(cross-posted at SLCLiberty [digg link])

It took a recommendation by the Property Tax commission to do it.   David Paterson has issued an executive order to the State Legislature requiring that all new legislation with attached costs must also come with a plan to pay for it.  Traditionally, Albany has simply issued mandates without such a requirement, leaving local municipalities to foot the bill.  Meaning, in general, insanely high property taxes.  Because, evidently, we still have too much money in our pocketbooks after all the other insanely high taxes here in New York.

But, says Paterson, that is no longer the way of Albany.

“We will now have a pay -as-you-go philosophy in Albany,” said Paterson. “You pass a bill and it costs us money, you also have to show how we’ll pay for it. If not, we cannot do it at this time.”

I would echo the NY Republican leadership here, that Paterson’s new order flies in the face of his own actions:

But Republicans say the governor’s mandate relief announcement is counter to what his budget actually does. They say by passing measures like the Rockefeller Drug Law reforms, which pushes more costs down to counties, and by eliminating programs such as the STAR rebate checks, New Yorkers are hurting now more than ever

But, even if that were not the case, I am not convinced the new Executive Order actually solves any problems.

My wife and I have a policy where we never buy something we don’t have the cash for.  If we can’t afford it today, we don’t get it.  We own debit cards, and not a single credit card between us.  This ensures our policy sticks, in the face of temptation.  We are forced to recognize that buying one thing means not having money available for something else.  In general, not only is this sound financial policy for families, but also for business and, yes, governments.

The problem is, for too long, states like New York have tended to act as though the taxpayer is a limitless source of income.  Need to pay for something?  Put it on the taxpayer.  Paterson addresses a part of this tendency: Albany’s traditional policy of pushing the cost of new mandates onto homeowners.  In and of itself, this seems like a good start.  In reality, it treats a symptom of the greater disease, and with potential side effects that are just as bad as the symptom.  It’s like treating a tension headache with a medicine that causes ulcers.  It neither addresses the tension at the root of the headache nor provides the patient with real relief.  It just shifts the burden.

Putting taxpayers on the hook at a hundred bucks a year for some mandate takes that money from the taxpayer.  Whether it comes through property tax, income tax, or some new usage fee is beside the point.  Unlike the government, the average taxpayer does not have an income source that can give out more when he lives beyond his means.  And, in the case of usage fees, which seem to be Paterson’s modus operandi, what that means is that where such fees are attached, services are used less.  Which means, ultimately, the money will come from somewhere else anyway.

Certain people, who either haven’t bothered to educate themselves about the truth, or are being deliberately obtuse, have painted the Tea Parties of this month as mere “anti-tax” rallies by people who want government services, but don’t want to pay for them.  It may make for a good soundbite, but this clear nonsense obfuscates reality.  What we want is responsible government.  We want government who realizes that we don’t work in order to fund state programs, but to provide for our families and to live our lives.  We want Albany — and Washington — to understand that government is meant to be peripheral, not central, to our daily lives.  And, that said, we want them to start using our money — that’s our money, not theirs — more wisely.

We don’t want empty words from Paterson, finally making the suggestion that Albany behave as though they understand they actually have to pay for the things they put into law.  We want action that shows that Albany understands the citizens of New York simply can’t send all their money to the State Capitol to fund every pet project that comes along.

Personally, I’d like to see an extended moratorium on all new spending.  But I’m not holding my breath.

I’d settle for a State — and national — government that looked for real areas to cut spending.  A lot of spending.  Not these drop-in-the-bucket cuts like those suggested by Obama for Washington and Paterson for Albany, but real examinations of current spending, followed up with real reductions in beaurocracy and spending. 

What we, the taxpayers, would settle for, is a government that stopped talking up fiscal responsibility, and started acting like it was a priority.

People paying attention to copyright law may remember some noise in The Hill in mid-late 2007 about imposing performance fees on terrestrial radio stations.  At the time, it didn’t really go anywhere, so the idea managed to stay out of the public eye.  But it wasn’t gone.

