by shifting $227 million in voter-approved funding from Prop 63 for two years to pay for the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program, a low-income child development program.
MY RECOMMENATION: NO!!!!!
This is the taking of funds from already approved initiatives; this money was originally taken via a special tax on millionaires for these programs. As with 1D, the title and nature of this program is misleading.
For more information: Lawsuit Challenges Prop. 1E Ballot Label; California Proposition 63; League of Women Voters
1F: SCA8
Proposition 1F prohibits the state commission that sets salary levels for members of the California State Legislature from increasing those salaries in any year with a budget deficit.
MY RECOMMENATION: YES!!!!!
Legislators should not get a pay raise when other Californians have to tighten their belt. A common sense proposition, at last!
PROPOSITION 13: SCA4
Proposition 13 prohibits tax assessors from re-evaluating new construction for property tax purposes when the point of the new construction is to seismically retrofit an existing building.
MY RECOMMENATION: YES!!!!!
We need to support businesses that enhance the safety of their workplaces, not tax and punish them.
RECAP,
NO: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E
YES: 1F and 13
It is ironic that my two yes votes are on propositions that have no words in the name of the bill. When not thinking with clear reason, it is easy to appeal to the emotional connotation of words used in the title of legislation. It's hard to vote no on bills that hold the name CHILDREN AND FAMILIES TRUST ACT, because it is worded in a way that is completely misleading. So think, use your brains, and make your decision a sound one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
