Category Archives: Commentary

The Vote, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Uncategorized, Public Policy Radar, Gambling, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News

NO on Issue 3

This entry is part 3 of 4 in the series 2009 Election Issues

Voting MachineUnlike many others who are discussing the pros and cons of the language of Issue 3, the Institute for Principled Policy believes there are larger underlying reasons for advocating a NO vote on this Ohio ballot initiative.  We have shared these concerns before as a general position on the question of gambling expansion, but they are just as relevant in the current debate as in any other debate over gambling, state sponsored or privately owned.

“Does the Bible specifically speak to gambling as being not only a sin but something which the civil authority, bearing the sword under Romans 13 authority, can make a determination upon relative to the legality of such activity?

First, there must be some clarity in the choices of words we are using. Gambling, as defined by Webster’s 1828 dictionary, is as follows: “Gaming for money.” Let’s assume that this definition is agreed upon for purposes of usage of the word. Please notice that this definition would exclude the gathering of friends coming together to play a card game without money changing hands, but would not exclude organized gambling (casinos, lotteries, bingo parlors, monte carlo nights, etc.)

Given that gambling, defined correctly as “gaming for money”, is a clear violation of the 10th Commandment (thou shalt not covet) in that it is desiring something of value which you have not been given by God nor earned by your labor, then we need to look at how the Bible describes coveting or covetousness.

Colossians 3:5-6–”Mortify therefore your members which are on the earth, fornication, uncleanness, the inordinant affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness which is idolatry. For the which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.” (1599 Geneva)
Ephesians 5:5–”For this ye know, that no whoremonger, neither unclean person, nor covetous person, which is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ, and of God.” (1599 Geneva)

Covetousness is the root of evil before the act. Given that the Bible equates coveting with idolatry, and that gambling is the act of gaming for money as a result of coveting more than you have been given or earned from your labor, it is a violation of the command against coveting, then bythe clear testimony of Scripture  and logical inference , it is also a violation against creating a idol (2nd Commandment).

Additionally, engaging in gambling involves relying on “chance”, “luck” or other metaphysical crutches (rabbit’s feet, lucky charms, lucky numbers, etc), thus denying the sovereignty of God and His Law-Word. This is a violation of the First Commandment against having other gods. Matthew 6:24 is clear that one cannot serve both God and mammon (”No man can serve two masters: for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, anddespise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches.”) Only one God can be served, and engaging in gambling is worship of a false god.

As for the 8th Commandment against theft, the first person violated is God Himself. God has a first ownership claim over all resources, and requires it be used in specific ways (tithe, legitimate tax, gifts, provide for own and own home, church, provide for widows and orphans, etc). We have a stewardship responsibility of all God provides, and failure of that disqualifies a man from oversight of the church (Titus 1:5-8) and the state (Exodus 18:21).

Additionally, we are complicit in the theft of resources from others through the legalization of gambling (and there is no such thing as a purely “private” gambling operation; just legal and illegal–government has some part to play in any operation through enabling legislation, tax policy, police and safety efforts, etc). Redistribution of wealth under any circumstances, whether through confiscatory taxation or through state-endorsed gambling is theft.

Overall, as mentioned, supporting gambling is supporting multiple violations of God’s Law, whether or not man has said it is legal.”

In light of the above, the Institute for Principled Policy requests that you vote “NO” on Ohio State Issue 3 on the November 3rd ballot.

Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote

Ohio Issue 2 Pro and Con

This entry is part 2 of 4 in the series 2009 Election Issues

Voting MachinePeople have different ideas about the same issue.  This is especially true about this year’s Ohio ballot Issue 2, the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.  Keeping that fact in mind, the Institute for Principled Policy will be bringing pro and con arguments relative to the issue, but will not be making an official endorsement of it either way.

