I posted this on FB:
"...in many liberal minds, opposition to same-sex marriage must surely stem from fear."
B.R. Yes, many but not all. I appreciate that qualifier on the generalization. However, many other liberals have come to the assumption that it may not be about fear, but simply stubbornness rooted in selfishness. In other words, it seems like those who oppose same-sex marriage must believe that maintaining the validity of their own personal definition of marriage is more important than allowing strangers "one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival". (Chief Justice Earl Warren)
Me: So it's either fear or selfishness? Accusing someone of an emotional state is a cop-out designed to neuter and marginalize.
There is no right to marriage.
B.R.: Well, if it's not fear or selfishness, then those who oppose gay marriage are doing a terrible job of representing themselves. There's no upside to denying equal rights to American citizens. As for the right to marriage, you can disagree with the Supreme Court if you want to, but they've said quite clearly that "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival". In fact, there's precedence for marriage discrimination being unconstitutional - after Loving V. Virginia, the decision was that any regulated institution (such as marriage) may be set up initially with exclusion (such as denying interracial marriages in the past), but that it's unconstitutional to set up FUTURE exclusionary regulations for that institution. Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. If you don't like it, take it up with the Constitution.
Me: Or maybe the pro gay-marriage crowd is doing a terrible job of listening.
The Supreme court also ruled that blacks were property, that property could be taken without a warrant, that Bush beat Gore, Citizens United, Plessy v. Ferguson, Adkins v. Children’s Hospital. Ben, you must be kidding.
Please quote the constitution's affirmation of gay marriage.
B.R.: I'M listening. Tell me why gay people don't deserve the same marriage rights as straight people.
B.R.: And I'm not kidding - I can disagree with the Supreme Court, but to say that their rulings aren't valid is nonsense. They're the law.
Me: Because there is no such thing as marriage rights.
Me: I did not say that Supreme Court rulings aren't valid.
B.R.: You're being evasive again. I understand there's a difference between human rights and legal rights. But right now, many many gay people are being prevented from getting married. I don't think the people opposing gay marriage are doing so because of their firm belief that "there is no such thing as marriage rights". I understand if you think that government should get out of the marriage business, but until that happens, millions of gay people are still left with second-class citizenship. Are you alright with that?
Me: I'll stop being evasive if you stop spouting slogans. My original post pointed out the fallacy of the "fear" slogan, so you simply move on to another slogan, "second class citizenship." It's intellectually vapid stuff like this that is beneath you, Ben.
If gays are really second class citizens, then so are 12 year olds who can't get a drivers license, 32 year olds who can't hold the office of the President, and polyamorists who are forbidden to marry the two people that they love. One can list hundreds of classes of people, who by virtue of what a law says, cannot do something someone else can do. That's what laws intrinsically do, is create classes of people. You have to know this, Ben.
Speaking of evasive, you have not complied with my request: "Please quote the constitution's affirmation of gay marriage."
B.R.: Compliance: The constitution didn't affirm gay marriage. The Supreme Court confirmed the unconstitutionality of banning certain people from being married, when they decided Loving V. Virginia.
Fear is not a slogan; homophobia and bigotry are rampant in America. Second class citizenship is not a slogan; there's a section of Americans who don't get the same fundamental rights as the rest of the country.
Your examples show me that you would rather not see this issue for what it really is, and I can do nothing to change your mind about that. We say "let gay people get married", and you say, "not everybody gets what they want". It's willfully ignorant to shrug off millions of people crying out for equal rights by listing other laws that limit certain people in certain ways.
12 year olds just have to wait four years to get a driver's license, and there's no united mass of 12 year olds screaming out for change. 32 year olds just have to wait til they're old enough to run for President, and there's no united mass of 32 year olds screaming out for change. Polyamorists are very different than polygamists, and there's no united mass of either one screaming out for change. So how long do gay people have to wait?
You have done nothing to show me a single reason why gay people should not be allowed to get married. So what are you hiding behind? What damage will it do to allow committed couples who are deeply in love to get married like everybody else in this country? Which straight people will be negatively affected by queers tying the knot? Where's this resistance coming from? I beg you to be honest and tell me. If it's not fear and it's not selfishness, and you can't actually establish any good reason that these exclusionary limits on marriage should continue, then stay out of the way of social justice.
Me: Ben, please calm down.
Are you saying that people clamoring is the measure of constitutionality? What sort of standard is it that makes the level of agitation a reason to change laws?
Me: The burden of proof rests with gay marriage advocates, not me. You have to show there is a compelling reason to change the way society has functioned for centuries.
And by the way, you are selectively quoting Loving v. Virginia. The decision was to allow mixed race couples to marry, with Warren citiing the reason: the propagation of the human race. I don't buy his reason, but certainly gay marriage does not yield children.
You neglected to address my point in your nitpicking about "clamoring" and age. The fact of the matter is the law creates privilege for some and denies it to others, for whatever reason. There is no rights violations in any of these instances, because rights do not come to bear.
Me: I have no interest in what consenting people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, it is not my business. But if there are legal ramifications regarding the union of people in any fashion, that can be dealt with in the law and legal contracts. If gays were simply interested in legal protection of their assets, wealth transference, etc, those can be easily solved and I am not in the transaction.
But gays force me and everyone else into their bedrooms by demanding society's solemn/celebratory approval for their relationships. This is unreasonable. It's also contradicts their stated desire to be private. My sole and singular interest in the gay marriage debate is to be left alone.
B.R.: Very well spoken as usual. I can find no error in your words, except to say that gays aren't forcing you to do anything. You'll be left alone if you get out of the way of their civil rights - which they deserve and will inevitably receive. If you really believe it's not your business, stop posting about it.
Me: You have no way of knowing what will happen, nor can you know who will be forced to do what. If I can say one thing about the Left, they love to force people to do things. In fact, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the issue will not stop with the granting of gay marriage.
I guarantee you that howls of "homophobia" and "hater" will not stop, but will intensify. Those are the tools of the Tolerant Ones. The left is persistent. What it cannot get all at once it will pursue incrementally. Gay marriage is an incremental step.
My posting was about the sloganeering of the Left, not about gay marriage per se. And I will post about anything I choose to, thank you very much. Your attempt to silence dissent is unseemly.
B.r.: If you could provide even one reason that gay men and women should not be allowed to have the full rights and benefits of marriage in America, then I wouldn't discourage you from speaking out about it. But you don't seem to have any. Your dissent on this matter is empty, and your desire for obstruction of social justice serves no one. So, in order for you to get what you want ("to be left alone") and for me to get what I want (equal rights for gays and lesbians), the best course of action is for you to stop posting about it.
B.R.: A very conservative friend of mine hopped onto one of my threads the other day, and talked about gay marriage with a couple of polyamorous friends of mine. He said:
"I hate homosexuality and think it's is a disgusting mental disorder but I support their right to get married. That being said, who am I to tell them what to do! Equality is equality and freedom is freedom. Live and let live. And let a republican like me own my guns in peace, and do whatever else I like as long as I'm not harming others. Truthfully, I don't hate gay people. I'm just taking an extreme to prove a point that you don't have to agree with someones lifestyle but you should support their rights. I have a few gay friends but they are more acquaintances really. They disagree with my lifestyle and I disagree with theirs but that doesn't me we have to restrict each others freedoms. I know I sound like a broken record but, live and let live."
Me: More slogans. "Social justice" is a high-sounding but meaningless phrase. And we have discussed at length what constitutes rights. Interestingly, you haven't even tried to establish that rights are actually being violated.
Regarding benefits, I already noted that they can be dealt with legally: "But if there are legal ramifications regarding the union of people in any fashion, that can be dealt with in the law and legal contracts."
It seems to me that I'm not being evasive or providing empty dissent. Rather, I'm clearly stating my thought processes, and you either don't like them or didn't read them. And you haven't offered anything as a rejoinder other than well-worn catch phrases.
Me: What your friend said is interesting, but irrelevant.
Me: You seem to want to pigeonhole me into some sort of hostility, dare I say, bigotry that is unwarranted by my presentation. To be against gay marriage does not mean I fit your stereotypical templates. Otherwise, how would you account for gays who are against gay marriage?
B.R.: We're talking past each other. You want to prove that there is no official right to get married, and I want to prove that gay people should be equal under the law to other Americans. I can't prove you wrong and you can't prove me wrong.
I don't think you're a bigot and I don't think you're homophobic. I think, on this particular issue, that you're on the wrong side. You care about love, you care about committed partnerships, you care about personal freedom and you care about keeping the government out of our personal lives. You said that it's up to gay rights advocated to "show there is a compelling reason to change the way society has functioned for centuries".
They have - society has changed, and so it's time for this law to evolve. It happened with women's right to vote, it happened with segregation, it happened with interracial marriage, and now it's happening with gay marriage. According to most states and the federal government, gay people do not have the legal right to get married, I admit to you. But they should.
There are millions of Americans asking for that right for their own lives and the lives of their families, and 58% of the country is behind them. If we have to wait until that percentage is even higher, then that's what we'll do.
You will never run out of reasons to oppose gay marriage. There's just no good reason left. I would like you to support gay marriage. Please support gay marriage.
Me:: If one doesn't understand the argument, then one cannot ascertain the solution.
First, being "equal under the law" is an expression relating to equal justice when being tried for a crime. This is a much different topic than what you're trying to connect it to. "Equal protection," as referenced by the 14th amendment, restrains the states from abridging "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This first applies to "natural rights" (i.e., unalienable rights), but then extends to legal rights. That means what the Feds grant, the states must grant.
Interestingly, the Feds grant only "one man, one woman" via DOMA. So the 14th amendment actually argues against your position. Extending the logic, the states that have chosen to grant same sex marriage are in violation of the 14th amendment.
Second, your position about privacy, etc. strikes me as incredibly odd. How can you be in favor of privacy and personal choice and at the same time argue for more government involvement in private relationships? It makes no sense!
I really find your advocacy puzzling. You're a demonstated intellect, yet your defense of your position has been presented with the stock phrases, talking points, and buzz words of the gay lobby, as if by repeating them you've made a case.
I neither support nor oppose gay marriage. You hope I would support it, but why is my celebration of gay marriage even on the radar? Why should society give its holy stamp of approval based on who someone sleeps with? Why should the private relationships of people be of concern to me or anyone else? Jesus H. Christ, why can't people just leave people alone?
Friday, March 29, 2013
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
List of foolish government spending
Sourced from here.
------------
The following are some of the completely outrageous ways that the U.S. government is wasting money…
#1 The National Science Foundation has given $384,949 to Yale University to do a study on “Sexual Conflict, Social Behavior and the Evolution of Waterfowl Genitalia”. Try not to laugh, but much of this research involves examining and measuring the reproductive organs of male ducks.
