Category Archives: Taxation

Michael Chapman- President Obama and the UN Agenda to Control American Education

This entry is part 7 of 28 in the series Freedom 21 Conference

f21-banner-4Michael Chapman spoke on the link between National Education Standards, National Curriculum, National Assessments and Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. He says the philosophy of education in one generation becomes the philosophy of government of the next. Children are being trained to become the bureaucrats and politicians who will be in control of the society that has outlawed economic freedom and private property.

The US re-joined UNESCO in 2003 under George W. Bush. “No Child Left Behind was simply the continuation of a program begun under Johnson’s Great Society and it simply required that states honor other educational contracts they had committed to in the past. Obama’s education plan acknowledges that education is a weapon that can be used to change the attitudes in a  society.

Chapman explains what Sustainable Development claims to be. While its goals appear on the surface to be noble, it is real aim is complete control over economies, redistribution of wealth, control of population, etc. Chapman demonstrated that like bad pennies, the same nams keep turning up in administration after administration despite party monikers to keep the agenda marching along. Many N0n-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) under these men are working to influence educational efforts toward national curriculum requirements to make Agenda 21 the dominant paradigm through which students will be indoctrinated to view everything they are presented with.

The purpose of education is being converted from the teaching of facts to the transformation of society. Outcome-based education is simply social engineering designed to make good worker bees in an interdependent society without national identities. National education officials are now setting up competitions for grant money which will be awarded to states who set up and ENFORCE global standards as set by the Dept. of Education based on Sustainable Development. States who refuse to compete or cannot meet enforcement goals will receive no federal grant monies.

Current efforts are to move the educational push for globalism from the national and international level to the local level. Students are being encouraged to unplug from the “Americentric” view and go over to a “global” view. For instance, students are encouraged to ignore evidence from sources other than UN approved outlets on the subject of global warming when those UN outlets receive monies precisely for giving the UN the excuse for assuming control over energy production and use.

The US is also attempting to control the “heart attitudes” of students. In other words, they want to control their thoughts and guide them to the group-think necessary for a completely controlled society. Students are no l0nger tested to find out what they know they are assessed to determine if they can make proper judgments. In recent assessments a large majority of 9th grade students were shown to believe that it was the governments responsibility to set prices and redistribute wealth to the “poor.” This was considered to have been a successful curriculum. The Earth Summit statement atates openly that the purpose of education is to influence people’s “proper” attitudes not the teaching of facts. It has been stated that more education is dangerous because people with higher education tend to control and consume more of the earth’s resources, thus demonstrating that the real purpose is to “dumb down” education.

Under Agenda 21 schools are to be turned from education centers to job-training centers. People are being referred to as “economic capital” by educators who are being steered away from producing individual thinkers and toward producing worker drones. Public-private partnerships (economic fascism) are being exploited to implement this because employers now no longer need to spend the money necessary to train employees. Taxpayers now pay what employers used to. This is the purpose of the Workforce Investment Act.

The Obama plan is based on the idea that “environmentally related” job growth will greatly outpace private sector job growth and that is based completely on his dedication to “Cap and Trade” and other elements of Sustainable Development and Agenda 21. In other words, he intends to ram through his version of Agenda 21 and a totally planned economy ala Marxism one way or another. The effort is designed to destroy American belief in “inalienable rights” in favor of temporary rights provided by government.

This was a very compact and fast moving presentation. It was also one of the most important of the conference. I would recomment going to Freedom 21 and taking the “live feed” of this presentation (in fact, I recommend it for the whole conference). I simply cannot do this presentation justice in a “live blog” format. It is jam packed with information that, frankly, everyone who is concerned about what their child is learning at government schools should know.

Fiat Money and the Sustainable Action Plan

This entry is part 4 of 28 in the series Freedom 21 Conference

f21-banner-4

Freedom21 speaker Michael Shaw of Freedom Advocates spoke to the nearly 300 people in attendance on Thursday afternoon on why the current American monetary system of fractional reserve banking (often called fiat money) is being managed to drive America away from our national sovereignty and into a global form of governance.

The attack is from a plan by international groups coordinated by the United Nations known as Agenda 21. This document is driving an agenda to take away private property rights, remove individual, unalienable rights from people for “global (human) rights”, and ultimately, in the name of the environment, reduce the “burden” of human population on the planet’s ecosystem. Using the UN’s own documentation, Shaw points out that all rights would be subject to the will of the United Nations. Goodbye unalienable rights (life, liberty, property).

Shaw also discussed that the concept of “sustainable development” is the rallying focus for this radical shift in our country’s way of life.

Three areas in which this transformation is centered include land control by government (illustrated by a document graphic of the “Wildlands” UN initiative, which would put over 50% of the land area of the United States off limits to human development or habitation), the transformation of the educational system to created “global citizens”, and what Shaw referred to as the Three E’s: Equity (the idea of social justice as replacing the rule of law, and American justice system being subjugated by international law); Economy (the destruction of free enterprise and the implementation of government-private “partnerships” replacing private ownership of business and industry); and Environment (sustainable development plan, which drives all of the rest of the transformational efforts).