Argument Pro Issue 2

Issue 2 creates the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board (the Board), a board of Ohio agriculture interests which would have first right of refusal on any and all potential regulations on agriculture.  Issue 2 sets up no regulatory scheme; it neither prohibits nor proscribes any specific action by anyone involved in agriculture; and it is up to the people of the state of Ohio to decide to create it (and it’s established in the Constitution to keep radical interests from altering the makeup of the board after the fact).

The board, if adopted, will be the first review of any potential regulations on agriculture to be proposed.  The Constitutional amendment would also have force of law advantage over any other future initiative that may be proposed on the ballot, and can be the basis of legal challenge to such an initiative (per legal review of the issue by the OSU Extension Director of Ag Law, Peggy Kirk Hall).

The makeup of the board is known to the extent that there are certain specialties that must be represented on the board (2 veterinarians (one being the State Veterinarian), 1 county humane society member, 1 food safety expert, a dean of an agricultural college, the Director of Agriculture, 2 consumer representatives, 2 reps from farm organizations, and 3 family farmers).  Who those actual people are (except for the Director of Agriculture and the State Veterinarian) is subject to an application/nomination/Senate confirmation process.  That process will serve to sort out those who have real interests in protecting and promoting Ohio agriculture from those who have a radical animal-rights agenda.

Any authority given to this board is subject to the authority of the elected General Assembly (GA), as the enabling legislation spelled out particularly (Senate Joint Resolution 6, citing Article XIV, Section 1(B)), so the 13 members of the board do not have unilateral authority…the General Assembly also establishes the procedures for the board to follow in creating any potential new rule, so there can’t be any “making it up as they go along” effort that doesn’t get elected official oversight either.

Additionally, Section 1(D) of SJR 6 states “The General Assembly may enact laws that it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, to facilitate the execution of the duties of the Board and the state department that regulates agriculture under this section, and to set the terms of office of the Board members and conditions for Board members’ service on the Board.”  Again, the final control on the Board, except for the number of board members, the numbers of each interest (family farmers, farm organizations, veterinarians, etc.) on the board, and who appoints which (Governor appoints 10 through Senate confirmation process; House Speaker and Senate President each appoint 1 family farmer), is all left in the hands of the Ohio General Assembly, our elected legislative officials.

Concerns have been raised that Issue 2 will allow the state to have control over agriculture.  Extending “state intervention” is problematic mainly if one believes that up until Issue 2 there was no intervention by the state in agriculture.  A 2-inch-thick book known as Title 9 of the Ohio Revised Code is proof that there has been state intervention in agriculture since Ohio became a state.

Under the existing Title 9 regulations, agriculture has become the state’s biggest economic engine, producing $93 billion in economic growth, nearly 1 million jobs, and (especially with what is happening to states like California, Michigan, Florida, etc. with Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)  intervention) a top-ten-in-the-nation ranking for Ohio agricultural production in many areas of the agricultural economy.  Ohio does that with about 75,000 farms, only about 200 of which are considered concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO’s), or “mega-farms” in the common vernacular.  For the public to believe that a board of review on Ohio’s agricultural practices would have as a primary goal the harassment, persecution or elimination of Ohio’s family farms (the vast majority of the farms involved in our agricultural economy) in order to benefit the CAFO’s in some nefarious scheme strains credulity.

The main opposition to Issue 2 is carried out  mainly under the banner of the coordinating ballot organization “Ohio Against Constitutional Takeover (OhioACT)”  This coalition is replete with committed leftists, neo-Marxists, green warriors and animal-above-people radicals.  The Ohio Environmental Council, the Sierra Club, Food and Water Watch, League of Women Voters and HSUS all are part of this effort. Others include Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based “progressive” farm policy group focusing on “economic justice” whose board includes Earth First! Activists; the Ohio Farmers Union, which testified in Columbus that they want to compromise with HSUS and agree to HSUS’ demands relative to animal confinement; Mercy For Animals, a Chicago based (with a Columbus office) animal rights group who state, from their website that “non-human animals are irreplaceable individuals with morally significant interests and hence rights”; and Working Families Win, an Americans for Democratic Action-associated organization whose Ohio chapter states their goals of “organizing around the issues of guaranteed health care, jobs and wages, fair trade and sound energy policy.”