#2 The IRS spent $60,000 on a film parody of “Star Trek” and a film parody of “Gilligan’s Island”. Internal Revenue Service employees were the actors in the two parodies, so as you can imagine the acting was really bad.
#3 The National Institutes of Health has given $1.5 million to Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts to study why “three-quarters” of lesbians in the United States are overweight and why most gay males are not.
#4 The National Institutes of Health has also spent $2.7 million to study why lesbians have more “vulnerability to hazardous drinking”.
#5 The U.S. government is giving sixteen F-16s and 200 Abrams tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt even though the new president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi (a member of the Muslim Brotherhood), constantly makes statements such as the following…
“Dear brothers, we must not forget to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred towards those Zionists and Jews, and all those who support them”#6 During 2012, the salaries of Barack Obama’s three climate change advisers combined came to a grand total of more than $370,000.
#7 Overall, 139 different White House staffers were making at least $100,000 during 2012, and there were 20 staffers that made the maximum of $172,200.
#8 Amazingly, U.S. taxpayers spend more than 1.4 billion dollars a year on the Obamas. Meanwhile, British taxpayers only spend about 58 million dollars on the entire royal family.
#9 During 2012, $25,000 of federal money was spent on a promotional tour for the Alabama Watermelon Queen.
#10 The U.S. government spent $505,000 “to promote specialty hair and beauty products for cats and dogs” in 2012.
#11 NASA spends close to a million dollars a year developing a menu of food for a manned mission to Mars even though it is being projected that a manned mission to Mars is still decades away.
#12 During 2012, the federal government spent 15 million dollars to help Russian weapons institutes recruit nuclear scientists.
#13 Over the past 15 years, a total of approximately $5.25 million has been spent on hair care services for the U.S. Senate.
#14 The U.S. government spent 27 million dollars to teach Moroccans how to design and make pottery in 2012.
#15 At a time when we have an epidemic of unemployment in the United States, the U.S. Department of Education is spending $1.3 million to “reduce linguistic, academic, and employment barriers for skilled and low-skilled immigrants and refugees, and to integrate them into the U.S. workforce and professions.”
#16 The federal government still sends about 20 million dollars a year to the surviving family members of veterans of World War I, even though World War I ended 94 years ago.
#17 The U.S. government is spending approximately 3.6 million dollars a year to support the lavish lifestyles of former presidents such as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
#18 During fiscal 2012, the National Science Foundation gave researchers at Purdue University $350,000. They used part of that money to help fund a study that discovered that if golfers imagine that a hole is bigger it will help them with their putting.
#19 The U.S. government is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority every year.
#20 Federal agencies have purchased a total of approximately 2 billion rounds of ammunition over the past 10 months. It is claimed that all of this ammunition is needed for “training purposes”.
#21 During 2012, the National Science Foundation spent $516,000 on the creation of a video game called “Prom Week” which apparently simulates “all the social interactions of the event.”
#22 If you can believe it, $10,000 of U.S. taxpayer money was actually used to purchase talking urinal cakes up in Michigan.
#23 When Joe Biden and his staff took a trip to London back in February, the hotel bill cost U.S. taxpayers $459,388.65.
#24 Joe Biden and his staff also stopped in Paris for one night back in February. The hotel bill for that one night came to $585,000.50.
#25 If you can believe it, close to 15,000 retired federal employees are currently collecting federal pensions for life worth at least $100,000 annually. That list includes such names as Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Dick Gephardt and Dick Cheney.
#26 The U.S. Department of Agriculture has spent $300,000 to encourage Americans to eat caviar.
#27 The National Institutes of Health recently gave $666,905 to a group of researchers that is conducting a study on the benefits of watching reruns on television.
#28 The National Science Foundation has given 1.2 million dollars to a team of “scientists” that is spending part of that money on a study that is seeking to determine whether elderly Americans would benefit from playing World of Warcraft or not.
#29 The National Institutes of Health recently gave $548,731 to a team of researchers that concluded that those that drink heavily in their thirties also tend to feel more immature.
#30 The National Science Foundation recently spent $30,000 on a study to determine if “gaydar” actually exists. This is the conclusion that the researchers reached at the end of the study….
“Gaydar is indeed real and… its accuracy is driven by sensitivity to individual facial features”Here are 30 more examples of outrageous government waste from one of my previous articles entitled “Chimps Throwing Poop And 29 Other Mind Blowing Ways That The Government Is Wasting Your Money“…
#1 In 2011, the National Institutes of Health spent $592,527 on a study that sought to figure out once and for all why chimpanzees throw poop.
#2 The National Institutes of Health has spent more than 5 million dollars on a website called Sexpulse that is targeted at “men who use the Internet to seek sex with men”. According to Fox News, the website “includes pornographic images of homosexual sex as well as naked and scantily clad men” and features “a Space Invaders-style interactive game that uses a penis-shaped blaster to shoot down gay epithets.”
#3 The General Services Administration spent $822,751 on a “training conference” for 300 west coast employees at the M Resort and Casino in Las Vegas.
The following is how the Washington Post described some of the wasteful expenses that happened during this “conference”…
Among the “excessive, wasteful and in some cases impermissable” spending the inspector general documented: $5,600 for three semi-private catered in-room parties and $44 per person daily breakfasts; $75,000 for a “team-building” exercise — the goal was to build a bicycle; $146,000 on catered food and drinks; and $6,325 on commemorative coins in velvet boxes to reward all participants for their work on stimulus projects. The $31,208 “networking” reception featured a $19-per-person artisanal cheese display and $7,000 of sushi. At the conference’s closing-night dinner, employees received “yearbooks” with their pictures, at a cost of $8,130.You can see some stunning pictures of GSA employees living the high life in Las Vegas right here.
#4 Do you remember when credit rating agency Egan Jones downgraded U.S. government debt from AA+ to AA? Well, someone in the federal government apparently did not like that at all. According to Zero Hedge, the SEC plans to file charges against Egan Jones for “misstatements” on a regulatory application with the SEC.
Normally, the SEC does not go after anyone. After all, when is the last time a major banker went to prison?
No, the truth is that the SEC is usually just a huge waste of taxpayer money. According to ABC News, one investigation found that 17 senior SEC officials had been regularly viewing pornography while at work. While the American people were paying their salaries, this is what senior SEC officials were busy doing…
One senior attorney at SEC headquarters in Washington spent up to eight hours a day accessing Internet porn, according to the report, which has yet to be released. When he filled all the space on his government computer with pornographic images, he downloaded more to CDs and DVDs that accumulated in boxes in his offices.#5 According to InformationWeek, the federal government is spending “millions of dollars” to train Asian call center workers.
An SEC accountant attempted to access porn websites 1,800 times in a two-week period and had 600 pornographic images on her computer hard drive.
Another SEC accountant used his SEC-issued computer to upload his own sexually explicit videos onto porn websites he joined.
And another SEC accountant attempted to access porn sites 16,000 times in a single month.
#6 If you can believe it, the federal government has actually spent $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
#7 The U.S. Agency for International Development spent 10 million dollars to create a version of “Sesame Street” for Pakistani television.
#8 The Obama administration has plans to spend between 16 and 20 million dollars to help students from Indonesia get master’s degrees.
#9 The National Science Foundation spent $198,000 on a University of California-Riverside study that explored “motivations, expectations and goal pursuit in social media.” One of the questions the study sought an answer to was the following: “Do unhappy people spend more time on Twitter or Facebook?”
#10 The federal government actually has spent $175,587 “to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior”.
#11 In 2011, $147,138 was given to the American Museum of Magic in Marshall, Michigan. Their best magic trick is making U.S. taxpayer dollars disappear.
#12 The federal government recently spent $74,000 to help Michigan “increase awareness about the role Michigan plays in the production of trees and poinsettias.”
#13 In 2011, the federal government gave $550,000 toward the making of a documentary about how rock and roll contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union.
#14 The National Institutes of Health has contributed $55,382 toward a study of “hookah smoking habits” in the country of Jordan.
#15 The federal government gave $606,000 to researchers at Columbia University to study how heterosexuals use the Internet to find love.
#16 A total of $133,277 was recently given to the International Center for the History of Electronic Games for video game preservation. The International Center for the History of Electronic Games says that it “collects, studies, and interprets video games, other electronic games, and related materials and the ways in which electronic games are changing how people play, learn, and connect with each other, including across boundaries of culture and geography.”
#17 The federal government has given approximately $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research into video games such as World of Warcraft.
#18 In 2011, the National Science Foundation gave one team of researchers $149,990 to create a video game called “RapidGuppy” for cell phones and other mobile devices.
#19 The U.S. Department of Agriculture once handed researchers at the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.
#20 In 2011, $936,818 was spent developing an online soap opera entitled “Diary of a Single Mom”. The show “chronicles the lives and challenges of three single mothers and their families trying to get ahead despite obstacles that all single mothers face, such as childcare, healthcare, education, and finances.”
#21 The federal government once shelled out $2.6 million to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.
#22 Last year, the federal government spent $96,000 to buy iPads for kindergarten students in Maine.
#23 The U.S. Postal Service once spent $13,500 for a single dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse.
#24 In 2011, the Air Force Academy completed work on an outdoor worship area for pagans and Wiccans. The worship area consists of “a small Stonehenge-like circle of boulders with [a] propane fire pit” and it cost $51,474 to build. The worship area is “for the handful of current or future cadets whose religions fall under the broad category of ‘Earth-based’, which includes Wiccans, druids and pagans.” At this point, that only includes 3 current students at the Air Force Academy.
#25 The National Institutes of Health once gave researchers $400,000 to study why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk.
#26 The National Institutes of Health once gave researchers $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
#27 The National Institutes of Health once spent $800,000 in “stimulus funds” to study the impact of a “genital-washing program” on men in South Africa.
#28 The National Science Foundation recently spent $200,000 on a study that examined how voters react when politicians change their stances on climate change.
#29 The federal government recently spent $484,000 to help build a Mellow Mushroom pizzeria in Arlington, Texas.
#30 At this point, China is holding over a trillion dollars of U.S. government debt. But that didn’t stop the United States from sending 17.8 million dollars in foreign aid to China in 2011.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Just say no to privatizing public education - editorial by Rep. Franke Wilmer (D-Bozeman) - commentary
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
Legislators who cooperate will be rewarded with huge campaign donations that enable them to prevail over any opponent funded by regular (living breathing, real) people; (Notice the false characterization. Only the Right does this, and their opponents are supported only by real people.)
(So she got $15,000 from PACs. Is she therefore beholden to big moneyed interests herself?)