In February of this year, with next to no fanfair or coverage, this so-called “Performance Rights Act” was reincarnated as H.R. 848 and S. 379 and began making the rounds in both houses of Congress.  I posted on this item, from the perspective of a local broadcaster, at my local blog, SLC Republitarian:

Though the proponants of the bill claim money taken through these fees will go to artists, the reality is that very few newer artists actually own the copyrights to their songs. The biggest group of artists to benefit from these bills will, in fact, be those with enough clout to own their own copyrights — most of whom are already filthy rich. The main copyright holders in this industry are, in fact, record labels. And, of those new artists who do own their own copyrights, such a fee would actually be a detriment — if broadcasters have to pay for the “privelidge” of promoting these bands and songs on air, we’re certainly not very likely to waste that time on untried artists.

So what these bills will actually do is keep money in the hands of the rich, by taking it out of the pockets of radio broadcasters, including small, local and independent stations. In other words, we would be looking at a situation where large corporations prosper at the expense of small business — by federal law. And let’s face it, local radio is already in some trouble. Year after year it becomes harder for independent stations to compete with large corporate entities like Citadel or Radio 1. Under a free market system, these smaller stations find ways to keep operating. They make cuts where necessary, they gain favor of local businesses… and those that don’t exactly thrive are at least surviving. These bills would be inconvenient for corporate radio. They could very well spell the end for many smaller stations.

But, the arguement goes, don’t these artists and copyright holders deserve to be paid? After all, the songwriters are being paid by the stations, so why not the other copyright owners? Well, because, put simply, artists and record companies are being paid because of what the stations do. They are paid in sales. Songwriters, many of whom do not enjoy the noteriety of recording artists, don’t get concert receipts, or promotion deals. They get paid primarily through the airplay and performance of their songs. Recording artists, on the other hand, get paid for showing up and smiling at the camera. These “other” copyright holders get paid through merchandise and other things. All of which is made possible by the songwriters, but are peripheral to specific songs. And, of course, you have the fact that many artists write their own songs, which means they are already paid for them through the current system.

But back to the value of radio to the industry, for a minute. As I said above, in a sense, these other copyright holders are indeed paid by radio stations, through free publicity. It’s true, a radio station benefits financially through playing these songs. I would argue, artists and record companies benefit even more. In fact, as a broadcaster, allow me this moment to address the artists and companies pushing for this legislation:

We give you free publicity. We do interviews with you, and specials about your upcoming releases. If it wasn’t for radio, nobody would care who you are — and they certainly wouldn’t pay obscene amounts of their hard-earned cash for your concert tickets and CDs. You would be a random name on a random CD cover (if you were lucky) that might sell a few thousand copies. You are rich because we play your music. Playing your music gets the public interested in your CDs, and in your concert tickets. That gigantic house? The limos and car collections? The throngs of screaming fans? Yeah. We did that. You’re welcome.

…

But, here, the point I want to make is this: why is the government involved at all?  Here we have a symbiotic relationship between private entities.  It is not for the govenrmnet to decide who should get paid for what, how much they should get paid, and who should do the paying.  That isn’t the free market, and it’s not how the industry runs.

The problem, as I see it, is that a few people in the recording industry got together and decided that if they simply tried to impose these fees on radio stations, those stations would simply work with the companies that didn’t charge them.  The only way to maintain equal airplay, and still get what they wanted, then, was to socialize the system.

Let’s be clear.  This isn’t about rights.  It isn’t about bettering the system.  It’s about money.

People may find it ironic that the Democrats — that “party of the working man,” which cries constantly about the “rich getting richer while the poor get poorer” — are in fact legislating the “rich getting richer” and in many cases forcing the “poor to get poorer.”  I, actually, do not find this ironic, because I’ve never been suckered by the pretty words uttered by liberals.

All in all, this is just another attempt by liberals to expand federal powers (and, some have suggested, to reward certain members of the music industry for their votes).  It shouldn’t be surprising, but it should be stopped.

