Post Scripts

Posted by Tina

Recently I have asserted that private sector incomes have fallen behind and the reason is because of the excesses of government. Tonight I found some proof that my theory is accurate. J.Scott Moody, CEO of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, is my new hero. He chose two states, Maine and New Hampshire, and compared them in terms of tax policy and public and private employment wages. The record between 1929 and 2012 is pretty amazing. I will let Mr. Moody tell the story:

Since 1950, Maine has increased taxes and spending dramatically with the introduction of the sales tax in 1951 and the income tax in 1969. New Hampshire, on the other hand, did not.
Increasing taxes on the private sector has two consequences. First, higher taxes will mean less money in the pockets of individuals and businesses which will reduce their ability to invest for the future. Second, greater public spending will crowd-out the private sector in competition for scarce labor and capital.

Overall, between 1929 and 2012, Maine’s private sector as a percent of personal income has shrunk by 31 percent to 64.2 percent in 2012 from 92.4 percent in 1929-Maine now has the 10th smallest private sector in the country.

New Hampshire’s private sector has only shrunk by 16.3 percent to 76.1 percent in 2012 from 90.8 percent in 1929-New Hampshire now has the 2nd largest private sector in the country.

As a consequence, Maine residents have paid a steep price with not only higher tax bills but also lower incomes. The dashed lines shows the disparity in real, per household personal income growth between Maine and New Hampshire.

Over this time-period, Maine’s income grew by 247 percent while New Hampshire’s income grew by 293 percent. Due to these growth difference, the average household in New Hampshire enjoys income that is 27 percent higher than the average household in Maine ($117,761 versus $92,870, respectively).

Additionally, a significant part of New Hampshire’s private sector is actually derived from Mainers who cross-border shop at New Hampshire stores. According to my analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau, Mainers are spending up to $2.2 billion per year in New Hampshire. This is entirely driven by higher sales and excise taxes in Maine.

Read the entire piece and see the graph that tells this story in red, white and blue!

The most important factor in any economy is the people. It is the one factor that our progressive buds don’t ever seem to consider. People respond to tax increases and to tax cuts. How they respond is the key to smart tax policy. Once that is figured out, see painful lesson for California here and scroll down to watch video, the only remaining problem is getting our public servants to stay on budget, manage wisely, and knock off the useless pork, the waste, the fraud and the abuse!

Does a rising tide lift all boats…YES!

USA Today – North Korea has already threatened nuclear strikes on Washington and Seoul in recent weeks. It said Wednesday there was no need for communication in a situation “where a war may break out at any moment.” Earlier this month, it announced that it considers void the armistice that ended the Korean War in 1953.”

I’m not sure anyone knows why North Korea is sabre rattling, but the best guess so far is that their dictator, Kim Jong Un, is on shaky ground with his military leaders.  They could depose him if he doesn’t act tough to keep them at bay.

After threatening to nuke the US, is there anything to top that?  I think not, there’s much else to be said once you’ve threatening nuclear war on the world’s greatest power.  Of course it would be suicidal if they tried and the chances are they don’t have the means to deliver a single warhead, but that’s still the height of threat politics.   The next level has to be to do something, but short of causing an all out war.  In 2010, North Korea sank the South Korean naval corvette Cheonan south of the maritime boundary, killing 46 sailors. That year it also attacked Yeonpyeong Island with artillery, killing four South Koreans and destroying 70 homes and buildings.  I would expect something along these lines to happen, if anything, but war is still a possibility.

Consider that for the first time, South Korea has a new female president and she is expected to play hardball.  Given  the pressure on the two Korean leaders, an accident, a provocation, a miscommunication could take both sides to war and this would involve the US.    The US has just deployed B-2 bombers to South Korea to participate in war games, dropping dummy bombs on a barren South Korean island.  North Korea news reports their people, “burning with hatred” over the B-2 participation.

“How can we pardon the Yankees who hatched even a sinister plot to defame the supreme dignity, which we regard dearer than our own lives, not content with staging madcap nuclear war drills?” Cha Ok Chol, a Korean People’s Army officer said according to the Korean Central News Agency.

^{North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (Reuters)}

An editorial put out by the KCNA described “hideous politically-motivated terrorism of the US and the South Korean puppet forces targeting the dignified social system in the DPRK”.

North Korea still holds the captured USS Peublo that they claim violated their territorial waters and we claim was in international waters.   No military retaliation was ever taken against North Korea for this act of war.   All of the Navy crew were subjected to torture before being released.

Background on the Pueblo:  On January 23, 1968 the USS Pueblo (AGER-2), Auxiliary General Electronic Research Ship, was attacked, boarded and captured by North Koreans in International waters and taken to Wanson Harbor in North Korea.