----------
(It wasn't too long ago when the state MEA reps wrote their own editorial opposing school choice. So here we have another.)
This session we’ve heard a lot of bills that bear a striking similarity to model bills from the legislative agenda of the corporate bill-mill American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC. Whether a particular bill is an ALEC model bill, whether a bill’s subject is just high on the ALEC agenda, or whether a bill was written by a former ALEC member like the National Association of Charter Schools, a bad idea driven mainly by out-of-state interests is still a bad idea driven mainly by out-of-state interests. (How interesting that Ms. Wilmer opposes out-of-state interests writing bills. You can almost guarantee that anything the Left accuses the Right of doing is something they do themselves.)
What’s particularly sinister about pouring so much money into state legislatures to get these pro-corporate bills passed is the payoff and punishment underbelly of ALEC and other corporate-sponsored groups.
What’s particularly sinister about pouring so much money into state legislatures to get these pro-corporate bills passed is the payoff and punishment underbelly of ALEC and other corporate-sponsored groups.
Legislators who cooperate will be rewarded with huge campaign donations that enable them to prevail over any opponent funded by regular (living breathing, real) people; (Notice the false characterization. Only the Right does this, and their opponents are supported only by real people.)
and non-cooperative legislators will find themselves faced with an extremely well-funded primary or general-election opponent. From this springs another half dozen bills to dramatically raise or altogether eliminate restrictions on corporate contributions to campaigns. A perfect storm: corporate funded campaigns to legislators who will carry out a corporate agenda. (Apparently this is worse than being beholden to "immigration reform" shadow organizations, Or the case of Ms. Wilmer herself, who spent $276,000 in her reelection to the Montana House. Here's where she got her money:
(So she got $15,000 from PACs. Is she therefore beholden to big moneyed interests herself?)
What all of these bills have in common is that none addresses a problem we have in Montana. They are aimed at carrying out a national agenda. Nowhere does this seem more apparent than in the 6-pack of so-called “schoolchoice” bills. One even gives tax credits to corporations. Now if you ask some Montanans whether they think it would be good to have more “school choices” they might say “yes,” hence the slick designer language. But if you ask most Montanans whether they think we should cut public education funding and give taxpayer dollars to private, mostly religious schools, most would adamantly say “no!” And that’s what each of these bills does in sometimes cleverly designed funding mechanisms that sound like we run public education as a “fees for services” program. If you “choose” take your kid out, you can take your taxes out too. But what about childless couples, single Montana taxpayers, and people whose kids have grown? Why shouldn’t they get a rebate too? (Indeed, why should people without kids in school pay for schools? By reverse logic, why do only those who live in a particular neighborhood have to pay for their road improvements? Shouldn't that be borne by everyone?)
Because public education is a public good that benefits all of us. (She doesn't say how it benefits all of us. I suppose she's trying to make the case that educated people contribute to society. But don't private schools also educate people?)
Decrying that “one size doesn’t fit all” advocates want to give parents whose kids don’t “fit” a tax rebate they can use at a private school that “fits.” This argument is flawed on many levels. First of all, our teachers and administrators are already innovative and rightly insulted by the false notion that our schools are boot camps grinding out cookie-cutter educated students. (That remains to be seen. Individual schools and/or teachers may indeed be innovative, but we don't know what constitutes innovation, nor do we know that every school or teacher [or even a majority of them] deserve this accolade. Ms. Wilmer is making a sweeping generalization. But worse, she is presuming to know what parents should want, and concludes without justification that public schools meet all those preferences. Clearly they don't or there would be no private schools.)
Decrying that “one size doesn’t fit all” advocates want to give parents whose kids don’t “fit” a tax rebate they can use at a private school that “fits.” This argument is flawed on many levels. First of all, our teachers and administrators are already innovative and rightly insulted by the false notion that our schools are boot camps grinding out cookie-cutter educated students. (That remains to be seen. Individual schools and/or teachers may indeed be innovative, but we don't know what constitutes innovation, nor do we know that every school or teacher [or even a majority of them] deserve this accolade. Ms. Wilmer is making a sweeping generalization. But worse, she is presuming to know what parents should want, and concludes without justification that public schools meet all those preferences. Clearly they don't or there would be no private schools.)
Second, Montana already has public charter schools and other innovative programs — 57 of them serving over 1,500 students. (In other words, Ms. Wilmer deems what the state offers to be sufficient and that other choices are not necessary or not legitimate.)
Third, these public charter schools have certified teachers, are overseen by elected school boards, and guided by statewide standards through the Board of Public Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction. (Washington DC schools have the same characteristics, and they are some of the worst schools in the nation.)
None of this is true for the proposed private charter schools, which is one reason they are likely still unconstitutional. Third, (Um, fourth, but who is counting?)
the Montana constitution specifically prohibits taxpayer revenue going to sectarian schools.
(The Montana Constitution say this in Article 10, Section 6:
The legislature, counties, cities, towns, school districts, and public corporations shall not make any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies, or any grant of lands or other property for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination.
Do you notice that it says "public funds." Prior to being taxed from people, those funds are "private funds." The potential to tax is not the same as having a pre-existent claim on private funds. That money belongs to the individual taxpayer before it is taken and converted to public use. Therefore, a tax credit, a voucher, or the creation of a class of people to which a certain tax does not apply is not in violation of the Montana Constitution because it isn't "public funds" until government extracts it from the taxpayer.)
Who were the proponents of these bills? Catholic schools, schools offering a “classical Christian education,” and the Christian Montana Family Foundation. Budgetary flimflam aside, tax money that would go to public education retained by taxpayers to pay for private education is tax money going to private education. (She just countered what I wrote above, but leaves it as a bare assertion. Notice the flawed language based on a flawed premise. She starts with the phrase "...tax money that would go to public education..." She's trying to claim that money that belongs to individual taxpayers is subject to a higher claim of ownership by the state. Because the state will take it at some point, it doesn't belong to the taxpayer right now. This means it is public money before it is taken! She continues, "...retained by taxpayers..." You will note that money that hasn't been taxed is simply money retained by the taxpayer. It isn't the taxpayer's money, it is simply retained by the taxpayer.
She concludes that it is therefore "...tax money going to private education..." Astonishing! Can you imagine, this woman is charged with overseeing the affairs of the state of Montana, but can't even logically approach an issue!)
Montana is not Chicago or D.C. (But those are public schools as well, with all the checks and balances and innovation and certified teachers that we in Montana have. Does this mean she supports private school funding in Chicago or DC?)
Montana is not Chicago or D.C. (But those are public schools as well, with all the checks and balances and innovation and certified teachers that we in Montana have. Does this mean she supports private school funding in Chicago or DC?)
Our dropout rate is 4.1 percent — down from 5.2 percent since Superintendent Juneau initiated her “Graduation Matters” program. Montana students consistently earn top scores in nationally standardized tests of proficiency in math and science. Yes, where there is poverty there is underperformance, and that is true all over the U.S. “Graduation Matters” targets those students too, with great success. And if we pass SB 14 we can join 49 (all) other states that support students staying in school until at least the age of 19, which will certainly further lower our dropout rate. (Yes, Montana schools are generally preform very well. But that still avoids the point. Despite all the benefits of public schools, despite their innovation and high performance results, parents are still choosing to send their children to private schools. They are still exercising choice. They are still rejecting public schools, and Ms. Wilmer doesn't appear to understand why. Or maybe she doesn't care, being beholden herself to special interest funding to the tune of $15,000.)
You want private schools? Fine. Just don’t ask for taxpayer money to support them.
Rep. Franke Wilmer (D-Bozeman) has served four terms on the House Education committee and is a full professor at Montana State University.
You want private schools? Fine. Just don’t ask for taxpayer money to support them.
Rep. Franke Wilmer (D-Bozeman) has served four terms on the House Education committee and is a full professor at Montana State University.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Federal budget ax hits home, cuts to be felt at Bozeman’s Head Start, MSU, hospital, schools - By Gail Schontzler - commentary
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------
(Prepare yourself for a long foray into the sob stories, the heartstrings emotional manipulation, and the hyper-victimizing of the government beneficiaries impaired by the sequester cuts. Remember, these cuts amount to a 2% reduction in spending, after allowing automatic baseline budgeting increases to be implemented. And most of the cuts are happening to the military.)
Bozeman Head Start teacher Lane Langford shows infinite patience as he herds 4-year-olds into the classroom and gets them settled in tiny chairs so they can draw pictures and sound out words and letters with his help.
“N!” said one little girl in pink. “I did it!”
Langford, a teacher for four years, doesn’t betray any apprehension about news that Head Start in other states has had to shut down classrooms, shorten the school year and cut staff jobs.
“It concerns all of us, we’re so tight as it is,” Langford said. “We’re concerned to see what happens to these awesome kids and their families if we lose even more of our budget.” (Emotional manipulation #1.)
Head Start is just one of many local agencies – from Montana State University to Bozeman Deaconess Hospital and the Bozeman School District – bracing for federal budget cuts.
In the 2011 Budget Control Act, Congress and the president purposefully engineered across-the-board cuts, called the sequester, to be so severe (Severe? Editorial comment. And as we have seen, they're not severe at all.)
– targeting both military and domestic programs with a meat-ax approach (Another pejorative editorial comment.) – that politicians would be forced to find better solutions for balancing the budget.
But Congress failed to find a solution, (As we can see, politicians weren't forced to do anything, and never are when it comes to bringing home the bacon. Every program is crucial, every dollar is needed, every cut hurts women, children, and the poor, no reduction in government is ever a good thing, whether in good times or bad.)
so the sequester cuts automatically kicked in March 1, and chopped $85 billion from this year’s federal budget. ($85 billion divided by $3.8 trillion is 2%. Oh the pain! How will we survive! This is going to prolong the economic downturn! It's a catastrophe!)
The cuts don’t stop there. The sequester is designed to keep cutting over the next 10 years, to reduce federal spending by more than $1 trillion. (She writes this like it's a bad thing.) “This thing is kind of like a snowball rolling downhill,” said Matt Kelley, Gallatin County’s city county health officer. “As time goes on and Congress fails to find a solution, the impact is likely to be greater.” (I'm liking it even more. It's about time something happened to reduce, even by a little bit, the drunken sailor spending of congress.)
Congress passed last week a last-minute deal to keep the government running through the end of September, thus avoiding a government shutdown next week. Folded into that was money to soften the sequester cuts in several areas. (Where did that money come from? We borrow over 40% of every dollar we spend.)