The American monetary system, with its inherent instability generated by the use of fractional reserve banking, has provided an artificial prop to explode the economy, and a current turnaround in the economy is allowing for a concentration of power by a totalitarian-leaning political elite. Shaw warns against trying to quickly abandon this system in favor of an honest-money (100% reserve) system, due to the significant upheaval that can occur. He also cautions against totally embracing a gold-based system, asking the question “who controls or has a quorum on the current gold reserves?”, which is a legitimate concern, and may be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, allowing large governmental players to continue to exercise control over the economy.

Shaw discussed some ideas on how to transistion the current system to an honest-money system without totally destabilizing the dollar in the process. Freedom Advocates provides materials to help people understand the issue.

The last part of his presentation involved exposing the agenda of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). This is the organization to push Agenda 21 initiatives to the local governmental level to complete the control mechanism over property rights.

There is more to understand than we have space to discuss here, but a visit to Freedom Advocates, or ordering the video of this conference from Freedom21 is a good place to expand your informational horizon on this issues.

Keynote Address Freedom 21- G. Edward Griffin

This entry is part 3 of 28 in the series Freedom 21 Conference

f21-banner-4G. Edward Griffin has spent years researching the super-secret private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve System (FED). In his opening address on the subject of “The Creature From Jekyll Island,” Griffin reviewed the history of the creation and the purpose for the creation of the FED. Griffin makes it clear that while the meeting on Jekyll island South Carolina in 1912 was ultra-secret, the details are available to those willing to dig deep enough to find them.

He tied the creation of the FED to the emerging view of competing large corporations that the way to accomplish common goals of the industry was the formation of cartels. The FED is no different from other large business cartel except that it involves the banking industry and not just local banks but national and international banks.

So why would the privately owned and competitive banks want to partner with government? Griffin explained that the purpose is to keep the cartel from acting as an “enforcer” keeping rogue members of the cartel from breaking away from the group. He gave an example of how the dairy cartels got government to pass laws regarding minimum pricing which would require the jailing of dairies not complying with minimum pricing regulations.

What do each of the parties, government and banks, get from the agreement? Politicians get easy access to the  money they need to spend on new government programs through the sale of bonds and increased national debt from banking cartels while the cartel gets the power to create “money” ex nihilo- from NOTHING! The cartel can do this because the government puts its tax revenue deposits into cartel banks thus allowing the creation of the money from nothing on the basis of “fractional reserve” banking. This obviously a perfect partnership, from political and banking perspective. It is a nightmare for the public who watches the value of its money lost through inflation as a form of taxation.

Griffin explained that this is the reason for the gigantic bank bailouts of this and last years. Politicians simply cannot let the system collapse which would actually be in the best interest of the public in general because it would require a complete re-start of the system and the exposure of the participants. Whether or not the economy lapses into inflation or deflation is irrelevent, according to Griffin, because slaves really don’t care what type of methods are used to keep them in economic bondage, they simply want out of the situation but have no control any longer over it. Griffin explained that as long as we continue to accept the existence of government subsidies and handouts the deeper into that bondage we will sink. Only whe the American public demands an end to government intrusion into their lives including demanding econonomic freedom and independence.

As a postscript Griffin said that it was imperative that we end the FED!

The Growing American Tyranny and how to stop it

This entry is part 2 of 28 in the series Freedom 21 Conference

f21-banner-4This is the theme of the Freedom21 conference. Conference host Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center and Amanda Teegarden of Operation Information opened the event with a welcome and a short discussion of why, in our era of nationalized industry, environmental radicalism, and the ever-growing loss of Constitutional freedoms, it is more important than ever to understand and learn how to “connect-the-dots” between all of the seemingly unconnected efforts of the progressive left.

Whether it be education, environmentalism, our financial security, invasive governmental programs, or property rights, each issue has roots in a larger program to eradicate American sovereignty and our way of life. The speakers at this conference each have decades of experience in their subject areas, and thankfully, some wins under their belts against the creeping totalitarian zeitgeist.

Our vice-chairman and I will be bringing you speaker by speaker summaries of their information for your education and action.

Live from Freedom 21 National Conference

This entry is part 1 of 28 in the series Freedom 21 Conference

f21-banner-4The Institute for Principled Policy is pleased to be a co-sponsor of the 10th annual Freedom 21 national conference, being held this year in Oklahoma City, OK. We have a front row (exhibitor) seat to all of the conference, and will be blogging on all of the very important information that will be shared during the next three days.

I want to give you a flavor of what to expect as we report this event. This is from the Freedom 21 agenda: “The people who attend this conference share a common desire to advance the principles of freedom–to all people–for all time. We work through our various organizations, through coalitions, and through cooperative campaigns, such as Freedom21, to better coordinate our efforts to prevail over those people who continue to promote, and advance policies that empower government to ignore the principles of freedom, in pursuit of an unachievable social and environmental utopia.

Freedom cannot be sustained in the presence of “sustainable development.” The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Sustainable development can exist only when people are controlled by government; freedom can exist only when government is controlled by the people.

