Category Archives: Economics

Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Economics, Biblical Worldview

Climate Change is a Theological Issue

Reprinted from Liberty Nation with permission

The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.

Psalm 24:1

The definition of “sacred” is that which we will not question, even though it cannot be proven.  Christians hold sacred the beliefs in the divine inspiration of Scripture and the deity of Christ, even though these cannot be proven.  This is the essence of faith – the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).  On the other hand, Newtonian physics is not venerated since it has been proven using the scientific method.  No faith is required to believe in gravity.  However, what happens when a scientific theory is treated as sacred doctrine, even when the empirical evidence is totally contradictory?  Enter the chaotic world of CLIMATE CHANGE.

As with any religion, there are two groups of people in the global warming movement (or climate change, or whatever we’re calling it this week): the shepherds and the sheep.  The sheep do not have critical thinking skills, lack a proper worldview, and they are looking for meaning in their lives.  This a dangerous combination, and it makes them easy prey for the trappings of a false religion – and the shepherds know this all too well. While some of the shepherds may actually believe the hype around climate change, many are knowingly propagating misleading data to manipulate people into a pre-determined agenda.  This has been demonstrated by the recent “Climate Gate” scandal.

The problem is that the word “science” is used as a sledgehammer to bludgeon anyone who questions climate change.  However, climate change is not based on science.  Instead, it is based on scientism – which is accepting a scientific theory as absolute truth in the absence of true scientific evidence.  Climate change is a false religion, and it has every mark of such:

Deity

Preachers

Choir

Evangelists

Religious Symbols

Holy Books

Holy Days

Martyrs

Demons

Seminaries

Tithes and Offerings

Redemption for Sin

Dire Warnings of Armageddon

And Finally, A Saviour For The Earth.

Public Policy Radar, Private Property, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Crime and Punishment

Private Property Rights- A Canary In A Coalmine

No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… (emphasis added) Amendment 5 US Constitution

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety… (emphasis added) Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

A story in the Detroit News, when read carefully, is an excellent indicator of the state of liberty at least in the state of Michigan. And as go the states so goes the Federal government. In the article we learn that local police departments are using virtually any excuse imaginable to impound privately owned automobiles. Pick a colleague up from a street who has dared to make “eye contact” with passers-by and you could lose your car- literally. No exaggeration necessary. According to the article…

State law allows police to take property, usually vehicles, for any reason, even in the absence of criminal activity

While it is difficult to imagine that any state law is this broad the article does further state…

…that vehicles sometimes are seized even when police admit no crime took place…

A quick search of Michigan’s Constitution reveals a bill of rights which states rather clearly that…

The person, houses, papers and possessions of every person shall be secure from
unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or
things shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation

In light of the crystal clear language of the highest law of the land in Michigan, its constitution, it s almost impossible to imagine that any law enforcement official could be so jaded or corrupt as to describe any of the situations chronicled in the articles as “probable cause.”  And yet here we stand asking the question “what constitutes a “reasonable” seizure?”

It is difficult not to draw the conclusion that the real focus of Wayne County (Detroit) law enforcement’s  efforts have been directed not in protecting the rights and property of the citizens despite their oaths but in making sure they don’t illegally seize the property of people with the mindset and resources to bring suit on constitutional grounds against the law enforcement officers and agencies in question. Why should law enforcement go to the trouble, if this proposed line of thinking is true? Follow the money.

Once vehicles are “seized” (or if the Michigan Constitution is to be believed- stolen) victims are  required to pay $900 on top of towing and storage fees to get their often illegally seized property returned. This would be a tremendous boost to any county’s or municipality’s “ailing” budget.  Seize 100 cars on dubious grounds (say winking at an undercover cop working as a faux prostitute or perhaps demonstrating that you think law enforcement is “number one” with an inappropriate finger in the air) and VOILA! Ninety thousand dollars suddenly appears in the ailing government entities coffers.The current economic situation in many places is grim, no thanks to the frugality of  public servants, and the current attitude of government representatives and public safety servants has, in many cases, morphed from an attitude of servanthood to an attitude of the divine right of rulers in a remarkably short time. This is no idle speculation. The article contains a quote from Walter Epps, a candidate for Wayne County Sheriff. He said…

“Under the current ordinance, there doesn’t have to be a crime proven in order to seize someone’s vehicle,” said Walter Epps, a former Wayne County sheriff’s lieutenant who ran the department’s Morality Squad for more than four years. “But I feel if we’re going to take someone’s car, the least we should do is to charge them with the crime or issue them a ticket.”