OhioACT’s “factsheet” on Issue 2 is filled with fictions.  The claim:  ‘The Livestock Care Standards Board, once cemented into the state constitution, would have the power to override any act by the Ohio Department of Agriculture or the state legislature, or any other initiative or referendum brought before the Ohio public other than an additional constitutional amendment.  In effect, this means that any standard created by the Board is a final decision, giving it unchecked power over animal agriculture” is unsupported in light of Section 1(B) of the actual language of Senate Joint Resolution 6.

It is interesting that OhioACT’s “factsheet” quotes just the first half of the first sentence in Section 1(B), conveniently leaving out the pertinent detail about the Board being ‘subject to the authority of the General Assembly.’  Oh, but they have to leave that out, don’t they?  Otherwise, their claims become seen for what they are:  empty and misleading.

Under the factsheet’s “unchecked power” heading, they make claims there will be no public input.  How do they know that?  The General Assembly sets the rules by which the Board will operate.  If the GA wants 10 public hearings by the Board on each rule proposed, then 10 public hearings the Board will have to provide.

The section on “undemocratic board” is a cute ploy.  They state there are no rules about the time of service on the board, then footnote Section 1(D) of the law which states clearly that the Ohio General Assembly will set the terms of service for the board members.  Can’t put that up front, now can they? If they did the entire theme of “unchecked power” argument goes down the drain!  Additionally, Section 1(A)(4) of SJR6 states clearly that “Not more than seven members appointed to the Board at any given time shall be of the same political party.”  This means clearly:  Partisanship is reduced by design of the law!  How can it get more democratic than that?

Then we have OhioACT’s “Family Farmer Fallacy” fallacy.  Here’s the real definition of “family farm” according to USDA regulation:  A farm that (1) produces agricultural commodities for sale in such quantities so as to be recognized in the community as a farm and not a rural residence; (2) produces enough income (including off-farm employment) to pay family and farm operating expenses, pay debts, and maintain the property; (3) is managed by the operator; (4) has a substantial amount of labor provided by the operator and the operator’s family; and (5) may use seasonal labor during peak periods and a reasonable amount of full-time hired labor.  It is reasonable to assume that this would be a working definition which the Speaker of the House, the Senate President, and the Governor will use in making their nominations to the board for the “family farmer” slots on the board.

In essence, even though the language doesn’t specifically say “This amendment will stop the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in their tracks”, it does throw a significant legal and administrative hurdle in their path, one big enough that HSUS and their allies, many of them listed above as Issue 2’s opponents, are expending considerable effort to defeat.  To read the language of Issue 2, and the enabling legislation, is to understand that there is much in it that WILL stop (or significantly hinder) HSUS from getting to the ballot in 2010. The HSUS proposal would definitely wreak havoc on small family farmers, as well as large ones.

Is it any coincidence that HSUS came in to Ohio at the end of their successful 2008 ballot initiative in California with the threat of “do it our way, or we will bring the initiative to the ballot in Ohio…..in 2010“?  Why wait the extra year?  Why not bring it in 09 before the full impact of what happened in California gets out in the information cycle?  Why not roll right into another attack while you have significant momentum?  Why 2010?

The likely answer:  2010 is a major election year in Ohio, and the progressive movement needs a turnout issue at the ballot in order to protect their gains in Ohio politics, and secure the bulwarks for the 2012 cycle.  What better than an emotionally-driven issue such as “humane animal treatment” to bring out their hardened cadres and get popular support from a significant segment of the Ohio electorate who often doesn’t take the time to think through most issues they will be voting on?  What better way to get “the team” (progressive/leftist elected officials and candidates) to endorse this issue and thus be associated with a “compassion” issue?  There’s a lot more to the HSUS delay than meets the eye.  There’s a lot more to Ohio Issue 2 than meets the eye, as well.