We hope this conference will provide the knowledge, information, and inspiration for each of us to be more effective in our efforts to advance the principles of freedom—in all that we do.”

The conference is for folks to connect the dots and figure out just what is wrong in our country, and what to do to make it right again. Stay tuned…it’s going to be a rollercoaster ride!

Obamacare: An Analysis

DrNoIntroduction

I’m fifty-six and most of my life I have been unconcerned with medical issues because of good health.  I was a jock, was never seriously injured and took my health for granted.  During the summer of 2007 I began to get weary and put on weight, so I eventually went to the hospital.  l was immediately admitted and diagnosed with genetically-caused liver failure.  In September 2007 I was admitted to the Cleveland Clinic and in November I had a liver transplant.   Over the five months in the Clinic, I incurred four major infections including E-coli, MRSA Staff, C-diff, and Pseudomonas along with Pneumonia.  I was on dialysis, had a heart attack, had a major internal bleed, suffered blood clots including one which has left me permanently blind in my right eye and was reduced to 120 pounds.

Our first hospital bill was for nearly half a million dollars and total costs for my care and expenses came closer to a million than half a million dollars. Needless to say, I am now extremely interested in health care issues and medical costs. I have excellent medical insurance through my job but had not paid close attention to the details of the coverage for years, though I knew I had pretty good coverage.  Fortunately nearly all of my bills were covered by this insurance and payment of the nearly ten thousand in expenses not covered by my insurance was generously assisted by friends in Ashland, the Ashland University community, and my Providence Church family.

This personal medical crisis motivated me to read the entire House of Representatives thousand plus page health care bill proposal.  I’d heard and read numerous analyses, both pro and con, by medical professionals, journalists, and Congressmen, but I needed to see for myself.  The following are some of my impressions of the bill.

The Proposed Health Care Bill

This bill is lengthy and boring with technical language making it extremely difficult to follow especially if one is not versed in the legal nuances of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  I’m a professional philosopher with the skill to decipher challenging reading, but this bill makes Aristotle and Kant look like a piece of cake.  It will take bureaucrats years to explain and apply the intricacies of this bill and I doubt if more than a few Congressmen could even follow the train of thought.

The bill causes one to realize that we already have a large government controlled health care program called Medicare.  The majority of this new bill is amendments to Medicare leading to a major expansion and overhaul of its system.

One of the legitimate roles of government is to protect its citizens.  All I want from government is for it to protect me from those who might rip me off.   This bill has elements which fulfill that function.  It protects whistleblowers who report abuses of the system.  It attempts to bring justice by reducing disparities in already established government health care including racial, ethnic, and geographic disparities.  It provides translators to communicate about health services for those citizens (and for noncitizens) with poor English.  It reduces paper-tracking by creating standardized electronic administrative transactions.

The bill is concerned about improper relationships between physicians and distributors of covered drugs.  To reduce fraud there is close monitoring of physician owned hospitals.  This overhaul includes revising rebates for prescription drugs.  It increases inspection reports on nursing homes and more safeguards on hospice programs.  It sets up a consumer website and an improved complaint process that should improve quality control.  It enforces repayments of Medicare overpayments.  Many of these seem to be protections for the patient and society which are good.  Yet it fails to address the central issues about these programs; they are under federal management and are running out of money.  Remarkably the new bill only adds to their problems by allocating more centralized authority and more money to broke programs.

Therefore, one should be skeptical whether a government run system (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) that is going broke should be the model and foundation for a new expanded societal-wide program.  Their economic failure should warn us about the dangers of combining government and health care.

Ten Important Observations

Below are ten major observations I have:

  1. The striking realization that most comes to mind when reading this bill is the massive allocations of funds to all of the new bureaucratic layers and innovations this bill sets up.  This bill allocates billions of dollars, but there is little said about gathering funding for all these projects.  The only mention of funding is the new 1% tax on those making 350,000-500,000, 1.5% for 500,000 to 1 million, and above 1 million is 5.4%.  This whole process seems forced down our throats without any thorough-going cost analysis or plan.

  2. I appreciated and loved my doctors at the Cleveland Clinic and most of them were international.  My lead transplant surgeons were Italian and Irish assisted by fellows who were Malaysian and Japanese.  My hepatologist is Lebanese and nephrologist is Indian.  They are all world class, brilliant, and great communicators.  Why are they all practicing in the United States?  I am sure there are numerous reasons such as great hospitals, fantastic training and research facilities, a wide-range of opportunities including freedom to practice their specialties in the best health care system in the world and make excellent salaries.  I am afraid that if we cap salaries, establish fee limits as in Social Security and Medicare, and alter the system then these fantastic doctors will no longer want to practice medicine in the U.S.  They will have better options in other locations and our health care will suffer.

  3. It allows the private insurance companies to continue in business but they must comply to the regulations and standards set upon them by the government as they must submit to health coverage participation requirements.  This will restrict freedom and the free market.  The next three points expose some of the new regulatory structure.