The problem with this man’s statement is subtle. Did you catch it? It’s the sequence. Seize the car then to justify it charge the driver with a crime or issue a ticket. This, of course, is a clear indicator of the phenomena noted above. It is a tacit admission that law enforcement is ready , willing and able to make vehicle seizure appear to be justified by creating a charge or issuing a ticket as justification. But ask yourself a couple of questions. What ticketable offense justifies the seizure of personal property with the value of an automobile? How will this candidate’s solution fix the problem of illegal property seizure? Answer- It won’t. Putting a pig in a tuxedo doesn’t do anything except annoy the pig and ruin the tuxedo. But “public servants” will point to the “vast improvement” in the situation when it’s time for the re-election campaign and the media will dutifully report that the problem has been completely fixed, when in fact the situation is now worse. Not only will the poor former auto owner be stripped of his car but he will now be before a court on what may very well be a trumped up charge.

Within this framework it is easy to postulate that the practice of seizing personal property with little or no legal grounds has been a policy both developed and implemented by elected representatives with the understanding that the personal property of constitutional attorneys, state representatives or other prominent citizens who might have the clout to knock the gravy train off the rails would not be seized unless the case was blatant absolutely air tight. This is a clear indicator that the trend in government is to pretend that private property is actually a feudal holding. The true owner of all property, both real and personal, is the feudal baron (the state, county, city) while the citizen is a fief bound to the land and liable to will and whim of the baron. This is easily seen by examining the current reliance of counties and municipalities on the property tax. Under the current model of property ownership in most areas of the country ownership merely buys the right to pay rent to the local baron. If you think this is exaggerated then you can prove it to yourself by not paying your property taxes for a couple of years. An entity which can confiscate property for non-payment of any fee is the true owner of the property.

The only entity more powerful than the barons in a feudal society was the king, to whom all barons owed their loyalty as the one who granted all land holdings. The king was the original owner of all property, real or personal. In our analogy, the king is the Federal government and while it doesn’t have a role in this particular case (where is the Michigan ACLU screaming at the top of its lungs about the clear violation of the 4th and 5th amendments to the US Constitution in these seizure cases? The world wonders) it is not without “bloody hands” in the situation. The Federal government routinely steals personal property by “arresting” it and holding it often without charge or trial of the property’s owner, sometimes for decades. Occasionally, it secretly files for “forfeiture” and auctions or destroys the property without recourse to any legitimate criminal or civil action.

Until public servants are disabused of their recently acquired notions of being our rulers rather that our representatives and servants we will continue to suffer outrages like those chronicled here. There is only one way open to the Christian constitutionalist to disabuse them of this notion . Can you think what that might be?

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

Obama Administration Learns From Popular Seafood Company

1 Comment

Free Crab TomorrowIf you’ve ever been in or near a Joe’s Crab Shack restaurant then you know about the “Free Crab Tomorrow” ploy. Of course, it’s a humorous “promotional” for the company that “consumer protection advocates” have not yet become familiar with (we’re waiting for the first class-action lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission demanding free crab be served per the advertising. OOPS! Don’t want to give bureaucrats any ideas regarding the raising of revenue.). For the uninitiated in the audience, the sign never changes. Every day the sign continues to read “Free Crab Tomorrow.” Tomorrow, of course, never comes. That’s the joke.

The Obama administration, always up for a good prank on the American electorate, has borrowed a page from Joe’s Crab Shack’s self-promotion handbook. Only they aren’t joking. In an article in Yahoo News from Reuters we are informed that “White House economists see jobs growth by spring.” In another article from the New York Times on January 11, 2009 in which it is claimed that “hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created during 2009.” The claim is also made that “…unemployment is still expected to rise but then fall late this year (2009)…” (emphasis added).