Argument Con Issue 2

“If it’s going to increase the scope, size, or cost of government – vote NO”.   Should we add a clause to this principled axiom which states “…unless it’s a preemptive strike against radical environmentalists”?  This is the thrust of the argument for supporters of Issue 2, which would create the Livestock Care Standards Board via constutional amendment.  The argument goes something like this: if we don’t create this board (which would have input on all agricultural legislation in Ohio), then the Humane Society of the United States will descend upon Ohio in 2010 with their own ballot initiative, and attempt to turn us all into vegans while implementing planks of the UN Agenda 21.  This brings up several problems and questions that one should consider before supporting Issue 2.

1. How does the creation of this board advance the cause of liberty, or line up with the preamble to the Ohio Constitution?

2. State Representative Ruhl, a supporter, conceded that the creation of this board would NOT stop HSUS from attempting a ballot iniative.

3. Why are Issue 2 supporters so convinced that HSUS could muster enough support to pass such an initiative?  This is not California or the east coast.  A better strategy might be to go ahead and let them make their attempt next year – then ALL pro-liberty and pro-family groups in Ohio can join forces and expose HSUS for what they really are.  As it stands now, some groups (such ours and the Buckeye Institute) have elected to stay neutral in light of the division this has caused in the pro-liberty and conservative communities.

4. One of the main concerns is that HSUS, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, etc. oppose Issue 2.  However, should we base our endorsement or opposition of an issue solely based on who is on the other side?  The Principled Policy Institute adamantly opposes Issue 3 (casino gambling) — but so does the ultra-liberal Ohio Council of Churches along with a number of gambling interests!

5. Contrary to the claims, this initiative is more reactionary than proactive.  A truly principled and proactive measure would have been to have created this board years ago, in the absence of any imminent threat.

6. Would this set a regulatory and legislative precedent in Ohio for other areas of law?  Imagine dozens of similar appointed boards that would have jurisdiction over legislation regarding health care, manufacturing, insurance, banking, energy, etc. in Ohio.  Such a system of unaccountable bureacracy would be contrary to the truly representative ideals of an elected general assembly.

7. With the wrong governor and legislature in power, such a board could do serious damage to Ohio before their terms expire.  Much like the H1N1 vaccine, the cure could potentially be worse than the disease.  What if the Livestock Care Standards Board ended up being spiked with disciples of Rachel Carson?

Nobody in their right mind would support the agenda of the Humane Society of United States, if they knew the truth about this radical organization (which has nothing to do with animal shelters).  However, let us think very carefully before purposely increasing the scope, size, and cost of government – as a preventative measure to a potential increase in the scope, size, and cost of government.

Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Biblical Worldview, Book Review

Government is the extension of God’s moral order

“Government in every area is God’s order, law, and authority asserted over His creation. In the world of men, God’s government, whether in church, state, school, business, or family, is the extension of God’s moral order over a fallen world, an assertion, to use an old Calvinist battle-cry, of ‘The Crown Rights of King Jesus.’ To reduce government, whether in the family, the state, or elsewhere, to force is to destroy government. Modern government, having forsaken God’s law, is essentially government by force, and its force is a killing, dissecting force, a government by autopsy.


Read the rest of the entry here

Taxation, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics

“NO” On Ohio Issue 1

This entry is part 1 of 4 in the series 2009 Election Issues

Voting MachineIssue one should be a “no-brainer”.  It authorizes $200 million dollars from the State of Ohio coffers to be distributed to Veterans of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts.  This money would provide Ohioans who fought in these “wars” $100 per month of service , not to exceed $1000, while  soldiers stationed in other locations during these conflicts could receive $50 per month for months served, not to exceed $500.

These would be bonuses from the people of Ohio to show appreciation to those from Ohio who served.  It would also offer a $5000 death benefit to the families of soldiers killed in the line of duty.  This would continue practices established after previous wars and conflicts.   This is a quite appropriate action.