“Thus the USS Pueblo became the first United States warship captured without a fight since June 22, 1807, when HMSLeopard forced the USS Chesapeake to surrender off the Virginia capes and impressed four of its crew into the British Navy.” (Brandt, 1969)

During the attack one Pueblo crewman was killed and seven others sustained shrapnel wounds — two of which were serious. The absence of shredding devices or effective destructive mechanisms made the task of completely destroying the electronic equipment and classified material aboard the ship impossible.

By Matthew DeLuca, NBC News

By JUAN WILLIAMS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JkRT3C1mGRM

Posted by Tina

Politicians compete to win our votes by assuring us that they have our best interests in mind. They make promises to deliver legislation that will solve our problems and improve the quality of our lives. But is this true in practice or just a bunch of well intended hooey. We are fools to take them at their word. Politics is a game and the stakes are very high. The game has led to a sense that citizens who rise to this grand state of service somehow will behave with extraordinary abilities and devise brilliant solutions. We would do better to rely on ourselves to solve most problems because the fixes they devise never deliver as promised and have proven through the years to be wasteful, inefficient, and costly both in human terms and in terms of every individuals economic opportunity, economic stability, and buying power. Most of the modern web of tangled legislation and regulation began in the 1930’s.

President Roosevelt’s Message to Congress contained the following:

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

The grand vision was that the original government initiated plan should be “supplanted” by “self-supporting annuity plans.” How well did that proposal play out?

The original vision Roosevelt had was a government plan to secure old folks hurt by the depression in that time and to secure future generations from devastation in old age with self-supporting annuity plans. It was never meant to replace savings and investment, it was never meant to be a permanent government solution, and it was never meant as a piggy bank for legislators to borrow from whenever they got themselves into a bind through mismanagement of the people’s money!

The Social Security program, signed into law by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935 was promoted with an assurance to the citizenry that each worker would get his social security benefits “regardless of the amount of property or income you may have.”

It didn’t take long for the original vision to melt away. The government plan was never replaced with individual annuity accounts, the original low rates climbed higher and taxes were imposed on wealthier contributors. Just the Facts reports that workers “with incomes of more than $25,000/year and couples with incomes of more than $32,000/year must pay income taxes on up to 50%” of their benefits. Those “with incomes of more than $34,000/year and couples with incomes of more than $44,000/year must pay income taxes on up to 85% ” of their benefits and the thresholds for taxation are not automatically indexed for inflation or wage growth. The 1935 Social Security promise does not resemble the reality workers experience today. The program does not deliver returns as promised. In fact, Social Security has been used as a means to secure more revenues through taxation and borrowing while the politicians promised these actions would stand this unsustainable program on its feet:

In 1977, after nearly three years of Social Security deficits,[130] the 95th Congress passed and Democratic President Jimmy Carter signed a bill that increased Social Security taxes and changed the formula governing benefit increases.[131] Carter termed it “the most important Social Security legislation since the program was established,” and at the signing ceremony, he stated: “It is never easy for a politically elected person to raise taxes. But the Congress has shown sound judgment and political courage in restoring the Social Security system to a sound basis. … Now this legislation will guarantee that from 1980 to the year 2030, the Social Security funds will be sound.”[132]

The bill was passed on December 20, 1977, and the Social Security program ran deficits every year for the next four years (not accounting for inflation).[133] Accounting for inflation, the Social Security Trust Fund declined in value every year from 1973 to 1983,[134] at which time, the 98th Congress and Republican President Ronald Reagan increased taxes, raised the retirement age, and made other changes to keep the program solvent.[135]

As we know these changes also didn’t work and the SS Administration acknowledges the ugly truth on its website, according to Just the Truth:

The Social Security Administration’s web site states: “There has been a temptation throughout the program’s history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense…. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. … Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn….”[265]

Yep, they can always change what they have set in place…including ending your benefits at will.

There are many examples of promises made by politicians to solve our problems at the federal level. A short list:

*The income tax will apply only to the wealthiest individuals and will never go above 6 percent.

*Social Security will always be there for you, and the tax will be only 2 percent.

*Federal aid to education will never mean federal control of education.

*The Medicare program will never allow bureaucrats to interfere with your doctor’s medical decisions.

*Gun-control laws will keep guns away from criminals, but not interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens.

*Read my lips; no new taxes.

*The Affordable Patient Protection Act will make healthcare and premiums more affordable. We will be able to keep our insurance and our doctor and the uninsured will finally be covered. Those with preexisting conditions will not be denied coverage.

These promises and many more have proven to be untrue or more expensive and unworkable for the American people than promised.