Noperformancetax.org has more on this subject, as well as the Congressional and Senatorial resolutions against such legislation.  Call your congresscritters, and be sure to thank those who have already signed on to these resolutions.  Don’t allow them to destroy small business in favor of Big Production.

Two students have filed suit against Peralta College after being suspended for praying.

Now, I’m not one who likes to go off half-cocked.  Normally, I like to go beyond the headlines, and often find that there’s just more to it than that.  Like, maybe they were praying loudly in the middle of class, being disruptive, and ignoring the professor’s instructions to sit down.  Then, I’ll be honest, I’d probably back a suspension.

But that isn’t what happened.

According to court documents, Kyriacou was praying with an instructor in December 2007 — after the instructor said she was feeling ill — when another instructor entered the office and told the student that praying was not allowed. Soon afterward, Kyriacou was talking with Omaga in a hallway, where the same instructor confronted them and said, “You can’t be doing that in there. That’s our office.”

A few days later, they were served with suspension papers citing, get this, “”Disruptive or insulting behavior, willful disobedience, habitual profanity or vulgarity; or the open and persistent defiance of the authority of, refusal to comply with directions of, or persistent abuse of, college employees in the performance of their duty on or near the school premises or public sidewalks adjacent to school premises.”

Evidently, after consultation with the students’ attorneys, the school did take back the suspensions.  “Instead,” says the report, ”administrators formally warned the women that they cannot engage in disruptive behavior.”

Singling out students based solely on their religious beliefs?  Warning them that practice of those beliefs is considered “disruptive behavior?”  On a state-funded campus?

There is no excuse for this, and none should be accepted.

Any day you can drive through Northern New York with the windows down is a good day.  And, considering I was about to stand on a line holding a sign for two and a half hours, this bode very well indeed.  The light breeze and clear, blue sky was all the encouragement I needed that this was a darn fine day for dissent.

As I pulled into Canton and started looking for a parking spot, I stopped at a red light that put me just across the road from the protesters facing Main Street.  My window down, one attendee yelled, “Hey, honk if you support us.”  I smiled and honked, and avoided the temptation to grab my own gigantic signs to wave back at them as the a protester yelled, “we’re here for you, too!”

Amen to that.

Once on the line, I handed one of my two signs off to another protester, and was immediately struck by the overall friendliness of the crowd.   Here we were, serious as a heart attack and mad as hell over taxation, runaway spending, and the wholesale bankrupting of generations of our offspring — but it was more like talking politics with old friends over coffee.

Read More →

Against all odds, in spite of trillions of dollars being funneled to auto manufacturers, insurers and financial institutions, billions of dollars spent on state and federal makework projects and millions in proposed new taxes, people just aren’t buying stuff.  According to Fox News, sales dropped 1.1 per cent — further than the .03 per cent originally projected.

Listen, people.  Your children aren’t going to bankrupt themselves.  And, frankly, there is only so much the government can do — even the government under Barack Obama.  Sure, the man can perform miracles, but you have got to do your part, too.

Now, in his benevolence, Obama is still trying to help, through increased business taxes, which will of course be passed on to you.  But you’re an important part of this equation.  Pay your taxes — it is, after all the patriotic thing to do.  And, for God’s sake, stop squirrelling away your money.  The President has shown the way to nickel and dime your kids out of prosperity, and it is time we learn from his example.  So drop those remaining dollars on iPods, DVD collections — whatever.

The Obama administration has worked hard to get money into the hands of people who need it least; it is up to you, now, to do your part.

Yesterday, Captain Richard Phillips was rescued by Navy SEALs from the hands of the four pirates who held him for five days.  And now, he’s getting a hero’s welcome at home.

But what makes him a hero?