All the last-minute maneuvering creates uncertainty and confusion for Bozeman-area program managers. (What about the uncertainty and confusion for business owners who don't know what to withhold for their employee's taxes, don't know how much obamacare is going to cost them, and are at the mercy of opportunistic social engineering government types who can't resist tinkering with the financial status of the US?)
Many are still waiting for word from Washington on whether they’ll be cut, by how much and when. (What a sad commentary. So many are so beholden to government programs, government benefits, and/or government jobs that their universe revolves around the next thing that government might or might not do. And not just those who are on the dole. Average citizens are being subjected to an ever-intrusive government impinging on their daily lives, where great portions of their attention, time, effort, and paycheck are devoted to serving governments aims instead of their own.)
“The hardest thing … the last four years is not being able to plan and respond to community needs” because of the uncertainty, said Heather Grenier, chief operations officer for the Human Resource Development Council, which operates such local programs as the Gallatin Valley Food Bank. (Emotional manipulation #2.)
“The sequester is frustrating,” said Mari Dominguez, Bridgercare clinic executive director. “Everyone understands the need to cut expenses… What we’re seeing is a trumping of politics over responsible government, (The last thing Ms. Dominguez is interested in is fiscally responsible government. She just want to keep the cash flowing. And by the way, why is this woman popping up so often these days. Is she that eminently quotable? I discuss her faulty perspectives here.) to make hard decisions about what is essential.” (Emotional manipulation #3.)
Also frustrated are many federal employees, who wonder if they’ll be getting furlough notices, requiring them to take a number of unpaid days at home each pay period -- on top of three straight years of pay freezes, according to the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. (Emotional manipulation #4.)
People on the left and right disagree about the wisdom of the sequester. The White House contends it amounts to a “self-inflicted wound” to the struggling economy, ("Prolong the downturn!!!" Wow, I must be psychic.)
threatens 750,000 jobs (which I doubt.)
and will “cut vital services for children, seniors, people with mental illness and our men and women in uniform.” (Which I again doubt.)
Conservatives argue the record federal deficit is the nation’s greater danger, that this year’s cuts amount only to $45 billion – the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projection — and that the sequester amounts to little more than a penny for every dollar the federal government spends.
Here are some of the local impacts from the federal sequester cuts: (here are some more sob stories to manipulate your emotions.)
*At Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, “we expect there could be slightly longer lines” during the busy summer months, said Brian Sprenger, airport director. The federal Transportation Security Administration plans to restrict overtime and not add staff for screening passengers. (Emotional manipulation #10. But notice this is self inflicted. The government took over airport security in the wake of 9/11, and now that these seeeeeevere cuts are being implemented, the already long waits experienced by air travelers [as well as all sorts of other indignities] will be increased.)
Bozeman will keep its control tower, however. The Federal Aviation Administration has put Kalispell and Helena’s airports on a list of potential closures, but not Bozeman’s.
* For Bozeman Deaconess Hospital and physicians in its health clinics, the federal sequester will mean a 2 percent cut in Medicare payments for patients age 65 and older, said Connie Martin, hospital spokeswoman. (Emotional manipulation #11.)
That translates to about an $800,000 reduction in payments, Martin said. And the hospital says Medicare already pays less than the actual cost of service. (In other words, Medicare already screws up, so it will now be worse.)
“It’s not panic mode,” Martin said. The hospital is always looking for ways to run leaner without hurting patient care, she said. And with the Affordable Care Act kicking in, there may be more patients covered by Medicaid, which covers the poor and disabled. (Oh thank gawd. Government is recklessly spending money elsewhere, creating new bureaucracies, and removing peoples' choices, so that this problem is not so bad....)
*At Bridgercare, the Bozeman family planning clinic, the federal sequester is expected to cut 5 to 8 percent of federal funds, Dominguez said. That could mean reducing hours, increasing fees and possibly cutting back from being open six to five days a week.
But what looms larger is the Montana House’s decision to cut from the state budget bill all federal funds for family planning clinics, Dominguez said. (Here she is again! Why is this woman given such attention?)
That would slash roughly 20 percent from Bridger Care’s budget if upheld by the Senate. (Emotional manipulation #12.)
“We’d no longer be able to offer zero-pay services,” she said. If contraceptives become too expensive, she said, some people will forgo using them, which will mean more teen pregnancies, poorer health outcomes and more children born into poverty. (So THAT'S the cause of these problems. Who'da thunk that contraceptives are the answer to poverty?
“I know family planning is effective and improves lives,” Dominguez said.
-------------
(Prepare yourself for a long foray into the sob stories, the heartstrings emotional manipulation, and the hyper-victimizing of the government beneficiaries impaired by the sequester cuts. Remember, these cuts amount to a 2% reduction in spending, after allowing automatic baseline budgeting increases to be implemented. And most of the cuts are happening to the military.)
Bozeman Head Start teacher Lane Langford shows infinite patience as he herds 4-year-olds into the classroom and gets them settled in tiny chairs so they can draw pictures and sound out words and letters with his help.
“N!” said one little girl in pink. “I did it!”
Langford, a teacher for four years, doesn’t betray any apprehension about news that Head Start in other states has had to shut down classrooms, shorten the school year and cut staff jobs.
“It concerns all of us, we’re so tight as it is,” Langford said. “We’re concerned to see what happens to these awesome kids and their families if we lose even more of our budget.” (Emotional manipulation #1.)
Head Start is just one of many local agencies – from Montana State University to Bozeman Deaconess Hospital and the Bozeman School District – bracing for federal budget cuts.
In the 2011 Budget Control Act, Congress and the president purposefully engineered across-the-board cuts, called the sequester, to be so severe (Severe? Editorial comment. And as we have seen, they're not severe at all.)
– targeting both military and domestic programs with a meat-ax approach (Another pejorative editorial comment.) – that politicians would be forced to find better solutions for balancing the budget.
But Congress failed to find a solution, (As we can see, politicians weren't forced to do anything, and never are when it comes to bringing home the bacon. Every program is crucial, every dollar is needed, every cut hurts women, children, and the poor, no reduction in government is ever a good thing, whether in good times or bad.)
so the sequester cuts automatically kicked in March 1, and chopped $85 billion from this year’s federal budget. ($85 billion divided by $3.8 trillion is 2%. Oh the pain! How will we survive! This is going to prolong the economic downturn! It's a catastrophe!)
The cuts don’t stop there. The sequester is designed to keep cutting over the next 10 years, to reduce federal spending by more than $1 trillion. (She writes this like it's a bad thing.) “This thing is kind of like a snowball rolling downhill,” said Matt Kelley, Gallatin County’s city county health officer. “As time goes on and Congress fails to find a solution, the impact is likely to be greater.” (I'm liking it even more. It's about time something happened to reduce, even by a little bit, the drunken sailor spending of congress.)
Congress passed last week a last-minute deal to keep the government running through the end of September, thus avoiding a government shutdown next week. Folded into that was money to soften the sequester cuts in several areas. (Where did that money come from? We borrow over 40% of every dollar we spend.)
All the last-minute maneuvering creates uncertainty and confusion for Bozeman-area program managers. (What about the uncertainty and confusion for business owners who don't know what to withhold for their employee's taxes, don't know how much obamacare is going to cost them, and are at the mercy of opportunistic social engineering government types who can't resist tinkering with the financial status of the US?)
Many are still waiting for word from Washington on whether they’ll be cut, by how much and when. (What a sad commentary. So many are so beholden to government programs, government benefits, and/or government jobs that their universe revolves around the next thing that government might or might not do. And not just those who are on the dole. Average citizens are being subjected to an ever-intrusive government impinging on their daily lives, where great portions of their attention, time, effort, and paycheck are devoted to serving governments aims instead of their own.)
“The hardest thing … the last four years is not being able to plan and respond to community needs” because of the uncertainty, said Heather Grenier, chief operations officer for the Human Resource Development Council, which operates such local programs as the Gallatin Valley Food Bank. (Emotional manipulation #2.)
“The sequester is frustrating,” said Mari Dominguez, Bridgercare clinic executive director. “Everyone understands the need to cut expenses… What we’re seeing is a trumping of politics over responsible government, (The last thing Ms. Dominguez is interested in is fiscally responsible government. She just want to keep the cash flowing. And by the way, why is this woman popping up so often these days. Is she that eminently quotable? I discuss her faulty perspectives here.) to make hard decisions about what is essential.” (Emotional manipulation #3.)
Also frustrated are many federal employees, who wonder if they’ll be getting furlough notices, requiring them to take a number of unpaid days at home each pay period -- on top of three straight years of pay freezes, according to the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. (Emotional manipulation #4.)
People on the left and right disagree about the wisdom of the sequester. The White House contends it amounts to a “self-inflicted wound” to the struggling economy, ("Prolong the downturn!!!" Wow, I must be psychic.)
threatens 750,000 jobs (which I doubt.)
and will “cut vital services for children, seniors, people with mental illness and our men and women in uniform.” (Which I again doubt.)
Conservatives argue the record federal deficit is the nation’s greater danger, that this year’s cuts amount only to $45 billion – the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projection — and that the sequester amounts to little more than a penny for every dollar the federal government spends.
Here are some of the local impacts from the federal sequester cuts: (here are some more sob stories to manipulate your emotions.)
*Head Start is expecting a 5 percent cut, (Where did that number come from? Are they expecting it for some rational reason, or just making a number up?)
said Ken Miller, director of Gallatin and Park counties’ Head Start programs. It serves 168 children in Bozeman, Belgrade, Gallatin Gateway and Livingston, and has a waiting list of about 30 to 50 kids from low-income families. (Emotional manipulation #5.)
“I know we’re going to be cut — I don’t know how much,” Miller said. “They did say as a one-time thing this school year we could close early. …You can’t cut without cutting staff.
“There isn’t a Head Start program in Montana that can cut 5 percent without cutting services, cutting numbers of children and families served.”
* Research at Montana State University, which posted a record $112 million in spending last year, relies heavily on federal dollars. National Institutes of Health grants alone make up one-third to 40 percent of MSU’s research, said Tom McCoy, MSU vice president for research. (Emotional manipulation #6.)
The National Science Foundation put out a notice saying awards that scientists have today shouldn’t be affected, but the sequester is expected to mean no funding for 1,000 new awards. McCoy also heard that Defense Department research grants would be cut 7.2 percent and all other agencies 5.2 percent. (Emotional manipulation #7.)
“The impacts will be felt over time,” McCoy said. “The concern I have is we’re still trying to climb out of the recession and build the economy. I’m a firm believer that university research and development are big contributors to building the economy.”
* MSU student Pell Grants, which provide about $16 million a year to support the neediest college students, won’t be affected in the coming school year, said Jim Rimpau, vice president for student success.