We owe those who fight on our behalf.  We are thankful for their service and appreciate their unselfish service.  The only trouble is that this money would be raised by bonds and would need to be paid back by the State to those who purchase the bonds.  And the State of Ohio does not have this money! It would need to be borrowed money.

How can the State of Ohio justify going into more debt?  And though IPP strongly supports the American military and appreciates the service of Ohio’s veterans, we do not believe that Ohio should make this type of commitment at this time without having the money in hand while knowing that the State would not be able to pay off its bonds from a State surplus.  Therefore though we support the sentiment of this amendment and support the military, but we believe the State of Ohio cannot pledge itself to this type of financial obligation.

Therefore we do not believe that this is the right time for such an action.  The State of Ohio is so desperate for funding that is relying upon legal gambling to rescue it from its financial dire straits.  IPP therefore proposes that this action be delayed.  So Vote No on Issue I.

We also propose an alternative:  that the State open a private account that it would oversee and that 100% of the proceeds go directly to these veterans divided equally among them and that this fund be an open fund contributed to on a voluntary basis by the citizens of Ohio.  This way the benefactors of the bravery or these soldiers, the citizenry, can tangibly and personally say “thank you” and that the State of Ohio would not risk further financial obligation and debt.  We believe this is the appropriate alternative to this bill and IPP pledges the first $500.00 into this account if this bill is voted down and the alternative voluntary account is established as a different option.   Then the State could run public service announcements to generate funding for this account while virtuous citizens could demonstrate their appreciation by voluntarily donating their resources directly into this fund.

Taxation, Private Property, Commentary, Economics

Some Wisdom On Property Taxes From A Very Odd Source

tax

“As Property Taxes Become a Real Burden, Can Backlash Be Far Off?” screams a headline from an article in the (gack….choke…) New York Times. We will avoid the obvious comments about stupid questions and proceed with the point. Of course the backlash isn’t far off!

Let us illustrate with an example. In Westerville there is a pending levy vote on 7.99 additional mills. For a house with a value of $170,000 (a reasonable middle-of-the-road value there) this will bring a tax increase of $475 per year which will mostly go to salary increases for administrators and teachers. But wait a second. Just last spring an additional millage was voted to a “capital improvements” renewal levy that will cost at least $75 additional dollars per year, leaving out the increase on a renewal caused by being taxed at the current valuation rather than the previous one (tens more dollars per year). Let’s call it an even $100 more per year. And, oh, yes. Forgot to mention that suddenly the fire department needs 2.7 additional mills. That’s about $160 more per year.

Now all of a sudden you’ve got, when all of the voted millages kick in, an additional $735 dollars per year for so-called “necessities” that aren’t really. That’s an additional $61.25 per month that is unavailable for spending on items from local businesses like restaurants, clothing, grocery and hardware stores. Throw in various “throw-away”  millage increases for mental retardation, libraries and various other socialistic tax vampire increases and you’re looking at nearly $900 per year in additional taxes over two years.

The theoretical house in Westerville 12 years ago may have been valued at, say, $122,000 then and $170,000 now (the obvious recent drop in value due to the market crash was, of course, ignored by the Franklin County Auditor who chose to hold the property valuation line in most cases. The Delaware County Auditor George Kaitsa claims that some values have actually increased  in the Westerville School District portions of Delaware County, proving that Fantasyland actually exists and the Delaware County Auditor is its Great and Powerful Oz. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain). In other words, the house supposedly appreciated by about 39% in 12 years. But what about the taxes? That same house paid about $1750 per year in property taxes in 1997 and now pays about $3300 in taxes or about 89% more currently. The growth of current taxes has outstripped the value of the house by a factor of over 2 times. Now if the new millages pass and the taxes take effect that additional $900 per year comes into the picture and suddenly the $3300 per year in taxes is $4200 per year. That means in 13 years the value of the home will have grown 39% (assuming a continued flat real estate market) and the taxes will have grown by 140%, outstripping the growth in value by about 3.5 times. This thoroughly crushes the argument that failing to pass levies leads to decreases in property values. Who wants to move into a tax district where the taxes grow 3.5 times faster than property values? These are ugly numbers that should be a wake up call to voters who know them. We’ll see. The tax districts certainly aren’t being honest about it.