Our society, longing perhaps, for heroes lately, tends to throw the word around pretty loosely.  Society, in our seemingly endless quest to venerate the mediocre, bestows the title, “Hero” on everyone from fathers who merely act as fathers should, to people who happen to have contracted a deadly disease.  This is not to denegrate any of these acts, or the individuals who accomplish them (or to whom they happen).  Indeed, there is a shortage of good fathers, or teachers.  But heroism is not merely doing what is (or should be) expected of you — it is going above and beyond.

Our culture, in its celebration of victimhood, often elevates the victim to the status of “hero” — based solely on the fact that something bad has happened to him.  This is not heroism.  It is unfortunate.  But it is not, by itself, some noble thing.

If you want a definition of “hero,” look to the men and women of our Armed Forces, who willingly put themselves in harm’s way for the defense of their countrymen.  Look to the men and women who become police officers, risking much, up to and including their lives, to uphold the laws of our society.  Look to the men and women who run headlong into a burning building, risking all for the lives and safety of their fellow citizens. 

No, heroism is not merely doing the right thing.  Heroism is knowing that the right — the necessary — thing could well come at a great cost to you… and then doing it anyway.

The word “hero” is being bandied about now, regarding the rescue of Cpt. Phillips.  Fanatic supporters of the President even use the word to describe Obama — simply for doing what he should have done long before finally deciding to do it.

The men and women of the Navy, and the SEALs who effected this rescue are heroes.  They always were.  And, yes, Phillips is a hero.

That he was held hostage by pirates and rescued — that he was victimized — is not what makes him a hero.  Plenty of others have been in that situation who are simply not deserving of the title.  What makes Captain Richard Phillips a hero is that he willingly gave himself to the situation, to save his shipmates.  He understood this act of pure selflessness may well be his last, and he did it anyway. 

And it is his willingness to trade himself for the lives of others that makes Captain Phillips a by-God True American Hero.

A quick rant to start this off: Know your enemy.  My inbox sickens me every day with psychotic rantings from moveon.org and the angry, babykilling chants of NARAL.  Not to mention various other liberal organizations.  I do this for one reason only: to know what they’re up to and look for opportunities for countermeasures.  Every now and then, I think to myself, why do I not just unsubscribe from this garbage?  But then, as happened yesterday, I get an email that reminds me why I subject myself to it.

Yesterday, I received an email from Daniel Mintz, of Move On’s political action arm.  It came with a link to a petition to treasury secretary Tim Geithner.  The message:

“We can’t trust the same people who got us into this financial mess to help lead us out. Replace the leadership at the bailed-out banks, starting with Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis.“

That’s the gist.  If you want to read it, here’s the whole message (out of fairness, I’ve also included their ’sources’):

Dear MoveOn member,

Last week the Obama administration took tough, decisive action with the auto industry, forcing the resignation of the CEO of General Motors.

The president knows that we can’t trust the same folks who got us into this mess to help lead us out.

It’s time to do the same for the banks. And the best way to start is by firing Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis. He’s the worst of the worst. 

Lewis’s poor management helped ruin his company and our economy. Shareholders are calling him “reckless” and citing “disastrous missteps.”¹ Worse, Lewis accepted $45 billion in taxpayer bailout funds, but instead of using all the money to get the economy going again, he let $3.6 billion go to bonuses for top execs.²

There can’t be real reform on Wall Street until the CEOs who brought down the banks we had to bail out are long gone. 

Can you sign our petition asking Treasury Secretary Geithner replace the leadership at bailed out banks—starting with Ken Lewis? Clicking here adds your name:  

http://pol.moveon.org/lewis//o.pl?id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=4

The petition says: “We can’t trust the same people who got us into this financial mess to help lead us out. Replace the leadership at the bailed-out banks, starting with Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis.“

Lewis is the CEO of the biggest bank in the United States.³ If Secretary Geithner forces him to resign, it’ll send a strong message to the rest of Wall St.: The era of zero accountability is over and reckless behavior that puts our economy at risk won’t be tolerated.