  4. The role of Secretary of Health and Human Services will be greatly increased, becoming one of the most powerful domestic cabinet positions.  This position will have unbridled power to establish medical and health policy.  Some of the responsibilities of this office will be to control billions of dollars of allocations, provide lists of public health options, exclude certain providers from participation, exercise regulatory power as necessary, determine criteria for quality of care, oversee nursing home care, identify services which are misvalued using specific criteria they create, oversee state loans for medical education and establish a Public Health Workforce Corps along with a means of distributing these people through the country.

  5. Page 41 says, “There is hereby established a Health Choices Commissioner…who shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate” (though it does not say confirmation).   Some of the responsibilities of this Commissioner will be data collection, audits, establish uniform standards for insurance, and oversee exchange of programs.   The Commissioner will appoint an ombudsman to deal with complaints and grievances.  This Commissioner may terminate contracts and determine affordability credit eligibility.  The Commissioner will determine whether the person is Medicaid eligible, determine the income based tiered limits of funding, shall specify the cost sharing reduction in cost sharing reduction amounts, be able to determine the cost effectiveness of various health procedures, and adjust the cost of living to reflect geographic differences.  The Commissioner shall establish uniform marketing standards all ensured Quality Health Benefit Plans shall meet and establish the process for review of denied claims.  In summary this person will have the authority to reframe the private and public options.

  6. A Health Care Benefits Advisory Committee will be established and chaired by the Surgeon General.  It will recommend covered benefits for each essential, enhanced, and premium plan.  It is composed of nine who are not federal employees and appointed by the President and nine who are not federal employees who are appointed by the Comptroller General .  They will recommend initial benefits standards, including covered treatments and levels of cost sharing and give recommendations to the Secretary.

  7. Pages 769-770 speak about family planning and who qualifies.  Nothing is mentioned directly about abortion.  Since the Hyde Amendment passed in 1976 federally funded abortions have been excluded in America, however, this new bill will trump the Hyde Amendment and if the Secretary of Health and Human Services includes abortion as part of covered health care then funded abortions will again return.  If this remains in a passed bill, true pro-life supporters may need to consider civil disobedience and withhold their taxes.

  8. Advanced care planning is advocated which will include Living Wills, end of life services being explained by a practitioner, and counseling a person whether to permit life sustaining treatment, including use of antibiotics, hydration, and nutrition.  Every five years a counselor will reevaluate a person’s choices.  End of life care options will be included in the “Medicare and You” booklet Handbook.  This opens the door for counseling in the direction of euthanasia and  pressure on the elderly and infirm to equate value of life with quality of life.

  9. There is no doubt with this new massive intrastructure and funding for a public health option it will crowd out choice and the private options.  This will remove the power to make decisions about health care out of our hands.  With that development health care will certainly be rationed.  Of course health care is already rationed through Medicare which consumer reporter John Stossel calls a “Ponzi Scheme.”  Paternalism will replace liberty.  Does it make sense to allow government control through this Commissioner when we have given government oversight to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and all these programs are either broke or going broke?  Is there any rational basis to trust government with this responsibility?

  10. The first nine points are significant but the most fundamental unearthing is the quantity of power placed not only in the hands of government but specifically in the hands of the executive branch of government.  The President is given authority to appoint a Commissioner of Health care.  In conjunction with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, this person is given oversight, with a board, over the whole health area.  In other words, they have governance over 1/6th of the American economy under the directive of the President where there is no congressional oversight but only accountable to the President.  Not only is there a socialization of healthcare, but this places another large percentage of the economy directly in the executive branch of government.

Further Questions

There are sections of this bill which leave me with more questions than answers. What do they mean by a heath care excise tax on those employers who refuse to offer benefits?  Why is there a separate section specifically on California?  What are the implications of creating a National Health Care Work Force or National Health Service Corps?  Is this Corps only for those who have obligated service as the repayment for a government loan for medical education?  What will the effects of the bill be on MEDICARE ADVANTAGE?  How will they actually compute quality of performance?  What is a Telehealth Advisory Committee?  What really will Medicare and Medicaid look like after all of this restructuring?

Near the end of the bill there is an Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment, how will this affect businesses and what power will they have other than the allocation of funds?  What is meant on p. 859 when it speaks of 600 million for medical prevention and wellness and how is this included in the Cap and Trade bill (p. 815)?   What will be the government philosophy in the school based health clinics?  Though I am sympathetic  to incentives for those who work as health care providers in underserved areas is this a legitimate role for government to give these incentives?  On p. 407 there are grants to those providers of services who are community organizers, would this be for ACORN and like organizations? Please spell out more clearly what is meant on p. 589 where civil monetary limitations are determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  What is the Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund and its ability to disperse 90 million dollars and increasing each successive year ?

Conclusion

I watched the Obama press conference on the health bill.   It was one of the most boring hours of television I’ve ever watched.  The president’s answers were obfuscated.  I kept asking myself, “what does this do for me and my family?” but he never answered this question.  I learned nothing, except the President has not read the bill.  He was often incoherent, answering a single question with five minutes of blather.  I don’t think he understands the basics.  All he cares about is the transfer of power from the people to the government.  Even Palin’s resignation speech looked like a coherent speech in comparison.  Now I know why.  He doesn’t understand the bill…all he understands is the desire for government control and oversight.