“But after that, it’s anybody’s guess,” Rimpau said. “I think we have to worry about it a lot, because we don’t know what’s going to happen in the future.” (Emotional manipulation #8.)
Interest rates on student loans haven’t been affected, but the origination fees are being raised slightly this fall – from 1 to 1.053 percent for student loans and from 4 to 4.2 percent for parent Plus loans.
* MSU’s 539 student veterans on the GI Bill aren’t affected, but 85 students in the National Guard or on active duty who were promised tuition assistance — up to $4,500 a year as a signing incentive from the Defense Department -- were nearly cut off. On Thursday, Congress restored most of the Pentagon’s sequester cuts of tuition assistance. (Emotional manipulation #9.)
“There’s been a big outcry across the nation,” said Brenda York, MSU’s director of disability, reentry and veterans services.
said Ken Miller, director of Gallatin and Park counties’ Head Start programs. It serves 168 children in Bozeman, Belgrade, Gallatin Gateway and Livingston, and has a waiting list of about 30 to 50 kids from low-income families. (Emotional manipulation #5.)
“I know we’re going to be cut — I don’t know how much,” Miller said. “They did say as a one-time thing this school year we could close early. …You can’t cut without cutting staff.
“There isn’t a Head Start program in Montana that can cut 5 percent without cutting services, cutting numbers of children and families served.”
* Research at Montana State University, which posted a record $112 million in spending last year, relies heavily on federal dollars. National Institutes of Health grants alone make up one-third to 40 percent of MSU’s research, said Tom McCoy, MSU vice president for research. (Emotional manipulation #6.)
The National Science Foundation put out a notice saying awards that scientists have today shouldn’t be affected, but the sequester is expected to mean no funding for 1,000 new awards. McCoy also heard that Defense Department research grants would be cut 7.2 percent and all other agencies 5.2 percent. (Emotional manipulation #7.)
“The impacts will be felt over time,” McCoy said. “The concern I have is we’re still trying to climb out of the recession and build the economy. I’m a firm believer that university research and development are big contributors to building the economy.”
* MSU student Pell Grants, which provide about $16 million a year to support the neediest college students, won’t be affected in the coming school year, said Jim Rimpau, vice president for student success.
“But after that, it’s anybody’s guess,” Rimpau said. “I think we have to worry about it a lot, because we don’t know what’s going to happen in the future.” (Emotional manipulation #8.)
Interest rates on student loans haven’t been affected, but the origination fees are being raised slightly this fall – from 1 to 1.053 percent for student loans and from 4 to 4.2 percent for parent Plus loans.
* MSU’s 539 student veterans on the GI Bill aren’t affected, but 85 students in the National Guard or on active duty who were promised tuition assistance — up to $4,500 a year as a signing incentive from the Defense Department -- were nearly cut off. On Thursday, Congress restored most of the Pentagon’s sequester cuts of tuition assistance. (Emotional manipulation #9.)
“There’s been a big outcry across the nation,” said Brenda York, MSU’s director of disability, reentry and veterans services.
*At Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, “we expect there could be slightly longer lines” during the busy summer months, said Brian Sprenger, airport director. The federal Transportation Security Administration plans to restrict overtime and not add staff for screening passengers. (Emotional manipulation #10. But notice this is self inflicted. The government took over airport security in the wake of 9/11, and now that these seeeeeevere cuts are being implemented, the already long waits experienced by air travelers [as well as all sorts of other indignities] will be increased.)
Bozeman will keep its control tower, however. The Federal Aviation Administration has put Kalispell and Helena’s airports on a list of potential closures, but not Bozeman’s.
* For Bozeman Deaconess Hospital and physicians in its health clinics, the federal sequester will mean a 2 percent cut in Medicare payments for patients age 65 and older, said Connie Martin, hospital spokeswoman. (Emotional manipulation #11.)
That translates to about an $800,000 reduction in payments, Martin said. And the hospital says Medicare already pays less than the actual cost of service. (In other words, Medicare already screws up, so it will now be worse.)
“It’s not panic mode,” Martin said. The hospital is always looking for ways to run leaner without hurting patient care, she said. And with the Affordable Care Act kicking in, there may be more patients covered by Medicaid, which covers the poor and disabled. (Oh thank gawd. Government is recklessly spending money elsewhere, creating new bureaucracies, and removing peoples' choices, so that this problem is not so bad....)
*At Bridgercare, the Bozeman family planning clinic, the federal sequester is expected to cut 5 to 8 percent of federal funds, Dominguez said. That could mean reducing hours, increasing fees and possibly cutting back from being open six to five days a week.
But what looms larger is the Montana House’s decision to cut from the state budget bill all federal funds for family planning clinics, Dominguez said. (Here she is again! Why is this woman given such attention?)
That would slash roughly 20 percent from Bridger Care’s budget if upheld by the Senate. (Emotional manipulation #12.)
“We’d no longer be able to offer zero-pay services,” she said. If contraceptives become too expensive, she said, some people will forgo using them, which will mean more teen pregnancies, poorer health outcomes and more children born into poverty. (So THAT'S the cause of these problems. Who'da thunk that contraceptives are the answer to poverty?
“I know family planning is effective and improves lives,” Dominguez said.
*The Human Resource Development Council runs many programs that rely on federal dollars — low-income housing, emergency shelter, energy assistance, the senior grocery program and summer lunches, Community Café and the homeless warming center.(Emotional manipulation #13.)
About half of HRDC’s budget of roughly $8 million comes from the federal government, Grenier said. A lot is still unknown about what’s at risk of cuts.
“If we have a federal deficit, we want to be part of the solution,” Grenier said. “I don’t think it’s anything we can’t overcome. It does create challenges for a population that’s already struggling.”
Fortunately, as a nonprofit, HRDC can raise private donations and grants, she said. And the Food Bank doesn’t get federal dollars and so shouldn’t be affected by the sequester.
*Community Health Partners, which serves more than 12,000 mostly low-income patients in Bozeman, Belgrade, Livingston and West Yellowstone, depends on a $2.5 million federal grant for a major share of its $6.5 million budget, said Buck Taylor, director of community development and operations. That enables it to charge on a sliding scale. (Emotional manipulation #14.)
The sequester’s impact is still unclear, Taylor said. The National Association of Community Health Centers advocacy group in Washington warned two weeks ago of “severe” impacts from the sequester. But last week it reported that the stopgap funding Congress passed last week would increase funding 1.7 percent for health centers.
*Bozeman’s public schools estimate the sequester will cut federal funds next school year by around
$250,000, out of $3.5 million in federal dollars, said Steve Johnson, deputy superintendent. (Emotional manipulation #15.)
Bozeman’s biggest federal programs are Title I to help low-income schools, special education, and professional training money, used to hire teaching coaches.
Johnson said he didn’t think the sequester would mean job losses. A lot depends on what the state Legislature does with school funding.
Budgeting is always difficult in a legislative year, he said. The sequester “adds a little twist to it,” he said.
*The Gallatin City-County Health Department receives several federal grants, including one for public health emergency preparedness, Kelley said. Because of the sequester and other budget cuts, that’s expected to be
reduced from $120,000 to about $100,000. The money is used to train and prepare for such emergencies as earthquakes, fires and flooding. (Emotional manipulation #16.)
“Part of the impact is the uncertainty,” Kelley said. “Until Congress gets its act together, we don’t know. We have to be cautious.”
Combined with cuts from the Legislature, he added, “It’s like a thousand nicks.” (Now he knows how that taxpayer feels.)
Gail Schontzler can be reached at gails@dailychronicle.com or 582-2633.
About half of HRDC’s budget of roughly $8 million comes from the federal government, Grenier said. A lot is still unknown about what’s at risk of cuts.
“If we have a federal deficit, we want to be part of the solution,” Grenier said. “I don’t think it’s anything we can’t overcome. It does create challenges for a population that’s already struggling.”
Fortunately, as a nonprofit, HRDC can raise private donations and grants, she said. And the Food Bank doesn’t get federal dollars and so shouldn’t be affected by the sequester.
*Community Health Partners, which serves more than 12,000 mostly low-income patients in Bozeman, Belgrade, Livingston and West Yellowstone, depends on a $2.5 million federal grant for a major share of its $6.5 million budget, said Buck Taylor, director of community development and operations. That enables it to charge on a sliding scale. (Emotional manipulation #14.)
The sequester’s impact is still unclear, Taylor said. The National Association of Community Health Centers advocacy group in Washington warned two weeks ago of “severe” impacts from the sequester. But last week it reported that the stopgap funding Congress passed last week would increase funding 1.7 percent for health centers.
*Bozeman’s public schools estimate the sequester will cut federal funds next school year by around
$250,000, out of $3.5 million in federal dollars, said Steve Johnson, deputy superintendent. (Emotional manipulation #15.)
Bozeman’s biggest federal programs are Title I to help low-income schools, special education, and professional training money, used to hire teaching coaches.
Johnson said he didn’t think the sequester would mean job losses. A lot depends on what the state Legislature does with school funding.
Budgeting is always difficult in a legislative year, he said. The sequester “adds a little twist to it,” he said.
*The Gallatin City-County Health Department receives several federal grants, including one for public health emergency preparedness, Kelley said. Because of the sequester and other budget cuts, that’s expected to be
reduced from $120,000 to about $100,000. The money is used to train and prepare for such emergencies as earthquakes, fires and flooding. (Emotional manipulation #16.)
“Part of the impact is the uncertainty,” Kelley said. “Until Congress gets its act together, we don’t know. We have to be cautious.”
Combined with cuts from the Legislature, he added, “It’s like a thousand nicks.” (Now he knows how that taxpayer feels.)
Gail Schontzler can be reached at gails@dailychronicle.com or 582-2633.
In tumultuous times, let’s preserve common good - letter by Richard Damon - analysis
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
I see people deprived of their freedom from racism and economic exploitation, and simply not caring. We impose “freedom” on people who do not want us to occupy their country, under guise of protecting our own economic interests, in exchange for their lives.
I believe in American political institutions, but those institutions often set policy in response to corporate power instead of the will of the people. When the will of the people is reactively made known on the streets or at the ballot box, political leaders have clever ways to renege on promises, or work behind closed doors to protect their own and special interest influences. (This is a direct result of the government the Left prefers. This government is extremely powerful, controlling trillions of dollars. It has far exceeded the constitutional limits imposed upon it by the founders. Governmental power, by its very nature, is corruptible, and that's why the founders limited it. The government we have now is corrupted commensurate with its power. That corruptible power is understandably attractive to those who would want to steer it, like corporations, other governments, and even those in government itself. Dr. Damon does not seem to realize that his philosophy of government is the cause of the problems he decries.)