Other job creation claims made by the President from the Times article-

In the campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to create one million jobs, and after winning election he put forth a plan to create up to three million. The report now puts the figure at roughly 3.7 million, the midpoint of an estimated range of 3.3 million to 4.1 million jobs by the end of next year.

Millions of Jobs Tomorrow.

Oh, yes, the same article has an interesting reference to an Obama “middle-class tax-cut” that has long since fallen into the media memory hole-

Obama transition officials have said that the president-elect’s proposed middle-class tax cut — called “Making Work Pay,” which would provide $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples by reducing payroll tax withholdings — is “nonnegotiable.”

Free Tax-cut Tomorrow.

What’s next? What new predictions will be made regarding the economy? When will small business get relief from the crushing costs of regulation and the cost of mandatory health care insurance? When will the federal government move to become the major stockholder on other corporations beside GM and Chrysler?

More information tomorrow.

Private Property, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Education, Public Policy Radar

Random Thoughts on Socialism

TFT1One of the effects of the downturn in the economy is the decrease in divorces.  From 2007-2008 there were 300 fewer divorces in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland).  It’s also been hypothesized that this occurs because the financial challenges presented to families force them to converse more and possibly helps them to restore communication and trust.  Should we look to see the divorce rate rise as the economy rebounds?  If so, does this mean that we should pray for a greater economic recession and failure so that families might be saved?  Oh well, never mind.  I suspect that Congress will remove this option from us.  I’ve just heard that they are proposing a bill that would bail out the divorce lawyers who are suffering the loss of business, so that couples who want a divorce but who cannot economically afford one can get the needed divorce.  After all, we all know that there is a right to divorce.  Pardon my sarcasm.

I want to commend my Democratic congressman, John Boccieri.  He voted his conscience, not the party line in voting against the “Pelosi” Health Care Bill.  Afterwards, his public comment was that it was too expensive to support.  I agree, though there are many more problems than that, including the fact that philosophically it moves the United States closer and closer to a socialist and authoritarian governmental structure.  The question this expense rationale presents, however, for Congressman Boccieri is this:  How can the Health Care Bill be considered too costly or too expensive when you voted for the Cap and Trade Bill?  Why wasn’t the Cap and Trade Bill also considered too expensive for you?

I blame the educational system of America for the current crisis in the health care debate.  The American people cannot recognize socialism when they see it.  Prior to the 2008 election I wrote that Obama is a socialist, but with his support for the banking bailout McCain proved himself to lean in that direction as well.  More and more I hear people regurgitating the theme that capitalism is the cause of the economic problems.  If people knew history, they would know that this is an echo of Karl Marx.  Educated people know that socialism is absolutely devastating to a culture.

The other night I was lecturing to a class about postmodernism and the class was reading Os Guinness’ book Time for Truth.  The book has on its cover the unforgettable picture of the young man boldly confronting the row of military tanks in Tiananmen Square.  As I was pointing out the picture one of the young men in my college class said to me, “I was born on that day.”  And it immediately struck me how important it is to teach our young people an accurate understanding of history.  They don’t know what happened in Tiananmen Square, they don’t know Viet Nam, and many of us have forgotten how tens of millions were murdered, executed and destroyed by the Socialist regimes of Mao, the Soviets especially under Stalin, and the Nazis.  Socialism inevitably leads to conformity, intolerance, and totalitarianism.  History unquestioningly confirms this.

Speaking of freedom, this week we celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the dismantling of the Berlin Wall separating Germans, Berliners, and families from one another.  It’s still hard to fathom and I’ve walked through Checkpoint Charlie.  Ask the young people you know whether they know why the Wall was constructed and see what they say.   In most cases they do not.  They have not been taught that it was built not to keep people out, but to keep people in, to keep people from freedom, to keep them from escaping to freedom.  This is socialism.  This will be the consequence of the health care bill and is the same philosophy which says that those who do not have health insurance will be arrested and either jailed or fined as the already passed congressional health bill proposes

Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote, Economics

A Health Care Rally Report

constitutionOn Thursday, November 5, 2009 a rally was held in Washington DC for the purpose of lobbying the House of Representatives, specifically our own Congressmen, to defeat the complete hijacking of the American health care system.