I have one final example for all who follow the immigration debate. The Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was proposed by Ted Kennedy and signed into law by Lyndon Johnson:

The 1965 law was advertised by the politicians as a modest reform that would end the “discriminatory” national origins system, make the U.S. “look good” to the rest of the world, and treat all prospective immigrants equally, no matter what their color or country of origin. The supporters of the bill promised that the new law would have no significant effect on either the total number of immigrants admitted or the
future ethnic balance of the nation.

Senator Ted Kennedy, co-chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee and floor manager of the bill, dismissed the opposition to the bill, saying: “What the bill will not do: First our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains essentially the same. . . . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S. 500 will not inundate America with immigrants from one country or area.

Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach testified that the purpose of the bill was to eliminate the national origins quota system, not to increase immigration, saying that the annual quota would only be raised from 158,000 to 166,000.

Senator Kennedy estimated that passage of the bill would increase immigration by only 62,000 a year.

…How reliable were the promises of the nation’s political leaders? As a result of the Third World chain migration (one immigrant sending for relatives who in turn send for other relatives) permitted and encouraged by the new law, total legal immigration grew dramatically from an average of 252,000 per year in the decade of the 1950s, to around 600,000 per year by the mid-80s.

Read the paper from the The American Immigration Control Foundation here. Read about AIC by going here.

The best thing that could happen in America would be that the people become more independent, self-reliant, and self-sustaining. Individual citizens taking it upon themselves to make sure their children are educated, to make sure their retirement years are funded and to make sure that healthcare, for instance is affordable by being the consummer that will not tolerate goods and services that cost too much. The individual is the conscience and stop sign that is missing from government management. Putting ourselves at the mercy of politicians in Washington has led to unsustainable programs, massive debt, inefficiency and waste, more dependency in the people, more of our children lacking proper education, and a general moral and economic decline. How do we know when a politician is feeding us a story…his lips are moving. He promises what he cannot deliver and delivers up a whole lot of mess in the process of trying to deliver.

America as a nation of hearty individuals and families that rely on themselves and their neighbors will always make better decisions and hold each other accountable. Why? Because when people are encouraged to take responsibility they mature, they learn they must be strong and accountable through the trial and error of their life experiences. We don’t need empty or broken promises from politicians cloaked in self importance and operating in an unaccountable political machine. We need freedom.

I encourage young people especially to turn away from big government solutions and the promises that politicians make. History teaches us that giving our money to the federal government is wasteful and unfair and placing our faith in politicians to deliver a better life is just plain crazy when with a little planning and work we can do a much better job ourselves.

by Jack Lee

The special public forum meeting to deal specifically with the homeless problem opened to a packed house.  It was hosted by the Chico City Council.  All 140 seats were taken long before the meeting officially started.  The public eventually was forced to stand up against the walls and hover near the entrance doors, as two TV stations monitored the event.

Typical of most political forums… many words were spoken, but not much was said.

Ninety minutes into the meeting, Mayor Mary Goloff and former Mayor, Ann Schwab, had consumed the bulk of the time bloviating.  They were  either indifferent or oblivious, to the long line of citizens wishing to speak.

Why the Mayor thought the people came there to hear her drone on shows the kind of disconnect some politicians get when they become too enamored with the sound of their own voice.

Some in the audience (including myself) eventually found their way to a side room.  We watched this circus on closed circuit TV.    ”She’s wasting too much #$%@ time talking! I can’t take it ” came a comment from our small, huddled group.   Amen to that brother.

Aside from the bloviating, I felt like we were being lectured and talked down too as the Mayor went on and on… about this being such an important issue, how they wanted to hear from everyone, but cautioning us to play nice…only what I just said in 15 seconds she took  15 minutes to say.  It seemed like the woman would never shut up!  M’god, she droned on! Then like in tag team wrestling,  Ann “The Verbose” Schwab,  took over from Goloff and she too prattled on, depriving the public of their speaking limited time.

The people sitting with me in the side room were soon cussing the TV screen, but at least being in a private room we could vent our frustration!  I felt sorry for  those in the audience that had to sit there, forced to listen quietly as the council gas-bags took unlimited time pouting off.  Finally, a friend of mine said he couldn’t take it any longer!!!  He left the confines of our room and rushed over to the council chambers.  He boldly walked right up to the public podium and stood there.  The Mayor, surprised, said, “What do you want?” as she stopped the meeting.   He said bluntly and firmly, “Will you please move this along so people in the audience can speak!” And then he walked out before she could reply.

This resulted in a cheer and loud clapping!  At this point the Mayor used her gavel.  She announced that the public speaking time would but limited to 1 minute because there were so many that wanted to talk and so little time.  Booing came right back at her.

If this wasn’t the height of hypocrisy, I mean, the Mayor and her pals just wasted most of the last hour and now she’s telling the public they can have only 60 seconds to saying what’s been on their minds for the last few months?  Many citizens protested by walking out in disgust.