During the ’08 campaign I heard Obama referred to as a socialist by a McCain supporter.  McCain was supporting socialist ideas as well, especially in his support of Bush’s bailouts of the banking industry.  The more accurate term that came to my mind while reading this document was Totalitarianism.  Totalitarianism is “a society in which the ideology of the state has influence, if not power, over most of its citizens.”    This is exactly what we see happening.   According to Karl Loewenstein, a totalitarian regime “attempts to mold the private life, soul, and morals of citizens into a dominant ideology.  The… ideology penetrates into every nook and cranny of society” (Wikipedia).   Totalitarian states tend to condemn and silence outsiders; they attempt to establish control over their subjects and are often lead by a charismatic leader.  Those who passively submit to Totalitarianism seem to be willing to sacrifice freedom for security.

During the campaign for the presidency, candidate Obama adamantly stated that the Bush administration was guilty of centralizing power in the executive branch of the government.  This was an accurate and astute observation and evaluation.  He went on to add that one of the changes he would make would be to alter this development.  The hypocrisy is that as president, Obama has rapidly and intensively increased this trend through the bailout of banks, through the stimulation package, the takeover of the auto industry, the cap and trade bill, and the appointment of czars unaccountable to Congress.   These will be dwarfed by the passage of this proposed Health Care Bill.   One sixth of the economy will come directly under the auspices of the Executive Branch of Government, the Presidency.  Will you sit back and idly watch as freedom is sacrificed for the appearance of security?

Dr. Mark Hamilton, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Ashland University, Board Chairman of the Institute for Principled Policy

Black Eye On Westerville- The Aftemath

This entry is part 3 of 3 in the series Black Eye On Westerville

Our dollars under assault from greedy governments

…He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people…imposing taxes on us without our consent…

Declaration of Independence- 1776

NEWSFLASH to all governing bodies! There is a finite limit of income that is available to be taxed. Theoretically it is 100% of income. Practically, it is a significantly lower percentage of income.

We only feel the need to point this fact out because it is clear that a new tidal-wave of taxation is currently being generated at all levels of government. The excuses are myriad. The effects will be devastating, as are all tax increases especially during economic downturns.

So why all the talk of tax increases when Westerville residents just voted themselves, a majority of them anyway, a 15% tax-cut? Well, not so fast. It is probably just a temporary reprieve if events in Columbus are any indicator.

During the recent Westerville Income tax increase campaign we asked the question repeatedly- What’s the next bite of the apple? When it became legal for cities to charge residents an income tax it was sold to residents initially as a very small bite of the apple which would eliminate the need for the hated (and unbiblical) city portion of the property tax and piggy-back sales taxes. Most municipalities went for a 0.25-0.5% income tax, promising that this would be more than enough to run the city in perpetuity. The cities would never have to ask for more to run at current levels of government. And that’s the rub. Governments used new revenues to grow far larger and more intrusive than any of those early residents who foolishly voted in income taxes could possibly have imagined.

Not so city planners, professional city managers and other government “experts” who have college degrees in such “progressive” fields as Urban Planning, Regional Governance, Public Affairs, etc. The dream of 19th century “progressive visionaries” is now the nightmare of 21st century urban and suburban tax-slaves. It has been only since the mid-20th century that progressives in small to medium-sized cities created and seized de facto control of zoning and planning commissions, which were originally promoted as bodies designed to protect the freedom of use and value of private property. In fact, they have become agents of modern-day government feudal lords, dictating such matters of grave importance as street curb-cuts (vital to the survival of businesses on a street; if you’re in doubt please examine the state of business in the Morse Rd and Rt. 161 “business” corridors in Columbus which have a system of virtually inaccessible “access” roads, another sign of city tyranny; these areas are also dying or virtually dead zones) grass length, the color of house paint used, the storage of boats and other extra vehicles, the type and placement of fences and even the replacement of hot-water heaters. This kind of intrusion costs money and bureaucracies must come up with new revenues to pay armies of bureaucratic “inspectors.” Hence the wave in the late ’70’s and early ’80’s of income-tax increases to the 1% level. Again, that was all that the cities would ever need.

As city governments continued to grow in size, cost and intrusiveness yet more revenue became necessary. And as the resistance to tax increases grows the tactics of city leadership becomes more sophisticated and demonstrative of their desire to thwart the will of a majority of taxpayers (as opposed to the majority of voters, an extremely important distinction). As this article in the Columbus Dispatch demonstrates, cities like Columbus and Westerville use a combination of “special” election dates, usually in August to minimize voter turnout, and targeting voters who are most likely to vote for tax increases and vote in every election no matter when (the dreadful PROS 2000 campaign in Westerville used an August “special election” date with the same targeted voter strategy). Selected quotes from the article-

On the night of the election, Coleman called it the most sophisticated campaign in which he had been involved…

Brad Sinnott, central committee chairman for the Franklin County Republican Party, said timing trumped strategy for tax-backers.