You probably already know that. You may not know that there were only about 2-3 days notice of this rally. You may also not know that with only that very short notice somewhere between 15,000-30,000 people made the time, found the precious resources and the guts to make the trip. In the middle of a work week. I was one of these. I can testify to the predominantly middle-class status of the rallyers. Like the TEA parties and Town Hall meetings of this last summer, this was no SEIU/ACORN orchestrated rent-a-mob complete with cookie-cutter signs placed strategically around the crowd. Look at the pictures taken by this author to the right. You will see just a handful of the signs and people we were able to see in the crowd (you can see these better in full-screen mode available on the far right of the option bar near the bottom of the picture carousel).  Some of the signs were pretty good- both clever and articulate. Some were corny and/or mediocre. Some were awful, for instance the Lyndon LaRouche Democratic Socialists with their picture of President Obama with a Hitler-like toothbrush moustache and the caption “I’ve Changed.” The LaRoucheites, being agents provocateurs and therefore masters of mis-direction, know full well that it is not Obama that has changed. Obama is doing what he said he would do during the campaign. What has changed is that people have begun to realize  that he was serious when he said them. The LaRoucheite presence at TEA parties and the health care rally with their inflammatory propaganda and signage is designed to provide a “look at the idiots” moment for the main-stream media, who know full-well who the LaRoucheites are but are more than willing to feature them as “typical” of attendees. The LaRouchites also know they can occasionally hook a sucker who does not know what they are about already. Thankfully, it appears that this crowd stayed clear of their table and their propaganda.

[slideshow id=1]

This was a true grass-roots upswell of individuals determined to lobby Congress to vote against the federal government commandeering their right to buy private health care coverage or go without coverage if they so desire.  Many of them, just like me, small business owners or the spouse of one. Many of them, just like me, fully aware of what the requirements of the House version would do to their businesses. Every small business owner knows this fact; Employees cost a lot more than just their wages. Training, unemployment insurance, workman’s compensation, Social Security, Medicaid and the cost of benefits like health care coverage, made mandatory under the bill, all contribute to the cost of an employee. This bill creates an atmosphere that will stifles the growth or or completely kill off  small business. And small business is the largest employer in our economy. The tremendous costs of doing business in the atmosphere being created by the bill is a hurdle that many small businesses and even many medium and large-sized businesses will not be able to negotiate without increased productivity. Increased productivity is an economic analysts euphemism for squeezing more work out of a smaller work force. In order to stay competitive these businesses will simply not hire new employees and probably lay off some of those they already have. To say that the health care bill will create greater unemployment, in fact will kill jobs is no overstatement.

Others were there because they understand that the final objective of the public option is the elimination of a private market for health care insurance and a complete assumption of all authority over who does and who does not get treatment. If that sounds like it means  “death boards” to decide if grandma gets her surgery that’s because it means exactly that. Overweight? “Sorry, but that’s  a procedure with a risk of failure among the “less disciplined” members of society. Lose 50 pounds first.” Everyone should be asking why the major media believe that those who expose this obvious implication of the health care bill to be a targets for derisive criticism.  Could it be that they are, as elitists who have never actually had to deal with the bureaucracies they demand be created (the vast majority of them at least),  so enthusiastic for government expropriation of the entire system that they are willing to ignore the obvious results of that action?