I believe in the power of the human moral fabric of goodness, but that power often runs amuck (sic) with terrorism, killings, and a nation that does not care for its poor or mentally ill. ( I wonder if Dr. Damon re-read this sentence before he submitted his letter. The power of good runs amok resulting in terrorism and killings? What? How is that possible?)
------------------
I believe the nation is losing its moral compass. (Conservatives and religious people have been making this assertion for decades, and have been routinely derided for suggesting such a thing. They are roundly mocked for wanting to go back to the 50s. They want to return to an Ozzie and Harriet time that never really existed. So now we have a Leftist who dares suggest that something is morally wrong with the US. Let's see what he thinks is wrong.)
I believe in democracy, (a system of government we do not have in this country.)
in its remarkable achievements (Notice how he frames this. He credits a system of government for "remarkable achievements," not hardworking people, not the founders for their wisdom and sacrifices, and certainly not innovators and businesspeople who take incredible risks because they believed in themselves and the opportunities freedom provides.
No, Dr. Damon credits a system of government.)
and its unfulfilled promises, but what passes for democracy often turns out to be something less noble. (Actually, the result of majority rule has itself brought about untold suffering and evils of every kind. In the microcosm of democracy that is is the Supreme Court, they deemed back people to be property in Dred Scott. Hitler was democratically vote in with impressive majorities. The invasion of Iraq proceeded on the majority vote of congress [a majority, lest we forget, that was comprised of a good number of democrats.]
There is nothing noble about democracy, either in its processes or its results. The founders abhorred it, so we can safely say they did not bequeath us democracy. Here's a quick survey of the founders' thoughts:
James Madison: "Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Federalist #10
James Madison again (Federalist #39): "The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all out political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."
From the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland's delegates to the convention, "A lady asked Dr. (Benjamin) Franklin: "Well, Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic," replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it."
John Adams: Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhaust, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
Alexander Hamilton: "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."
Alexander Hamilton: "It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
James Madison: "If we advert to the nature of republican government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people."
Alexander Tyler: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.")
James Madison: "Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Federalist #10
James Madison again (Federalist #39): "The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all out political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."
From the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland's delegates to the convention, "A lady asked Dr. (Benjamin) Franklin: "Well, Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic," replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it."
John Adams: Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhaust, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
Alexander Hamilton: "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."
Alexander Hamilton: "It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
James Madison: "If we advert to the nature of republican government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people."
Alexander Tyler: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.")
I see people deprived of their freedom from racism and economic exploitation, and simply not caring. We impose “freedom” on people who do not want us to occupy their country, under guise of protecting our own economic interests, in exchange for their lives.
I believe in American political institutions, but those institutions often set policy in response to corporate power instead of the will of the people. When the will of the people is reactively made known on the streets or at the ballot box, political leaders have clever ways to renege on promises, or work behind closed doors to protect their own and special interest influences. (This is a direct result of the government the Left prefers. This government is extremely powerful, controlling trillions of dollars. It has far exceeded the constitutional limits imposed upon it by the founders. Governmental power, by its very nature, is corruptible, and that's why the founders limited it. The government we have now is corrupted commensurate with its power. That corruptible power is understandably attractive to those who would want to steer it, like corporations, other governments, and even those in government itself. Dr. Damon does not seem to realize that his philosophy of government is the cause of the problems he decries.)
I believe in the power of the human moral fabric of goodness, but that power often runs amuck (sic) with terrorism, killings, and a nation that does not care for its poor or mentally ill. ( I wonder if Dr. Damon re-read this sentence before he submitted his letter. The power of good runs amok resulting in terrorism and killings? What? How is that possible?)
The media hate mongers twist the truth, defame, and lie outright, weakening the trust on which democracy depends. (A little shot at conservative radio and Fox News, I'm sure. Isn't it curious, though, how the mere mention of "lies" and "hate" is deemed sufficient, as if its a self-evident truth that they're destroying democracy?
Oh, how the Left hates conservative media! It's destroying the country. Yes, free speech is bad for democracy. Democracy depends on trust, and Limbaugh is weakening it. Yes, comrade, we need to trust our Dear Leader as he leads us into a glorious future!)
More and more I believe the nation is incapable of rational thinking about gun control, equal rights for every American, our tolerance of violence, the disparities seen in society, climate change, the decline of
educational achievement, and unhealthy human behaviors. (In other words, if you happen to have another perspective regarding these issues and the supposed solutions as promulgated by the Left, you are irrational. There is no simple difference of opinion, no basic diversity of thought on these issues. There is, frankly, no other way to look at these issues. If you don't toe the line, if you don't say "yes, sir," if you step even slightly out of the "truth," you will be dealt with most severely. Because not only are you irrational, you are a bigot, a hater, you are anti-science and out of step with the thinking people.)
More and more I believe the nation is incapable of rational thinking about gun control, equal rights for every American, our tolerance of violence, the disparities seen in society, climate change, the decline of
educational achievement, and unhealthy human behaviors. (In other words, if you happen to have another perspective regarding these issues and the supposed solutions as promulgated by the Left, you are irrational. There is no simple difference of opinion, no basic diversity of thought on these issues. There is, frankly, no other way to look at these issues. If you don't toe the line, if you don't say "yes, sir," if you step even slightly out of the "truth," you will be dealt with most severely. Because not only are you irrational, you are a bigot, a hater, you are anti-science and out of step with the thinking people.)
We harbor fear, resentment, anger, and lassitude, making us susceptible to media persuasion, (See? You are easily led astray, you are deceived. You shut your brain off and are easily manipulated.)
and the untruth peddled by tyrants of democratic destruction.
Political institutions, dysfunctional as they are, exceed our founder’s expectations. (Um, yeah. The founders are all dead. That happened years ago, Dr. Damon. They have therefore made no comment, pro or con, regarding our political institutions.)
Political institutions, dysfunctional as they are, exceed our founder’s expectations. (Um, yeah. The founders are all dead. That happened years ago, Dr. Damon. They have therefore made no comment, pro or con, regarding our political institutions.)
The flawed legacy left to us (Yes, flawed. The only comment Mr. Damon has about the founders is not regarding their brilliance, their sacrifices, their incredible vision, or their understanding of liberty... no, they are simply flawed.)
has a saving diversity, with which we are now blessed, to continue the distant vision and hopeful reality of preserving the common good, the very heart of democracy. (This is the central issue. "The common good" as envisioned by the Left was not a founding concept, because the founders did not give us a democracy. Indeed, the founders were highly cognizant of the abuses of government power, and sought to codify the basic truth that individual liberty, self-determination, and freedom from oppressive government.
There is no such thing as the common good.)
Richard A. Damon, MD
Richard A. Damon, MD
Friday, March 22, 2013
The complex tax system is just fine - FB conversation
FB friend BR posted this:
HOLY SHIT.
2011 tax return: I owed over $10,000, freaked out, and started paying $1,400 per month to get back to zero. Looks like that was overkill.
2012 tax return: I'm getting back $4,700, which clears all IRS debt, ends over $700 of monthly payments, and gives us a $1200 from Uncle Sam.
C'mon America, let's get a bucket of BBQ and get busy.
F.B.: Woot. I feel ya, I received a great return this year. Paid off my car and got some new equipment. I love it when it works out!
G.S.: I got $48 back...seriously, working full-time, hahaha!
B.J.: Get a better accountant.
G.S.: I actually did it two different ways, went to the United Way tax prep experts and checked it online with a lot of different calculators. I'm not quite poor enough to qualify for any EIC and I am single with no sizable deductions, my charitable donations don't count either because they amount to less than a certain percentage of my income, and blah blah blah. Not complaining really, I'd look into it but my income/finances are pretty damn simple and I don't think there's really any other angle to work., haha!
Me: B.R., I think you know what I'm going to say...
B.R.: Rich - say it anyway!
K.E.: Hurray for the IRS and the Federal Government. The federal tax system makes so much sense :-/
Me: Awwwww.... ok. There is no way in God's green earth that an average, middle class, law-abiding regular guy should be placed into a position of worrying about what the government is going to do to them, especially when we're talking on a magnitude of tens of thousands of dollars. It's just nuts that we tolerate this tinkering with the tax code so that even the government itself doesn't know who is breaking the law. What are we, trained circus animals jumping through hoops as we do government's bidding, paying attention every day to whether something is tax deductible? No rational person would acquiesce to this nonsense.
J.R.: Congratulations, B.R.! I'm assuming your post was a celebration of accomplishment and good news. And not, say, a case study intended to assert the correctness of your political dogma.
Me: Um, yeah officer. I'm not trespassing, I was given a door key by the owner.
D.G.: So first off, congrats! Now allow me to go all nerd on your asses. ;)
G.S. --getting a small refund is a good thing! It means that you didn't overpay. If you get a refund, it means that you gave Uncle Sam an interest-free loan for the year. On behalf of all other taxpayers--thank you, but you really shouldn't have.
Ben--as you've probably figured out by now :), this is why self-employed folks should estimate their taxes at least every quarter, even if they're not required to pay quarterly.
Okay, here endeth the lecture. Let us return to squanderous merry-making. How many bottles of absinthe does $1200 buy?
B.R.: yes I know, I overpaid in my 2012 estimated quarterly payments. But when my 2011 taxes ended up costing me money I should have been saving but didn't, my CPA suggested that I over-prepare for 2012. I knew I was getting something back, I just didn't expect so much.
HOLY SHIT.
2011 tax return: I owed over $10,000, freaked out, and started paying $1,400 per month to get back to zero. Looks like that was overkill.
2012 tax return: I'm getting back $4,700, which clears all IRS debt, ends over $700 of monthly payments, and gives us a $1200 from Uncle Sam.
C'mon America, let's get a bucket of BBQ and get busy.
F.B.: Woot. I feel ya, I received a great return this year. Paid off my car and got some new equipment. I love it when it works out!
G.S.: I got $48 back...seriously, working full-time, hahaha!
B.J.: Get a better accountant.
G.S.: I actually did it two different ways, went to the United Way tax prep experts and checked it online with a lot of different calculators. I'm not quite poor enough to qualify for any EIC and I am single with no sizable deductions, my charitable donations don't count either because they amount to less than a certain percentage of my income, and blah blah blah. Not complaining really, I'd look into it but my income/finances are pretty damn simple and I don't think there's really any other angle to work., haha!
Me: B.R., I think you know what I'm going to say...
B.R.: Rich - say it anyway!