The article itself attempts to make some absurd points about New York real estate values and taxation. It is the New York Times, after all, the home paper of Pulitzer Prize winning Stalinist dupe and “progressive”  Lincoln Steffens (who once gushed of the Soviet Union of the late 1920’s and early 1930’s “I have seen the future- and it works!”) and hyper-Keynsian Paul Krugman who still thinks the fascistic economic misadventures of Hoover and Roosevelt that created a 17 year long “Great Depression” (24 years if you count how long it took for the stock market to recover) from a rather nasty but potentially short-lived recession (ala the very deep, short and little known depression of 1921) saved the country from the same “Great Depression.” For instance

Property taxes are high around here in large part, of course, because property values are high. But there are several reasons why property taxes are higher here than in other costly parts of the country. Unlike California and Massachusetts, there are few, if any, longstanding brakes in place that kept property taxes down (and, in California, led to disastrous revenue shortages). Public employees unions are powerful and politically feared. And we’ve come to expect good services — top-rated schools, nearby police in little boutique towns — and have been willing to pay for them.

Taxes are high because values are high? Well, no kidding but what about the points made earlier in this analysis regarding the rate of tax growth? Taxes are high because unions are feared? Why are such a tiny percentage of workers so fearsome? And frankly, the claim that California has been “deprived of revenue” due to property tax reforms is to approach the subject as if the state of California had a right to that revenue without recourse to a vote which proposition 13 brought to a halt in the late 1970’s. It doesn’t (Ohio failed to learn that ugly lesson and recently passed into law a bill that allowed school districts to offer permanent levies that feature tax rates that grow with property values without an intervening approval vote; hence the rapidly burning fuse on the property tax powder keg). And “good services” need not necessarily be expensive. Neither can they be cheap.

The fact is that school systems and bureaucracies dependent on the property tax have become bloated thanks to property value increases that far outstripped inflation. Now that the property value gravy train is derailed they all are, like all leeches, starved for more lifeblood in order to continue growing. That’s right. The real problem is not that these agencies need the funds to operate properly and efficiently, they need them to continue to grow. The fact is that what the Times is calling “good services” are often rapidly expanding unelected bureaucratic agencies that stifle small business and trample private property rights (zoning and planning boards, municipal business sign and licensing provisions, etc).

The so-called “good schools” are likewise unresponsive to parents who want their children to be taught how to read at an intelligent level and reason in a manner that comports with their personal values. The schools’  goal is to foster thinking that state and federal mandates designed to create worker drones (“School to Work”) requires. This “education strategy” has created such abysmally dull thinking and widespread illiteracy in the United States, which in the 19th century was able to boast of literacy in the high 90% range, that it now declines to keep statistics on the subject. So much for “good services.”

The cost of the growth of government is tacitly admitted here

…several reasons why property taxes are so high: unreasonable state mandates piled on local governments; income tax dollars inequitably distributed back to local governments; far too many local governments — more than 10,500 in New York — that need to be consolidated or eliminated; fraud and waste; and economic stagnation producing no expansion in the property tax base. You could throw in crippling Medicaid costs and unsustainable pension costs.

The specter of unfunded mandates rears its ugly head. Also, what’s with “redistribution” of money from the state to local governments? Why is the money being taken from those jurisdictions in the first place? Money cannot be taxed and run through a bureaucracy without scraping off and, frankly, wasting significant percentages of it (conservatively 70% and up). Why not just drastically cut state taxes (and corresponding mandates) and allowing the local governments to go to voters for what they actually need to run without intervening and ultra-expensive bureaucracies? The alleged fraud and waste at the local level is obviously only compounded at the state and federal levels which are far less responsive to electoral safeguards. It’s a lot harder for crooked politicians to survive in small towns than it is in Albany or Columbus or Washington DC (and a lot less expensive). Everybody knows who and what you are in Podunk.