This article was being written before the bill passed the House of Representatives by a squeaker vote of 220-215. Two votes to spare. Look at the pictures at the right side above.  Note there are some that just appear to be lines of people. These are the lines of constituents waiting to talk to their elected representatives. The lines are more than a block long for each of the three House office buildings. Some of those who actually got in to see their representatives reported being treated courteously. Others were treated rudely, staff looking for any excuse to usher lobbying constituents out of the office,  and a few claim to have been physically man-handled. Twelve were arrested in one case when a Congressman was physical with a female constituent and some of the males nearby objected.  They were arrested and charged with “unauthorized entry” and “disorderly conduct.” The Congressman’s chief-of-staff was making every effort to weasle out of the incident, saying that everyone had been polite and nice, knowing the public relations nightmare the Congressman had created. If everything had been “polite and nice” then why were 12 people arrested? Rep. Nancy Pelosi had anti health care bill constituents physically removed from her office. How could Congress ignore the clear will of the American people that health care reform of this kind was not what was wanted? It’s simpler than you might think. It’s also more corrupt than you might think.

What many of the rallyers didn’t now about was the maneuvering going on behind the scenes by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and her lieutenants. The vote was originally scheduled for Thursday or Friday.  Pelosi and company simply didn’t have the votes on these days. As late as Saturday, she still didn’t have the votes despite an Obama pep-talk to the Dempcratic caucus and there was talk of postponing until Monday or Tuesday. The difference was the pro-life and Blue-dog Democrats. Pelosi put her House Whip to work brokering deals to pass the health care bill.

Scuttlebutt has it (and of course the truth of this will not be known until after the 2010 elections pans out who loses their jobs over this bill) that more than a few Blue-dog Democrat Congressmen were promised headships of federal agencies if they are un-elected after their “YES” vote on this and the so-called “cap and trade” bills. Complicating the matter are the Christian activist leaders who devised what they thought was the no-lose strategy of calling on their membership to admonish their Congressmen to vote “NO” on the sole basis of the abortion funding provisions that leadership had tried to claim were not there but were forced to admit actually existed. The final deal was brokered with the pro-life Democrats to accept an amendment offered by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak to remove the abortion funding provisions. The die-hard infanticides were placated with the promise that the abortion funding will be in the final House-Senate conference committee version of the bill after Senate passage.

Thus, the mid-rated Christian strategists were thinking one move ahead while the grandmaster politicians were thinking 3 moves ahead. What does this mean? The removal of the abortion funding language was the excuse that pro-lifers and many Blue-dogs needed to cast their votes in favor of the bill. A bill that they desperately wanted an excuse to vote for and still be able to claim that they had complied with all that they had been asked to do by strategically out-maneuvered Christian activists. Had the Christian groups taken a principled stand against the bill on the far more comprehensive  grounds of the bills constitutionality rather than on a narrow pro-life stance, Pelosi might still be looking for the votes she needed.

Al hope should not be lost, however. While Rep. Michele Bachmann should be given great credit for organizing this rally with only a few days to get the job done, it should be noted that the Republican House leadership made a concerted effort to hijack the movement (surprise, surprise). House minority leader John Boehner and several Republican House leadership members attempted to gin up support for their own health care federal takeover bill (called by one wag the “me too!” bill). Not only did this effort yield, at best, lukewarm support the effort served to both bore the attendees who were there to lobby against federal health care and make the rally, at more than 2 hours, overly lengthy. It was clear that this crowd was heavy with TEA partiers who were not overly thrilled with the Republican party and especially its bungling leadership and their efforts to do the same thing as the Democrats, but in a different way.

That’s a great sign for constitutionalists and should be a warning to Republican party leadership. But no one ever went broke underestimating the ability of Republican leaders to purposefully mis-read obvious signs of discontent (bordering on open revolt) among the party’s conservative core. The revolt over New York’s District 23 election has already been mis-characterized by Republican party hacks like Rush Limbaugh as a triumph for the party (you know, the Republicans who ran Dede Scozzafava, a closet Democrat shill for the seat) while downplaying the 3rd party aspect of the near victory by Hoffman on the Conservative Party ticket.