Of all the folks who helped bring about the recession, Lewis is one of the worst:

• Shareholders say he helped drive the company into the ground. Bank of America has lost billions—and 90% of its value—in part because Lewis “hastily arranged the ill-considered acquisition” of Merrill Lynch.⁴
• Even after the crisis, he hasn’t changed his ways. He ensured that high-level staff received bonuses—despite recent announcements that the bank was laying off another 35,000 employees.⁵
• On top of all this, he’s fighting against more rights for workers. Three days after receiving $25 billion in bailout money, Bank of America brought together powerful banking interests to figure out how to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that makes it easier for workers to form unions.⁶

Ken Lewis has got to go. And we need to look closely at the other bailed-out banks that may need new leadership too.

Our friends at Service Employees International Union (the country’s fastest-growing union) have been leading this campaign for a few weeks—and they’re building momentum quickly. If hundreds of thousands of us act, together, we’ll be impossible to ignore. Please sign today!

http://pol.moveon.org/lewis//o.pl?id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=5

Thanks for all you do.

–Daniel, Patrick S., Eli, Lenore and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. “Investment group calls on BofA to fire Ken Lewis,” WCNC, March 5, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51294&id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=6

“Union to B of A: Fire Ken Lewis or Risk a Shareholder Revolt,” Talking Points Memo, March 5, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51295&id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=7

2. “Thain tells investigators BofA’s Ken Lewis knew of bonuses,” CNN Money, February 20, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51285&id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=8

3. “Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis scores another deal,” Fortune, September 15, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51289&id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=9

4. “Investment group calls on BofA to fire Ken Lewis,” WCNC, March 5, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51294&id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=10

5. “Ken Lewis, What’s Really in Your Company’s Best Interest?” SEIU Blog, February 12, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51290&id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=11

6. “Bailout Recipients Hosted Call to Defeat Key Labor Bill,” Huffington Post, January 27, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51292&id=15895-10098841-dQqO7mx&t=12 

 

What we’re looking at here is simple distraction.  It is an extension of the liberals’ general goal of making you forget whose fault this is.  It’s a simple strategy: misdirect and incite to action.  Liberals who are busy frothing at the mouth and signing petitions don’t have time to examine reality.  And that’s precisely what Daniel Mintz — and Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, for that matter — want.

People are starting to notice what RedState bloggers and Conservative talkers have been saying all along: that this is the Democrats’ mess.  And the Dems are noticing that we’re noticing.  And they don’t like it.  To wit:

Daniel Mintz and Barney Frank don’t want you to remember that this all started with Jimmy Carter and company mandating that banks give loans to people of dubious reliability (PS, the entire above link is well worth the read, and counts as my citation on other points as well).  Or that said legislation was tightened further in the age of “Political Correctness.”  Or that Barney Frank denied Fannie and Freddie were in trouble — all the while having slept with a former Fannie Mae exec, and recieving over $40,000 in campaign donations from the group.  Or that Frank and Dodd, both recipients of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie, as well as AIG and others, ignored warnings that the housing bubble had to burst.  They don’t want you to remember that they voted for a bailout package nobody had time to read, or that they voted for the “bailout bonuses” everybody’s up in arms about.

No, Democrats don’t want to take any blame for this mess we’re in.  And so, they point the finger at bank CEOs — for doing what banks do!  They seek to unconstitutionally expand the powers of, not only the President, but the President’s underlings, to dictatorial proportions.  And moveon.org is trying to convince people, not only to accept these unprecedented governmental powers, but to ask for them.  Tricky as hell, Dan Mintz.  Sly as an effing fox.

It’s up to us, then — we who know the truth — to counter these lies.  We haven’t forgotten where this crisis came from, and we can’t let them forget, either.

(from a post at St. Lawrence Co. Republitarian)

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was in Cortland, New York Tuesday, speaking with local business leaders about how to best stimulate local economy.  Basically, the idea was to seek grant proposals for money that is already earmarked for the State.  The gist: we have x amount of dollars, now let’s decide how to spend it.