Well,  prepare to calm yourself, because here are some of the nutty proposals that were brought up by Ms. Jennifer Haffner (attorney at law), Chair of the Homeless Coalition.  She thinks this is what’s needed to fix our bum problem in the downtown:

1. Build an alternative shelter with less restrictions, so the bums, homeless and the travelers will be more encouraged to use it, as opposed to the Esplanade House, the Torres Shelter or the Jesus Center, because they enforce rules about drinking on the premises and have rigid entry and exit times, etc.

2. Build day care centers in the downtown for the homeless, so help with loitering and aggressively panhandling.  (I’m sure it will too, we ought to get a lot more. )

3. Establish a collaborative relationship with the police department and charity services to get the word out as to what free services are available.  (Maybe we should publish a booklet of all the free things that are available and then paint a gold line around the town where bums can find them?)

4. Build permanent housing for the chronically homeless. (Sure, why not, we’ve got way too much filthy money overflowing in our city coffers)

Can you believe it?  This is beyond stupid…I’m stunned.   We’ve turned our shelters in youth hostels and now we are expected for day care too?

The Chielf of Police more or less said their hands were tied, and “while some people would like to use his department to rid us of the homeless problem,”  he found that offensive.  (I think the Chief just took a shot at conservatives)   Then moments later, when someone suggested a foot patrol in the area of the City Plaza, the Chief said that was absolutely out of the question.  He didn’t have the manpower, but if he was forced to do it,  he would have to place our children in danger (my words not his, but that was the gist) by removing an officer from the one of the high schools.   ( I strongly disagreed.  I recognized this as an old tactic from the far left; scare us and use our children to do it)

Then the Chief advised that he felt even aggressive panhandling (currently a city ordinance) was protected by the 1st amendment.  Tostle said what few city ordinances were applicable regarding the homeless, were mostly just infractions.  That meant, unless an officer witnessed the violation, they (police) couldn’t do any even though a citizen witnessed the crime.  I about gagged when the Chief spoke in glowing pride about the success of the City buying an occassional bus ticket for the homeless, so they could be reunited with family who would be able to care and support them.   By this time the BULL S-H-I-# was getting pretty close to knee deep.  He acted like the people in the audience would be so happy to hear his heart warming story that we would all break out in one big Aawwwwwwww, thash swho schweet.  ( A cumbyah moment! )   Geez, what a load he was selling… i’m thinking at the moment, this guy sure doesn’t talk like any cop I ever knew.    If he believes his own BS, then I think we’ve appointed Casper Milktoast to be our new Chief of police!   Wonder what his officers that about his touchy feely, can’t-do, approach to crime fighting?

Summary:  Most of the meeting was a total waste of my time.  The public was shafted.  I say this because the council (save for two good ones, Mark Sorenson and Sean Morgan) seemed more interested in lecturing the public rather than hearing from them.   Chances are, if the council can find a way, they’re going to go with spending more tax money for more homeless perks, and Haffner’s group will come on top.  We’re screwed.  The rainbow stickers and gay flags in front of certain council members served to identify them from the only two with any common sense.   (The whole event could have been an episode from Portlandia)

“I have a 1978 Honda CX500, I got it from my friend and it was belong to his passed away father. This bike has been sitting in the garage for years and couple years ago my friend was riding it and it worked perfect. My friend took the battery away and the carburetor needed to be cleaned too, so me and my roommate were trying to rebuild the carburetor and I also bought a new battery for it too. And then the engine was working perfectly. Then we were trying to fix the signal lights but we don’t really know how to fix those wires and so we just basically left it in the garage so far, and we are tired about fixing this bike so I’m thinking to sell it. I broke my phone last week and so I need money to fix it and please reply this post by email.”

Even better is my exchange with a customer on eBay:

Buyer:  Hi it Kevin I can offer you $157 for the pocket watch and I can pay for April 3 that when I get payed please let me know that would be ok thanks Kevin

Seller:  Hi Kevin, tell you what, round it off to $160 and you’ve got a deal.  At that price I can pay the postage, pay for what I have in the watch and call it close enough.   Sound okay?

Buyer:  Hi it Kevin I do not get payed into the April 3  to pay for it please let me know that ok with you it seem the big gear is missing teeth or is that the way picture came out please let me know the info thanks Kevin

Seller:  Watch is fine, no missing teeth.  I will accept $160 and hold it for you.

Buyer?  Hi it Kevin the offer was declined why you did accepted the offer please email with info thanks Kevin

Seller:  Kevin, I am holding the pocket watch for you, but we need to clear up something.   I have no idea what you just said?  The offer was accepted, if you will pay $160.   In return I agree to hold the watch until your pay-day.  Do you understand?

Days later… no reply.