The Republican party had better get the message (though they won’t)- The core of the party simply won’t accept any more blue-blooded, forked tongue, country club liberal Republicans anymore and the TEA partiers whom party leadership are currently wooing aren’t interested in supporting the status quo Republicans. They’ll happily bolt to a principled third-party if they don’t like the Republican choice ala Doug Hoffman. If bills like “cap and trade” and health care “reform” are passed into law, neither of these groups will sit still in the 2010 elections for anything short of candidate pledges to rescind these laws if elected. Any so-called “conservative” candidate who says “well, these things are the law now and we need to make the best of it from here on out” needs to find another job, preferably in the private sector where he can see the damage that his lack of real commitment to the movement has wrought. If the private sector will have him/her. Liberal Republicans need to be shown the door forthwith. These are the modern political realities emerging thanks to Barack Obama’s presidency.

The Vote, Economics, Biblical Worldview, General, Crime and Punishment, Gambling, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News

The Biggest Winners and Losers from Ohio’s Election

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

Voting MachineWith this now completed election it is time to reflect on who the biggest winners and biggest losers in Ohio were.  By this we do not want you to rant and rave but to put forth a reasoned perspective on who you believe gained the most and who lost the most on November 3.  Try to remain focused on Ohio issues and politicians, including your own local issues, and away from national politics in this discussion.  Don’t just regurgitate the talking heads who are proclaiming the Republicans won and Obama lost.  For example, let me proceed first with my opinions.

I believe the biggest winner in Ohio was Dan Gilbert and his associates.  Gilbert, who amassed a fortune through his quick loans operation and who owns the Cleveland Cavaliers professional basketball team, fronted the Ohio Casino initiative which narrowly won.  Gilbert and his associates will now have a legally constituted monopoly on casino gambling in Ohio.  The fact that the citizens of Ohio endorsed this idea of granting a few people control over this industry boggles my mind.  My reaction has nothing to do with the morality or immorality with gaming but with the control, opportunity, and money granted by Ohioans to a select few through a constitutional amendment.  This is outrageous and deplorable.  Quite obviously the biggest winner in Ohio was Dan Gilbert, the billionaire who will now along with his associates be able to reap additional billions each year from the willing naïve sacrificial citizens of Ohio.

But who lost the most?  There were many losers:  the public school systems, the governor of Ohio, those opposing state issues 2 or 3, but who lost the most?  Many lost opportunities; many lost money; and some even lost their seats of power.  But did anyone lose more than any of these?  Let me put forward my opinion and we want to hear yours.

I have always been a supporter of law enforcement.  I address police officers as “sir” and taught my children to do so as well.  When law enforcement supporters have called or written for donations or were selling tickets for fund-raisers, I willingly forked forth the bucks realizing I could never do enough or support them enough.  To me law enforcement officials have been the least appreciated and the most under-respected servants in society.  But no more!  From my vantage point the biggest loser in Ohio was the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police).  They lost their integrity and my respect.  Time after time I was bombarded on the TV by Tipton’s endorsement of the state amendment for legalized casinos.  How much money did the FOP pay for this plethora of commercials?  What are they receiving in return?  The law enforcement agencies are receiving a great deal of money from the profits of the gaming industry and this appears like a pay-off to me.

More disappointing to me than the passage of issue 3 and the amending of the Ohio Constitution to permit a legal monopoly on casinos is the support of this monopoly by a law enforcement agency that should understand the value of the Constitution, the seriousness of a Constitutional Amendment, and the essential philosophical danger of endorsing a monopoly.  The one virtue that those in law must possess is impartiality.  The support of this amendment by the FOP demonstrates partiality to me. Formal support of this amendment by the FOP seemingly places the gambling industry and the law enforcement agencies into the same bed together.  Does this disturb any of you?

As close as the vote was on Issue 3, it is quite possible that the endorsement by the FOP and the extent of the publicity generated by the FOP was just enough to get this amendment passed.  This will make it difficult for me to ever address an officer of the law as “sir” and to teach my grandchildren that they should respect these officers since I now know the truth…they can be bought off like anyone else.  The FOP won, but from my vantage point they lost their soul and their integrity and what loss could be greater?

IPP invites you to enter into this discussion on Ohio’s biggest winners and biggest losers.  If you are not registered, then please do so by registering and commenting in our Forum.

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

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.

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.

Economics, Taxation, Private Property, Commentary

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.

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

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.