“There’s no doubt part of their strategy was to get this through in a low-turnout, midsummer election.”

Of course, the city denies that election timing is a legitimate complaint-

But city officials insist that they scheduled an August election not for political advantage but because they need the money now.

Of course, that argument crumbles under the weight of the revelation that voter turnout was not encouraged but that…

The campaign’s target audience was the small pool of voters who never miss an election, no matter what time of year it takes place.

Was the strategy successful? Clearly it was, since a grand total of 8.4% of the registered voters (52% of the 16.2% of registered voters, again, NOT taxpayers, who voted) in Columbus were able to impose a 25% tax increase on the residents of Columbus who pay taxes and, worse, non-resident taxpayers who are completely disenfranchised in municipal elections despite paying most of the taxes. And Columbus utilized the implied promise of continued expansion of social welfare spending to entice voters who pay little or nothing in taxes but receive the benefits to vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

As we have pointed out repeatedly here on this blog, cities long ago slipped into the same form of tyranny that American colonists so courageously resisted in the 1760’s through the 1780’s; over-regulation of the backbone of any economy, the small local business (a rapidly disappearing entity in Columbus), and taxation without representation. As noted in the quotations from the Declaration of Independence, taxes are being imposed without the consent of a significant percentage of the taxed. In fact, 42% of non-resident taxpayers (!) pay 53% (!) of Columbus income taxes (reference here) though they cannot vote and have no say in city government. Westerville’s numbers are similar.

What does this increase in Columbus mean to communities surrounding it? Since Westerville employed an absurd “Tax Fairness” argument, based on Westerville residents who had to pay Columbus and Westerville taxes, in their recent successful campaign to both increase the city income tax and shift the whole burden to a minority of taxpayers who both live and work in the city of Westerville (absurdity exposed here) it is conceivable that Westerville could come back to the voters to demand, in the name of “fairness,” that a new 25% tax increase MUST be passed by taxpayers (a majority of whom would be exempt from the increase, just like the last initiative). Since the city is busy using its windfall from the recent tax hike to hire zoning and planning “inspectors” and other bureaucrats to harass churches over building occupancy permits and businesses who want to remodel buildings for occupancy, buy every dilapidated or limited-use building that comes on the market thus squeezing even private small rental businesses aka taxpayers out of the market, just like they did, for instance, to the Westerville Athletic Club and taking them off the tax roles therefore cutting revenues, and otherwise throwing good money after bad on schemes that will destroy the business viability of the south side of town by imposing a Rt. 161 style “access” road ghetto upon its temporary occupants, it will probably find that it needs more revenue sooner than later and the “tax fairness” argument may have to be dusted off and modified for another run despite promises to the contrary. Think in terms of Westerville Public Schools who now claim they “need” nearly 8 additional  mills to run the new Taj Mahals they have recently built or between $400 and $600 additional dollars per year from the average Westerville School District homeowner.

What should be done about this mess? Well, the first step is at least being considered. The Columbus Dispatch reports here about a bill that would allegedly restrict the use of “special elections” for the purposes of getting around higher voter turnouts. We think the bill in question is Ohio House bill HB 260 but we don’t know for sure, since the atrociously written story in the Dispatch gives exactly NONE of the important details like the bill number, the sponsors or any serious attempt at analysis in depth.

The second and most important step will require, frankly, a great deal of time, effort and money to get done. The cities and those eager to use the current taxation structure of the cities for the purpose of confiscation and redistribution of wealth through disenfranchised taxation (taxation without representation) will never allow the next step without a major fight. That is, either allowing all TAXPAYERS into a city’s treasury the right to vote in city elections, including tax initiatives, and requiring a number of non-resident representatives in City Councils proportional to non-resident revenue derived or, more simply, outlawing the collection of taxes from those who have no say in city government. No city will be willing to swallow either option (they will immediately hide behind The Ohio Constitution’s “Home Rule” provision) without a fight and no state legislators, being political animals, have stepped up to offer any relief to agrieved taxpayers mostly because they are more frightened of the reactions of cities and corporate campaign donors than they are of the mostly quiescent taxpayers who aren’t currently raising a stink.

A state constitutional amendment initiative will almost undoubtedly be required to fix this. It would be a real down and dirty political slugfest, complete with charges of greed and racism. There would be no major corporate support, since major corporations rely on the tax abatements and other city bribes to buy their support and loyalty. When cities are restricted from collecting taxes from non-residents they will have to cancel the 100’s of millions of dollars in tax abatements that corporations enjoy statewide. Major corporations will put millions into the effort to stop the initiative. The campaign will be dirty and ugly. Corporatate management likes the idea that their employees are forced to pay their property taxes in their stead and without their consent.They hate the idea that employees might figure out that they operate on few if any property taxes while their employees are milked with the help of corporate management who donate to the campaign funds to pass the taxes. Politicians will line up at the corporate trough to collect money that will flow like water in an all out effort to stop the attempt to make them pay their property taxes. Many politicians that conservatives thought were their friends will be exposed as phoneys more interested in re-election than fighting the tough fight to restore truly fair taxation.

