Author: Redactor

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

Veteran Politicians vs. Veterans

Back in 2005 I testified in the Florida legislature against an attempt to weaken the state’s term limits. Ignoring my testimony, legislators put their anti-​limits amendment on the ballot. But as the election approached, they got scared. So scared, in fact, that they went so far as to pull their anti-​term limits amendment off the ballot.

Now, four years later, there’s a proposed constitutional amendment to extend the state’s property tax discount for disabled veterans to those veterans who live in Florida now, but were not Florida residents when they entered the military. This popular idea is likely to win legislative approval to be on the ballot.

Well, at least, it was likely … until Senator Mike Bennett tacked on an amendment. Bennett wants to weaken Florida’s “eight is enough” term limits law by giving legislators twelves years. He sees latching it to the popular veterans’ measure as the best way to do that.

Notice that when Florida citizens propose constitutional amendments they can only address one subject, no pairing a popular issue with an unrelated unpopular one.

House Majority Leader Adam Hasner called the measure “disrespectful to those men and women who have served our country and are disabled veterans.”

It is also disrespectful to the 77 percent of Floridians who voted for eight-​year term limits and want to keep them.

Floridians cherish military veterans. 

Veteran politicians? Not so much.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Special Interests of the World Unite

Wish there were an issue that would engender bipartisan co-​operation from our legislators? An idea that could bring together special interests of all stripes — from the teachers’ unions to the Chamber of Commerce?

There is: Taking away your initiative rights.

Last week, I was at the Missouri capitol testifying against several bills that would create restrictions for initiative petitions, many identical to those struck down all across the country as unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment.

Show-​Me state legislators also came up with something new: A bill to actually prohibit citizens from gathering signatures on more than one petition at a time. 

Very convenient. It just so happens that a campaign to stop the state’s rampant eminent domain abuse requires two constitutional changes, thus two petitions.

As a representative for the state’s League of Women Voters put it, they just want to place a few more hurdles in the way of the people. She was joined by many other big capitol lobbies, united by their desire to block the citizens from playing any role in policy.

Fortunately, a number of regular folks, representatives from several grassroots groups, as well as the state’s ACLU attended, urging their representatives to do the unusual — actually represent the people.

Special interests hate the voter initiative process. They know what we know: If there is to be reform, it has to come from the people directly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability too much government

Deep, Deep Waters

Are you surprised? I’m not surprised.

Turns out Congresswoman Maxine Waters had “family financial ties” to a bank for which she personally helped solicit bailout money. Without regard to its relative need or value to the economy. 

Shocker.

Trillions in stimulus money, bailout money. And we expect politicians will allocate it according to some impersonal calculus that has nothing to do with who their chums are?

Nor can we expect the politicians and bureaucrats to sit back and let the market, or what’s left of it, function unhampered once bailout money has been forked over.

Many banks seemed to think they would simply be allowed to spend the subsidies according to their own judgment about how best to promote the health of their enterprises. But once the bailouts failed to work the instant magic they were supposed to, politicians began attaching strings. So that voters angry about the bailouts could see that there’s “accountability.”

It’s not just about trimming fat executive bonuses. The banks are also supposed to obey orders to cancel employee training, reduce dividends to shareholders, stop hiring employees from overseas, etc. This is about social engineering, not economic efficiency.

So, many banks now say they’ll give the money back. Good idea; great idea. But it would really surprise me if it found its way all the way back to taxpayers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
tax policy

Taxing Charity

The federal government allows people to give money to non-​profit organizations and then deduct the money they give from their taxable income. If you donate to a hospital, a homeless shelter, the Salvation Army or an educational foundation, you don’t have to pay federal income tax on that money.

But President Barack Obama wants to change that longstanding provision, at least for higher income taxpayers — you know those newly suspicious folks who make $250,000 or more a year. These “wealthy people” wouldn’t get to fully deduct their charitable contributions.

Obama insists this won’t matter to donors or to the charities they support. Regarding the hurt this might put on charities, who have already been hit by the economic downturn — and I quote — “It’s not going to cripple them.”

Gee, thanks for not absolutely “crippling” charities.

Studies suggest charitable donations could fall by 5 percent, however. That’s almost $4 billion that won’t go to feed the poor, help the sick, educate people or provide legal defense for citizens fighting for their rights.

As times get tough, now seems a bizarre time to undercut charitable giving. Instead of removing some tax-​deductibility from wealthier Americans, we ought to give extra deductibility to everyone.

Isn’t the goal to maximize help for those in need? 

Don’t tell me it’s to maximize government’s role, to the exclusion of private charity.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

What Not to Blame

You’ve heard the calumny: The current economic debacle is the result of free markets.

This charge — often made with lip-​smacking glee — makes no sense.

I’ve discussed some specifics, before. Here are three more points:

1. We haven’t had a free market. We live in a heavily regulated, subsidized, coddled-​and-​attacked, over-​taxed society. If the current debacle proves any system unfeasible, then the one proven wrong is the one we have. It’s the mixed economy that has proven to have worse than mixed results.

2. Many on the left as well as on the right like to pretend that Republican talk of free markets has been effective. Both sides lie. The alleged party of “small-​government” and “free markets” pigged out at the government trough, increasing the size and scope of government. To not see growth of regulation and spending and government debt under Republican governance is to not see the corpulent elephant in the room. 

3. Blaming free markets is especially galling to actual proponents of free markets for a historical reason, too: Our idea grew up in reaction not to socialism, but to a system of government interference much like what we have today. Adam Smith called it “mercantilism.” Thomas Jefferson called it “Parasite Institutions.”

And it’s the parasite institutions that caused the current mess. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall tax policy

They Call It “De-​Brucing”

Colorado’s constitutional amendment dubbed the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, has made it difficult for politicians to tax and spend like they want. 

So politicians engage in all sorts of weird strategems.

Take “de-​Brucing.” TABOR’s author is Doug Bruce. TABOR allows voters to make exceptions to the law’s basic limits on spending increases and taxes. So all but four of Colorado’s 178 school districts have voted to “de-​Bruce” — that is, to allow more spending, more taxes, than TABOR’s formula would otherwise allow.

In this context, Gov. Bill Ritter worked hard promoting a 2007 law to freeze tax rates. This freeze was designed not to limit increasing tax revenues, but to shore up the pre-​TABOR rate of increase. It passed. 

What the freeze did was de-​Bruce the whole state, even those four school districts that had repeatedly and enthusiastically upheld tax rate reductions created by TABOR.

And now the state supreme court has decided that Ritter’s legal maneuver is just hunky dory.

In Colorado, voters engage in lawful constitutional revisions, and politicians react with obvious unconstitutional law … and are backed up by the highest court. So much for constitutionality.

If I lived in Colorado, I’d be voting not to “de-​Bruce,” but to “de-​Ritter” … and be thinking about term limits for judges.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.