Now, let’s forget, for the moment, that Obama’s so-called “stimulus” package, um, isn’t.  Let’s forget that you don’t put the nation in debt in order to stimulate economic wellbeing.  Let us pretend, as Obama and the Legislative democrats are doing, that tossing money at states (to the detriment of our childrens’ economic future) is indeed the right move to make.  Even so, shouldn’t discussions about where, and how much money should be spent, have already happened?  Shouldn’t the government, since they’re evidently going to try playing the investment game, have some ideas already in mind before they start shelling out money?

But let’s continue.  Let’s look at reality and actually take this road to its end:  shouldn’t the government, perhaps, have asked whether those investments should even be made?  Or, since many Americans gave answers to that question without being asked by government anyway, shouldn’t the government, perhaps, have even pretended to listen?

But they didn’t. 

Democrats and bad Republicans knew what they wanted to do, and, without regard to consequence or even a moderate view of economic reality, they went ahead and did it.  And now, in standard Democrat Party fashon, they want to have their cake, and eat it too.  They want to be able to pass these tax and spending increases, all the while claiming to not like them.  All the while claiming to be listening to the cries of their constituency.  This, like the AIG bonus tax, is nothing other than Democrats trying to cover their collective ass — and should be taken as nothing else.

Gillibrand’s acknowledgement of “concerns about government spending in the face of mounting budget deficits” sound suspiciously like talking points coming out of most politicians who voted for this thing — and ring just as hollow.

But, says Gillibrand, now that the money’s been spent, it’s time to decide how to use it.

“With a national unemployment rate of five percent and a local unemployment rate at eleven percent, we’ve got a lot of work to do. And so by coming here, I can listen to all our community leaders, our business leaders, our leaders in education and health care and hear directly from them what the problems are and also what their ideas are for the best solutions,” said Gillibrand.

It just seems like a conversation that should have happened a couple months ago — before Obama and Company sold our future to foreign powers.

During Obama’s remarks to France yesterday, the President claimed that, when it comes to Europe, America has been both “arrogant” and “dismissive.”

“[The United States has] failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world”, President Barack Obama said yesterday. … Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

So, in other words, because of our belief in American exceptionalism, we are, indeed, the problem certain UN members say we are.  Now, to gain balance, Obama, did say that European nations have been very anti-American — for which he lays the blame squarely at our feet once again.  But what really stands out here is to be found between the lines.

Obama, during the course of his speech, also promised that “America is changing ….”  The message, loud and clear, is that rather than deriding our European neighbors and their absurdly socialist one-worlder “European Union”, the united states should recognize the “leadership” of that community.

Never mind that the entire world is undergoing economic meltdown — including the EU.  Never mind that it is the United States — not the EU, and not the UN — that must impliment retribution when the United Nations fail to back up their own policies and sanctions.

No, what Obama makes plain here, and in his words to the G20, is that our country is, under his leadership, headed toward one-world government.  And he, Obama, promises to be the bridge that takes us there.

(cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

The President may be a lot of things, few of them flattering, but one thing he is not is politically stupid.  Becoming known for calling out Republican rivals, Obama is now, carefully, working to spread the word that His Excellency will brook no deviation from within the ranks.  And, though he has the political acumen to hide his threats in laughter, even those on his own side aren’t missing the underlying message.

In a meeting of House Dems on Monday, Obama recalled Oregon Rep Peter DeFazio’s dissension regarding the disastrous “stimulus” bill:

“I know you think we need more for that because you voted against” the stimulus bill in February, Obama told DeFazio during a question-and-answer session with about 150 House Democrats at the Capitol.

“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama added, as other lawmakers howled with laughter. …

This is, indeed, new politics here in the US.  Obama promised change, and now we begin to see the scope of it.  Not only is Barack Obama not even trying to keep his campaign promises of openness and bipartisanship, but we see now that he will accept no alternatives or dissent from his liberal agenda — from anybody.

Message received, Mr. President.  Your laughter isn’t fooling anyone.