Here is a Columbus Dispatch article from late July indicating that 95% of Columbus Issue 1 campaign funds came from corporate donors, among them highly tax abated companies like Nationwide Insurance, Grange Mutual Insurance, Limited Brands, NetJets, Corna-Kokosing Construction, Wolfe Enterprises and, surprise, surprise the Dispatch Printing Company, not to mention several engineering firms, all of whom benefit while their employees suffer. The thousands they donated is a small investment against the millions they don’t pay in taxes. The same holds for smaller cities which line up corporate donations in order to maintain tax abatements.

We don’t tell you this to scare you away from the battle. We are being realistic. It will require real time and effort to get this problem fixed and there will be a lot of hard feelings and possibly jobs lost as employees are fired by major corporations for supporting the effort to make them pay the taxes they have maneuvered cities into waiving. It would have to be a true grass roots effort. Are you mad enough for that, yet?

Report From England- Climate Change And The Sun

flare_sxi2_medThe webmaster is in England. Currently I am staying at the North London Rifle Club facility at Camp Bisley, Surrey, England. It is one of the parapets in the UK yet to be stormed in the world-wide effort to remove the absolute last resort tools that private citizens have for protecting their liberties, i.e. guns, from the hands of private citizens.

But that’s another story. Every day as I take the train to London to see the incredible sights there, I have noticed that the ad campaigns are laying it on thick about “climate change.” Daily there is a story in the newspapers (I have yet to turn on a television) about the hundreds of thousands per year who die as a result of “extreme weather conditions” in third-world countries. The newspaper stories and screaming billboards always cite the same research and scientific data to bolster their claims- none. That’s because there isn’t any.

And after all, why should there be? The global warming/climate change campaign is one based on emotion, not logic. Real science is not only ignored, it is an unwelcome encumberance to the goal of convincing people that they should accept government restriction of their lives and learn to live like those third-worlders- for the good of the planet, mind you.

And so, you get pictures of starving third-world children (who have been with us since the beginning of recorded history and, according to Jesus Christ, we will always have with us) and polar bears on isolated ice floes and and completely refuted claims of their impending extinction and the shrinkage of polar ice caps (the polar ice caps have grown significantly during the last two colder than average winters and the polar bear population is on the rise, not declining).

If you pay any attention to the science pages at all you may get a clue that “climate change” has nothing to do with man’s activity but is completely in the hands of God who is in complete control of the Sun and solar system, not to mention the galaxy and the universe. Just this morning I came across a report issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) showing that the latest sunspot cycle activity is “…in a valley–the deepest of the past century.” Many climate change activists (nearly all non-scientists) claim that climate change studies are “settled science.” Or not. Listen to what one NASA researcher says about this sunspot cycle- “In our professional careers, we’ve never seen anything quite like it. Solar minimum has lasted far beyond the date we predicted in 2007.” Does this sound settled or like they really haven’t got a solid handle on the science yet?

Why all of the talk about sunspot activity in relation to global temperature (which, by the way, has plummeted by nearly 0.7 C during this period of low solar activity)? Because there is a strong co-ordination between sunspot activity and global temperature. Look at the chart below. Pay special attention to the current period. The Sun is simply not as active as it was during the 1930’s and 1990’s when temperatures rose after extended high sunspot activity.

maunderminimum_strip2

Note the period between the first quarter of the 17th century through about the first ten of the 18th century. This period of extremely low, if not completely absent, sunspot activity is called the Maunder Minimum and it corresponds nearly exactly with the “Little Ice Age” which was a period of deep global cooling (climate change). Not man caused, God caused.

There are other charts available showing the co-ordination between very high sunspot activity and the Medieval Climate Optimum (climate change) a period of global warming of the 9th to 14th centuries that coincided with, for instance, the Norse exploration and colonization of Iceland and Greenland, which at the time was actually green.

Want a deeper understanding of these issues? Dr. Michael Coffman of Environmental Perspectives, Inc gave a great talk at Camp American last year on global warming and how it is being used by globalists to restrict or completely eliminate basics of liberty such as private property, true stewardship of the earth (as opposed to the pagan religion of environmentalism), private enterprise, etc. Dr. Coffman connects the dots on ownership of private property, economic prosperity, stewardship of the land, bad climate change science and the attempts to use bad science to re-mold the world’s economy. You can get a copy of Dr. Coffman’s lectures here.

Currently, the US (and the EU) is considering the adoption of so-called “cap and trade” legislation which will do nothing but tax US and European energy users into poverty, stifle technological advances for true stewardship of the land, socialize and therefore destroy the economy and keep third-worlders from developing and using the technology they need to make the land pay and continue to pay in the future through stewardship, fight ignorance, disease and death from poor sanitation, cooking and food storage and pulling themselves out of the socialist morass they are in. “Cap and trade” makes sure this cycle of poverty, suffering and dearh will continue in the third-world by setting a limit on technology and then paying third-world slavemasters to sell their nation’s “carbon credits” to the west in a bid to maintain and eventually degrade western standardsof living.