K.E.: Hurray for the IRS and the Federal Government. The federal tax system makes so much sense :-/
Me: Awwwww.... ok. There is no way in God's green earth that an average, middle class, law-abiding regular guy should be placed into a position of worrying about what the government is going to do to them, especially when we're talking on a magnitude of tens of thousands of dollars. It's just nuts that we tolerate this tinkering with the tax code so that even the government itself doesn't know who is breaking the law. What are we, trained circus animals jumping through hoops as we do government's bidding, paying attention every day to whether something is tax deductible? No rational person would acquiesce to this nonsense.
J.R.: Congratulations, B.R.! I'm assuming your post was a celebration of accomplishment and good news. And not, say, a case study intended to assert the correctness of your political dogma.
Me: Um, yeah officer. I'm not trespassing, I was given a door key by the owner.
D.G.: So first off, congrats! Now allow me to go all nerd on your asses. ;)
G.S. --getting a small refund is a good thing! It means that you didn't overpay. If you get a refund, it means that you gave Uncle Sam an interest-free loan for the year. On behalf of all other taxpayers--thank you, but you really shouldn't have.
Ben--as you've probably figured out by now :), this is why self-employed folks should estimate their taxes at least every quarter, even if they're not required to pay quarterly.
Okay, here endeth the lecture. Let us return to squanderous merry-making. How many bottles of absinthe does $1200 buy?
B.R.: yes I know, I overpaid in my 2012 estimated quarterly payments. But when my 2011 taxes ended up costing me money I should have been saving but didn't, my CPA suggested that I over-prepare for 2012. I knew I was getting something back, I just didn't expect so much.
Rich - I expected a response and I prepared a retort:
Living in American culture means making a big compromise. Not a sacrifice. A compromise. I get an incredible infrastructure in which I feel safe, healthy, and confident to follow my path. The things I do to make my money would not be possible without this infrastructure, nor would my fantastic standard of living. All of that infrastructure costs money, and that money is taken out in my taxes. I understand that there's some bullshit that gets paid for with my taxes, but that too is a compromise. I get (in part) to support awesome things like Obamacare, 9-11, public schools, Title IX, and access to contraceptives. But I also am forced to support shitty things like war, wire-tapping, the salaries of people who actively hate women, and bailouts of businessmen who should be in prison. I'M REALLY REALLY PISSED OFF that my taxes support those shitty shitty things. But I'm also incredibly grateful, not only for the infrastructure and all those awesome things I listed, but also that I get to live in a culture where everyone thinks differently and is free to speak up about it. PAYING MY TAXES is a great compromise that I make with the American government, every single day. If I don't want to make that compromise, I have three choices: work to change the system, live illegally, or leave America.
Taxes are not the enemy. If you really need an enemy, to constantly be fighting against yet always losing to, choose Money. Money is a much bigger asshole than Taxes.
Me: Do I need J.R.'s permission to respond?
Living in American culture means making a big compromise. Not a sacrifice. A compromise. I get an incredible infrastructure in which I feel safe, healthy, and confident to follow my path. The things I do to make my money would not be possible without this infrastructure, nor would my fantastic standard of living. All of that infrastructure costs money, and that money is taken out in my taxes. I understand that there's some bullshit that gets paid for with my taxes, but that too is a compromise. I get (in part) to support awesome things like Obamacare, 9-11, public schools, Title IX, and access to contraceptives. But I also am forced to support shitty things like war, wire-tapping, the salaries of people who actively hate women, and bailouts of businessmen who should be in prison. I'M REALLY REALLY PISSED OFF that my taxes support those shitty shitty things. But I'm also incredibly grateful, not only for the infrastructure and all those awesome things I listed, but also that I get to live in a culture where everyone thinks differently and is free to speak up about it. PAYING MY TAXES is a great compromise that I make with the American government, every single day. If I don't want to make that compromise, I have three choices: work to change the system, live illegally, or leave America.
Taxes are not the enemy. If you really need an enemy, to constantly be fighting against yet always losing to, choose Money. Money is a much bigger asshole than Taxes.
Me: Do I need J.R.'s permission to respond?
I never mentioned paying taxes, which I am happy to do. I only commented on the insane tax system.
B.R.: You do not need J.R.'s permission. Haha I wasn't actually responding directly to your message, I just wanted to swap soapbox moments with ya. Except that my message, which I hope you considered thoroughly, very clearly indicates that I AM quite willing to acquiesce. That said, fixing the tax system would hopefully mean more money for me, so by all means, would you please tell me how you think the tax system needs to be fixed?
Me: It can't be fixed. Too far gone.
B.R.: Bullshit.
Me: Whatever.
B.R.: Look, though I have liberal views on many things, I'm a centrist, because I like to see progress being made. The notion that NOTHING can be done to make our tax code work more efficiently or more fairly make ZERO sense to me. That said, I don't know much of anything about our tax code, so while you can simply rag on it if you wish, I'm giving you the opportunity to fill this currently empty chamber of my head with your perspective. What realistic and pragmatic changes would make our tax system better?
Me: The idea that "fixing" the tax system means yet another layer of exemptions, credits, surcharges, and social engineering efforts is offensive to me.
The purpose of taxes is to raise the revenue needed to operate government. However, the tax code is being used to change societal outcomes. The tax code encourages marriage, home ownership, charity, and a lot of other "good" things that are outside the purpose of taxation. But it also encourages tax avoidance, outsourcing, and financial manipulation.
It's so complex, to the point of nonsensical, that it forces the people to live their lives continually cognisant of how their actions might impact their taxes. It forces the people to serve government. I happen to believe that government should barely register on the daily radar of peoples' lives.
In my rainbows and pink unicorn world, the ideal scenario is a repeal of the 16th amendment, the elimination of property taxes, and the implementation of a constitutionally limited flat retail sales tax. The reasons? 1) an income tax is a tax on productivity, which takes a part of a person's labor. Philisophically speaking, you are working for the benefit of government and not yourself, which is a violation of property rights. 2) Taxes on property, that is, fixed, unproductive, and unmoving assets means that inactive objects, things that have nothing to do with economic activity, are being taxed. 3) a retail sales tax is a tax on economic activity, which means things are happening, products are moving, and money is changing hands. That makes those taxes voluntary on some level. And it is progressive, in that rich people buy more expensive things, so they get taxed more.
I realize that for many left-of-center people, paying taxes is a noble, almost holy act. But for a lot of other people, it is invasive. Put it this way. Would you accept a government that dealt with the most intimate details of your sex life in the same way the it deals with your financial life?
B.R.: YES! Thank you for these thoughts. No, I wouldn't accept that kind of government, but my sex life is private in both practice and awareness, whereas my financial life involves thousands of people and multiple levels of awareness by each participant. But, philosophically, I get what you mean. I can see clearly how you believe the system would need serious uprooting to do any good, and that tinkering with it as is would seem arbitrary and not progressive. I don't believe taxes are either a form of forced labor OR a noble holy act. If many left-of-center (love this term) Americans are like me, they just don't view their money as an extension of themselves, as something that gets personified with each transaction. I view it as a resource that comes and goes based on personal choices and external conditions, and should be made fair in as many ways as possible. Thanks again for your perspective.
Me: How does your finances involve thousands of other people?
B.R.: I buy and sell things. I bank. I invest. The internal details of my finances are private, but even those are known by any staff member at BECU. My point was that whereas my sex life is private in both practice and awareness, my financial life is not so private.
Me: If your sex life involved thousands of people, would that justify the promulgation of its awareness?
B.R.: Are we still talking about taxes? Lol. My sexual interactions are a form of exotic communion. There are not many more effective ways to physically interact with the realm of the spirits. Sex is the one of the most vulnerable offerings one can give to another. Money is money.
Me: It sounded to me like you were justifying the invasion of your finances because of its more public nature. I simply applied that criteria to your sex life. To me, my finances ought to be as private and inviolate as my sex life. If I choose to draw those boundaries like that, they are mine alone to draw. My finances are an extension of myself, since they represent the sweat of my brow. "That which is mine" precludes anyone elses' asserted interests, whether it be sex, money, or my toothbrush.
B.R.: I can see the value in that. But that would mean you don't get to receive anything that your taxes pay for. Are you WILLING to do that, regardless of the illegality of such reclusion?
Me: Remember, I specified the nature of my preference regarding taxation. I did not eliminate all taxation, only taxation that confiscates productivity.
As far as illegality, if the law said that gay sex was criminal, do you think that everyone should obey that law?
B.R.: You do not need J.R.'s permission. Haha I wasn't actually responding directly to your message, I just wanted to swap soapbox moments with ya. Except that my message, which I hope you considered thoroughly, very clearly indicates that I AM quite willing to acquiesce. That said, fixing the tax system would hopefully mean more money for me, so by all means, would you please tell me how you think the tax system needs to be fixed?
Me: It can't be fixed. Too far gone.
B.R.: Bullshit.
Me: Whatever.
B.R.: Look, though I have liberal views on many things, I'm a centrist, because I like to see progress being made. The notion that NOTHING can be done to make our tax code work more efficiently or more fairly make ZERO sense to me. That said, I don't know much of anything about our tax code, so while you can simply rag on it if you wish, I'm giving you the opportunity to fill this currently empty chamber of my head with your perspective. What realistic and pragmatic changes would make our tax system better?
Me: The idea that "fixing" the tax system means yet another layer of exemptions, credits, surcharges, and social engineering efforts is offensive to me.
The purpose of taxes is to raise the revenue needed to operate government. However, the tax code is being used to change societal outcomes. The tax code encourages marriage, home ownership, charity, and a lot of other "good" things that are outside the purpose of taxation. But it also encourages tax avoidance, outsourcing, and financial manipulation.
It's so complex, to the point of nonsensical, that it forces the people to live their lives continually cognisant of how their actions might impact their taxes. It forces the people to serve government. I happen to believe that government should barely register on the daily radar of peoples' lives.
In my rainbows and pink unicorn world, the ideal scenario is a repeal of the 16th amendment, the elimination of property taxes, and the implementation of a constitutionally limited flat retail sales tax. The reasons? 1) an income tax is a tax on productivity, which takes a part of a person's labor. Philisophically speaking, you are working for the benefit of government and not yourself, which is a violation of property rights. 2) Taxes on property, that is, fixed, unproductive, and unmoving assets means that inactive objects, things that have nothing to do with economic activity, are being taxed. 3) a retail sales tax is a tax on economic activity, which means things are happening, products are moving, and money is changing hands. That makes those taxes voluntary on some level. And it is progressive, in that rich people buy more expensive things, so they get taxed more.
I realize that for many left-of-center people, paying taxes is a noble, almost holy act. But for a lot of other people, it is invasive. Put it this way. Would you accept a government that dealt with the most intimate details of your sex life in the same way the it deals with your financial life?