The last 2 paragraphs of the article tells the tale.

Gerald Prante, an economist with the Tax Foundation in Washington, said at least people feel they get something tangible from their local taxes and can tolerate them if they believe they’re getting what they paid for “If I told you I spent $40,000 on a car, it doesn’t tell you much unless you know what kind of car,” he said. “If it’s a Lamborghini, it was probably a good deal. If it was a Saturn, it’s not such a good deal.”Thus, for all the angst, the fact that most local school budgets still routinely pass indicates we might be more likely to grumble than to cut close to home.

The problem is that many suburbanites who bought the luxury car a few years back now can barely afford the Saturn.

Are taxpayers actually looking at the costs versus the return yet? When they do- WATCH OUT! And help spread the word.

Public Policy Principles News, Economics, Taxation, Education, Public Policy Radar, Private Property, Commentary

It’s Levy Season- Know How To Vote

taxIt’s levy season once again. The time when school boards attempt to defraud taxpayers into voting themselves massive tax increases on the basis of the impending collapse of western civilization if the latest combination of renewal, replacement and new millages are not passed. The terminology of these appeals to emotion are deliberately misleading and/or deceptive.

What exactly happens to my taxes with a renewal that includes “no new taxes” and why do my taxes increase anyway when the renewal passes? Why do my taxes increase when the replacement levy was sold as a decrease in my old millage? Will this levy ever expire?

Have you ever asked these questions and been completely stumped by the rhetoric from the school officials and the news media who have closed ranks with school officials in an attempt to make sure levies pass?

This spring we ran a series called Tax and Spin- Undersanding Property Tax Levies. It is an attempt to unravel the mystery of property tax levies and explain why what looks like a decrease in rate actually causes an increase in taxes.

Don’t continue to be fooled. Read the series. This post will be a “sticky” until the election. New articles will post below it.

Taxation, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics

Auditing The Federal Reserve- Dr. Gary North

constitutionDr. Gary North has written an excellent analysis of the current effort to audit the Federal Reserve by the only true Constitutionalist currently in the government of the United States, Dr. Ron Paul.

Rather than bore you with my analysis of North’s analysis I will simply tell you to click here to read the article. And while you’re at it take the time to watch the video below (also oattached to Dr. North’s article).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Oh, yes.  Please be sure to read Dr. Thomas Woods Meltdown and Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo’s Hamilton’s Curse, both available in our Amazon Store to bolster your knowledge on the how’s and why’s of the current financial crisis.

Uncategorized, Education, Gambling, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote

American Majority–Grassroots Organizing and Mobilization

This entry is part 6 of 7 in the series American Majority Training

constitutionMost grassroots movements have the same fundamental parts to them, with the tea party movement being a notable exception.  Understanding those parts will help activists and candidates to generate and sustain momentum and support for your issue.

Chris Faulkner from Faulkner Strategies discussed the keys to a grassroots movement.  You have to have ‘The “IT”‘, ie. the key root basis of your movement:  the idea, issue or value(s) that define your movement, identified clearly and succintly.  Think abortion for the pro-life movement, war opposition for both the Dean campaigns and the Paul campaigns, etc.

You also have to have “The ‘Host'”, the person or group that becomes the avatar and carries the “IT”.  Most “hosts” have been too weak to carry the “It” effectively (think Howard Dean) but sometimes a “host” is strong enough to carry the “It” (think Barack Obama carrying the “Move ON” idea).

The “Host” can’t do it alone; in come the “Evangelists”: those who are opinionated, well-informed, and more interested in the “It” than in the “Host”.  These folks are the ones who really drive and make the movement happen and catch fire.  Sometimes they may be “sneezers” who push information out (think bloggers, talk radio, etc.).  Next you need the “medium” of how the message is going to be delivered.  In our Founding era, it was Committees of Correspondence and the Federalist Papers; today it is the Internet and social media.