The scientific numbskullery demonstrated by representatives like Henry Waxman of California during hearings on “cap and trade” has been simply stunning. No one expects them to understand all of the tiny details of the science. They are expected however to grasp the fact that there are opposing views based on scientific analysis of existing data that are actually doing a better job of fitting numbers to models than the science they are taking as gospel.

Contact your representatives and ask them to oppose “cap and trade.”

Tax and Spin- Part 10: Conclusion-Accountability the Key

This entry is part 10 of 11 in the series Understanding Property Tax Levies

taxOhio does combine a “renewal” levy and an ordinary “additional” levy into one single vote, and although renewal-plus-additional-levy issues and ballots are straightforward – unlike replacement levies and ballots – they still deny voters a real choice. In this writer’s opinion, such combination votes ought to be illegal; renewals and additionals should be in separate votes. Thus, the replacement levy should also be illegal.

A partial solution to the replacement levy problem – one that addresses only the ballot language – would be to change the ballot wording to show the true tax increase. That is, it must show at least the proposed millage and the effective millage of the levy to be replaced and in no way indicate a tax decrease, including in the ballot title. (The Revised Code prescribes the wording for the body of the ballot but does not address the title, which is as deceptive for replacement levies as the body and is more noticeable to the voter.)

Repealing the replacement levy or changing ballot wording would be done by the Ohio General Assembly – with much encouragement from citizens. Although at least some of the legislators are aware of the deceptive ballot language, any action by them thus far has been inadequate to remedy the problem.

The fact that state lawmakers are very greatly influenced by local officials cannot be stressed too strongly. Local officials have had much to do with getting the legislature to create the types of levies described in this treatise. Replacement levies, in particular, have been a cash cow that local governments will likely lobby to keep, should a legislator introduce a bill to repeal their existence (no bill has been introduced as of this writing). That means that many citizens must be able to understand replacement levies and care enough about fairness that they can and will explain to their representatives and senators the unjustness of these levies and will encourage them to actively support the repeal of the law or change in the law that authorizes the levies. Unfortunately, in addition to possible pressure from local officials, another hindrance to getting the law changed is what this writer has found: some legislators do not understand replacement levies.

Because repeal of the replacement levy law or even a change in ballot language could take months or years – or might not happen at all – informed citizens should also work at the local level by educating other citizens, including their local officials, and supporting only those candidates that pledge not to use replacement levies. Citizens should also vote against all replacement levies, no matter how desirable the intended use of the funds might be. Only if the levies repeatedly fail will local officials stop using them and again make more use of the simple “additional” levy when they truly need funds for appropriate services.

It is the hope of this writer that Ohioans will hold their government accountable – that they will learn about taxation and individual tax issues, that they will educate others, that they will work to eliminate unfair and deceptive taxes, and that they will support only those candidates for office who are honest enough to do the same.

You can access and print a copy of Carolyn’s full article here. Put this information into the hands of your family, friends and neighbors.

Tax and Spin- Part 9: Some Solutions

This entry is part 9 of 11 in the series Understanding Property Tax Levies

taxOhio law has traditionally given local voters the final say for all property taxes other than those that are levied on the ten inside mills, with a few exceptions. However, that authority is no authority when tax laws are cleverly written to force more taxes on citizens without their vote. Neither is that any authority when laws are written so that voters are misled into voting for the opposite of what they really want or when both the Yes and No choices on a ballot issue might be undesirable, as with replacement levies.

What is the solution to the replacement levy problem? One answer is to repeal the law that authorizes the levies. Following are some reasons:

• The replacement levy is an unnecessary tax. Simple “additional” property levies have always been available – and are still available – to increase revenue for the government.

• The replacement levy is an early product of the legislature’s continuing effort to diminish the effects of H.B. 920 and to tie taxes to increases in property values. However, there is no correlation between the rising cost of appropriate government services and increases in property values. Even if there were, trying to make levies match property growth is generally unworkable because, in addition to their property tax levies, government taxing districts get various other kinds of funding from local, state, and federal government sources, as well as private sources. Further, the fact that the “replacement levy and increase” and “replacement levy and decrease” exist is evidence that replacement levies don’t always fit with inflation of property values. Also, this writer has observed that the plain “replacement levy” is often used to inch up taxes – just because it is available – when renewals would be appropriate and would have been used previously.

• Replacement levies limit the reasonable authority of citizens – even citizens who know the levies are used to increase taxes – to determine the magnitude of their government. When an existing levy is expiring, replacement levies force voters to choose between 1) voting No to no longer pay even the tax they had been paying, or 2) voting Yes to increase their tax. They are unable to vote simply to continue to pay the same tax they had been paying, as some people prefer. Government officials know that the majority of voters generally would not vote to eliminate a tax; therefore, by using the replacement levy, they use the equivalent of a
new tax with the old – the equivalent of a renewal levy plus an additional levy. In that way, they twist the arms of the voters to increase their property tax. In fact, levy proponents often insist that the voters must pass a levy or the government agency would have to cut services because it would not even have the revenue it had been getting.

Next: Part 10: Conclusion–Accountability the Key