B.R.: YES! Thank you for these thoughts. No, I wouldn't accept that kind of government, but my sex life is private in both practice and awareness, whereas my financial life involves thousands of people and multiple levels of awareness by each participant. But, philosophically, I get what you mean. I can see clearly how you believe the system would need serious uprooting to do any good, and that tinkering with it as is would seem arbitrary and not progressive. I don't believe taxes are either a form of forced labor OR a noble holy act. If many left-of-center (love this term) Americans are like me, they just don't view their money as an extension of themselves, as something that gets personified with each transaction. I view it as a resource that comes and goes based on personal choices and external conditions, and should be made fair in as many ways as possible. Thanks again for your perspective.
Me: How does your finances involve thousands of other people?
B.R.: I buy and sell things. I bank. I invest. The internal details of my finances are private, but even those are known by any staff member at BECU. My point was that whereas my sex life is private in both practice and awareness, my financial life is not so private.
Me: If your sex life involved thousands of people, would that justify the promulgation of its awareness?
B.R.: Are we still talking about taxes? Lol. My sexual interactions are a form of exotic communion. There are not many more effective ways to physically interact with the realm of the spirits. Sex is the one of the most vulnerable offerings one can give to another. Money is money.
Me: It sounded to me like you were justifying the invasion of your finances because of its more public nature. I simply applied that criteria to your sex life. To me, my finances ought to be as private and inviolate as my sex life. If I choose to draw those boundaries like that, they are mine alone to draw. My finances are an extension of myself, since they represent the sweat of my brow. "That which is mine" precludes anyone elses' asserted interests, whether it be sex, money, or my toothbrush.
B.R.: I can see the value in that. But that would mean you don't get to receive anything that your taxes pay for. Are you WILLING to do that, regardless of the illegality of such reclusion?
Me: Remember, I specified the nature of my preference regarding taxation. I did not eliminate all taxation, only taxation that confiscates productivity.
As far as illegality, if the law said that gay sex was criminal, do you think that everyone should obey that law?
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Safety summit Bozeman community addresses traffic safety concerns - By Jodi Hausen - My Commentary
My comments in bold.
--------------
Bozeman City Hall was abuzz Wednesday night with more than two dozen people brainstorming ways to keep drivers, cyclists and pedestrians safe when traveling through the city.
A newly created Transportation Safety Advisory Committee has been meeting since December and identified three key issues it hopes to address, including increasing seatbelt and proper restraint use, reducing inattentive driving and bolstering bicycling and pedestrian safety. (I guarantee every solution will involve more government.)
The goal: reduce fatalities and injuries by 25 percent within the next five years. Representatives from the Montana Department of Transportation, city roads, police and engineering departments, the Montana Highway Patrol and bicycle- and pedestrian-safety advocates first heard about crash statistics.
A yearly average of 213 transportation-related crashes resulted in injury in Bozeman between 2009 and 2011.
There have been one or two fatalities on Bozeman streets in the three-year period and between five and seven resulting in incapacitating injuries. (Wait a minute. They just got through stating their goal of reducing "...fatalities and injuries by 25 percent within the next five years." How do they plan to reduce do so when there have been hardly any in the last 3 years?)
--------------
Bozeman City Hall was abuzz Wednesday night with more than two dozen people brainstorming ways to keep drivers, cyclists and pedestrians safe when traveling through the city.
A newly created Transportation Safety Advisory Committee has been meeting since December and identified three key issues it hopes to address, including increasing seatbelt and proper restraint use, reducing inattentive driving and bolstering bicycling and pedestrian safety. (I guarantee every solution will involve more government.)
The goal: reduce fatalities and injuries by 25 percent within the next five years. Representatives from the Montana Department of Transportation, city roads, police and engineering departments, the Montana Highway Patrol and bicycle- and pedestrian-safety advocates first heard about crash statistics.
A yearly average of 213 transportation-related crashes resulted in injury in Bozeman between 2009 and 2011.
There have been one or two fatalities on Bozeman streets in the three-year period and between five and seven resulting in incapacitating injuries. (Wait a minute. They just got through stating their goal of reducing "...fatalities and injuries by 25 percent within the next five years." How do they plan to reduce do so when there have been hardly any in the last 3 years?)
The number of reported crashes resulting in non-severe injuries went from 192 in 2009 to 219 in 2011. (Oh, I get it. ANY injuries sustained are so serious as to justify government initiatives to reduce them. So a little cut on your finger matters to government just as much as a fatality, and because the criteria is broad, any sort of government intervention is therefore justified.)
Facilitator Audrey Wennink is an analyst with Cambridge Systematics. Her group is working with the city to analyze safety data and help develop a safety plan. (Headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Do you suppose the reporter could have included this little tidbit, that the City is outsourcing its contracts to businesses in other states? And this company fits right in with leftist goals of central planning and control of the people. That's what they do for a living.)
“Bozeman is a great community; the quality of life here is great,” she told the group. “But being able to get from point A to point B without dying is key to that quality of life.” (Um, yeah. 2 deaths in three years. We've certainly got a problem, and we need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to a consulting firm to tell us how to fix it.)
Facilitator Audrey Wennink is an analyst with Cambridge Systematics. Her group is working with the city to analyze safety data and help develop a safety plan. (Headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Do you suppose the reporter could have included this little tidbit, that the City is outsourcing its contracts to businesses in other states? And this company fits right in with leftist goals of central planning and control of the people. That's what they do for a living.)
“Bozeman is a great community; the quality of life here is great,” she told the group. “But being able to get from point A to point B without dying is key to that quality of life.” (Um, yeah. 2 deaths in three years. We've certainly got a problem, and we need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to a consulting firm to tell us how to fix it.)
Before breaking people into groups to discuss the three key topics, Bozeman Mayor Sean Becker encouraged people to be creative. (This sounds like classic Delphi Method. The objective of this technique is to drive decision-making to predetermined outcomes while making it seem like the decisions were the result of consensus.)
“Allow the policymakers and engineers to figure out why it won’t work later,” he joked. “Think outside the budgetary constraints that the rest of us have to work in.” (What? The budget be damned, full speed ahead, I guess.)
Inattentive drivers, (I thought the cell phone ban solved this problem! Are they suggesting that new laws need to be passed outlawing even more behind-the-wheel activities? Apparently the first ban didn't work, so we need more laws that won't work in order to prove that we care about the problem.)
Inattentive drivers, (I thought the cell phone ban solved this problem! Are they suggesting that new laws need to be passed outlawing even more behind-the-wheel activities? Apparently the first ban didn't work, so we need more laws that won't work in order to prove that we care about the problem.)
uncontrolled intersections, (A misnomer. Uncontrolled intersections are controlled by law as to who has the right of way.)
bicycle and seatbelt laws (We have seatbelt laws. Are they saying that they're not working? How can that be? There's a LAW!)
were just a few of the items discussed in separate groups that came together at the end of the evening to share their ideas.
Participants chose the group to join and bicycle/pedestrian issues attracted the most attention from people who engaged in lively discourse. (Now this is good reporting. Usually what we have is a portrayal of certain people [inevitably conservatives] "disrupting" the meeting, angrily yelling, and not being civil. A "lively discourse" seems much more in keeping with a proper representation of divergent opinion.)
Members of the non-motorized group talked about speed limits, bicycle paths and lanes, sidewalks and crosswalks.
There are not enough crosswalks along College Street between Eighth and 11th avenues where many Montana State University students are regularly crossing, Gary Vodehnal said.
“It’s incredible to me that we let all these people cross anywhere without crosswalks,” he said.
People discussing distracted driving said uncontrolled intersections, and cell-phone users are just a couple of problems they regularly encounter. (I think we should ban cell phones while driving. Oh, wait...)
Participants chose the group to join and bicycle/pedestrian issues attracted the most attention from people who engaged in lively discourse. (Now this is good reporting. Usually what we have is a portrayal of certain people [inevitably conservatives] "disrupting" the meeting, angrily yelling, and not being civil. A "lively discourse" seems much more in keeping with a proper representation of divergent opinion.)
Members of the non-motorized group talked about speed limits, bicycle paths and lanes, sidewalks and crosswalks.
There are not enough crosswalks along College Street between Eighth and 11th avenues where many Montana State University students are regularly crossing, Gary Vodehnal said.
“It’s incredible to me that we let all these people cross anywhere without crosswalks,” he said.
People discussing distracted driving said uncontrolled intersections, and cell-phone users are just a couple of problems they regularly encounter. (I think we should ban cell phones while driving. Oh, wait...)
“But it isn’t just cellphones,” said Steve Kurk, of the road department. “You got people putting on makeup and eating a muffin.”
Bozeman police officer Rick Musson responded with a story. An off-duty officer watched as a schoolboy waited to cross a road and saw several cars pass right by him without stopping. Finally, a college-aged man talking on a cell phone stopped and waved the child across. Clearly cell phones aren’t the only issue.
All the groups determined increased enforcement, education and communication will be critical to attaining safety goals. More signs, public service announcements, pamphlets, posters and bumper stickers will help. (Ummmm. Propaganda? Yes, people need to be indoctrinated regarding state-approved behaviors.)
Identifying and reaching target groups will also be important.
“There are already a lot of things going on in Bozeman to increase seatbelt use,” MDOT’s Carol Strizich said. “Yet we’re still seeing a problem.” (In other words, despite a heavy presence in media advertising, enforcement, and seemingly endless gruesome pictures of unbelted victims, there are STILL people who don't toe the line? Outrageous! Apparently we need to redouble our efforts!)
For more information or to get involved with the committee, contact Bozeman city engineer Rick Hixson at 582-2280 or atrhixson@bozeman.net
Bozeman police officer Rick Musson responded with a story. An off-duty officer watched as a schoolboy waited to cross a road and saw several cars pass right by him without stopping. Finally, a college-aged man talking on a cell phone stopped and waved the child across. Clearly cell phones aren’t the only issue.
All the groups determined increased enforcement, education and communication will be critical to attaining safety goals. More signs, public service announcements, pamphlets, posters and bumper stickers will help. (Ummmm. Propaganda? Yes, people need to be indoctrinated regarding state-approved behaviors.)
Identifying and reaching target groups will also be important.
“There are already a lot of things going on in Bozeman to increase seatbelt use,” MDOT’s Carol Strizich said. “Yet we’re still seeing a problem.” (In other words, despite a heavy presence in media advertising, enforcement, and seemingly endless gruesome pictures of unbelted victims, there are STILL people who don't toe the line? Outrageous! Apparently we need to redouble our efforts!)
For more information or to get involved with the committee, contact Bozeman city engineer Rick Hixson at 582-2280 or atrhixson@bozeman.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)