All of this is focused on getting the message, and the momentum, to the “Crowd”, ie. everyone else.  The Tea Parties seem to have found a way to effectively do this and also bypass the need for a “Host”, thus decreasing the likelihood of a personality eclipsing the message or turning off those who otherwise could and should be part of the movement.

Maybe the conservative movement can learn some lessons.  The time is now, and the resources are available.

Public Policy Principles News, The Vote, Uncategorized, Education, Commentary

American Majority–New Media and Online Engagement

This entry is part 5 of 7 in the series American Majority Training

constitutionChris Faulkner spoke to the entire group after lunch on the ability to harness and utilize the “new media”of social networking and other online portals to create a more effective campaign (either political or activist).  He gave a disclaimer that this is the most difficult session for him to teach, as he has 20% who won’t get it, 20% who is already using it effectively, and 60% who may get useful information out of the presentation.

Facebook, Twitter, Linked In, etc.  are all tools that allow for greater online engagement (dynamic interactive communication), versus the early days of the Internet where someone might have an online presence (static website).  A major focus of Faulkner’s presentation was on the potential power of Twitter as a means of creating community and building your persona.  I was impressed by the fact that there are approximately 15 million Twitter users (as opposed to 300 million Facebook users) and President Obama has 12% of that community following his ‘tweets’ (1.8 million follwers).  There is potential power in this application, as Faulkner put it, 140 charcters to take over the world.

Faulkner discussed how you need to “control your brand” by using social media effectively, and getting your message and your information up to the top of the list on search engines such as Google.  It’s all about getting your name out long enough, loud enough, and in as many venues as possible to give it “juice” to help you control your “brand”.  Another good way, especially for candidates, is the creation of “fan pages” for your campaign or business on Facebook.

An amazing, but not really surprising statistic is that of various contact media being utilized today, Facebook is used as the primary contact point by more people than who use email (24% vs. 11.1%).  Twitter is a close and growing third at 10.8%.  It is pretty apparent that instead of a time wasting distraction, social media is becoming somewhat of an indispensible communication tool.  Sorry, US Postal Service!

The conversation turned to blogging, and how to go about setting up an effective blog site, how to drive traffic and attention, and how to make your blogging become an activist activity.  Faulkner presses the point home that new media will be increasingly more critical to message successs, and in generating action for your agenda.

Social media is now creating a new way of accountability.  As Thomas Paine put it, “An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soliders cannot.”

Uncategorized, General, Education, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote

American Majority–On the Candidate trail, part 3

This entry is part 4 of 7 in the series American Majority Training

constitutionThis session is on political communication, more specifically on paid and earned media options for a campaign.  Faulkner discussed the elements of a communication strategy from establishing or increasing name id, developing image and issue, creating contrast, to defending yourself against attacks.

Most people think of political communication of being mainly centered around television advertising, but Faulkner brought a great perspective on the fact that our new technological milieu, while still maintaining the importance of running TV, has exposed some of the things that TV can’t do for a campaign, including targeting voters effectively, reaching as many voters as it did 10 years ago (too many channel choices now), and giving detailed information/messaging for your campaign.

Much of the discussion on paid media explored the ability to use direct mail effectively and to use radio as a “rapid response” vehicle for staying abreast of issues and getting out early on attack response/damage control.  However, because of the constraints of the day’s schedule, Faulkner had to skip over a number of points of discussion, which participants in the training can access via a membership gateway at American Majority’s website.

A discussion of earned media and its effectiveness (both in terms of costs and in terms of name/issue identification for voters) was the second half of the session, but much of it was passed over due to time constraints.  It might be a better plan for future trainings for the earned media portion of the training to be a separate session.

And yes, even though many don’t want to hear it, Faulkner reiterated that negative ads (attack ads) do work and work effectively.  He did warn that candidates should try to create contrast, but to stay away from the clearly personal attacks on the opponent:  attack issues and track records, not personalities and families.  Faulkner did utilize some time for a fairly lively and informative question and answer session at the end of the session.