OT Pat Robertson whO?

Stop and think about it:

People who have served time for non-violent crimes and have completed a few hears with clean noses could be excellent voters.

They could get a decent education leading to possibly becoming intelligent voters while serving time and after.

Of course a growing cadre of intelligent voters would be the absolute last thing that either major party would want.

Tom

It works the other way around, too.

When I was a firefighter I watched as our very small local takes for water and fire were grabbed by the state, added to a general type fund and re-distributed. Our carefull work to obtain what we desperately needed ended up as less than half after the morons running this state got through paying off their cronies and distributing to the areas that bribed them through campaign contributions and re-election funds.

That's state. Federally there is a problem a million times more urgent. Many people (me included) want to see an end to the tatered and hole-ridden southern border. California (and to a lesser extent Texas, Arizona and New Mexico) have to pay billions of dollars in state and local taxes to take care of illegals. The Feds order us to take care of these folks and give us butkus to do it with.

Tom

Wouldn't it be cheaper to hire & train more state troopers and have *them* secure the states' borders? They're not just international borders after all.

Except that nobody's holding a gun to you forcing you to buy insurance. Don't think federal income tax is taken at the point of a gun? Try not paying it.....

car insurance is a gun.

Only if you choose to drive a car.....

Now Al, what about the Military? Many liberals and even some conservatives question funding the military to protect other people... What about them? You pay taxes to support schools you no longer attend or use.

The concept is that we all pay what we can for those who can't. I live in Alaska; and the Feds provide more funds pre capita than any other state. Well, why? Military and ohter responsibilities here. They own most of the the state and the military has a huge presence... we only have about 500,000 people.

It is just part of the way it works, Al.

Lance Mertz Ketchikan, Alaska Toujours Prete

Object... most local bus systems are partially funded by Federal revenue from your gas taxes.

Lance Mertz Ketchikan, Alaska Toujours Prete

Al

Sorry, too obvious and logical. That was tried several years by California under Brown, Jr. We were rather curtly informed to back off as illegals were the Fed's job,not ours. Same Feds who force border states to spend their state taxes dealing with the problem.

Catch 22 lives.

Tom

True. If you are caught driving without insurance in California you loose your license and your car is subject to seizure.

That's the only good thing about our outgoing leading idiot. Once the illegal alians have driver's licenses they'll get insurance.

Right? Right? Hello? Anybody there?

Tom

good points. my point would be insurance companies are morally equal to pedophiles and mass murderers.

Ever hear of *national* defense?

I don't mind the local taxes I pay for local schools. The feds don't have any business getting involved with local education; not in funding it, nor in regulating it.

Sounds kind of like 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'......

In article , "William H. Shuey" wrote:

SSRC? Oh, give me a break. Consider a state with the following governmental and political structure:

(1) Most property taxes assessed locally are distributed by the state as it sees fit, because the existing property tax system is so inequitable and capricious that the state supreme court (run by Republicans at the time, please note) struck down the local administration of these tax revenues. For example, I just got my tax bill for my house for next year: $2168 or thereabouts. My neighbor just sold his place--identical floorplan--for three and a half times my assessed valuation. The new owner will pay three and a half times the tax I will for the same house on the same street with about the same lot size, because on resale a property is reassessed to 100% of value. [Note to the wags who suggest I send the difference to the government like a good liberal: liberals are only happy when the government MAKES people pay. Or, less facetiously, I have no objection to being taxed at a fair and equitable rate, whatever that may be, so long as everyone in my situation is treated the same.] Since the state decides where anything but special assessments go, most goes into the state budget; cities, counties and schools don't see much of it except for provisions like:

(2) Proposition 98. This mandates a certain part of the budget must go to K-14 schools. It is not the only budget mandate out there; Arnold sponsored one too, though ironically, he's going to have to cut that one off at the neck because there will be no money for it for years to come. And there are others. These tie the hands of the legislature. "A good thing!" is trumpeted by many, no doubt. Let's not let those evil legislators do awful things with our money. Except that people voted those guys/gals in (unusual for a socialist republic, but hey, it's California) and were re-electing them so frequently that we got

(3) Term limits. In the lower house, one can serve 2 4-year terms. In the senate (half as many seats), 2 4-year terms, and at last half the assembly people won't make that second cut because there are fewer seats. So the average legislator, whose own constitutents were happy with him/her for years on end, is out after two (or at most four terms) because of an initiative voted in by these same voters who didn't like any of the OTHER polls, and decided they'd sacrifice their baby to get rid of everyone else's bath water. Funny thing is, the Democrats still dominate the legislature. By itself, I like the idea of term limits, but unfortunately, it didn't come by itself. With about half the lawmakers lame ducks at any one time, both parties became less responsive to voters and more ideological, which gave us

(4) Two of the most screwed-up major state political parties on the continent. The Democrats have become more and more left-leaning, sponsoring social welfare initiatives (like the driver's license thing, which was one too many for me) without bothering to think real hard about the consequences. The Republicans, having the golden opportunity to move into the center, instead fracture over issues 70% of us California Comrades have already decided in favor of: abortion, gun control, gay civil unions, medical marijuana. The party swerves right, and presents the weakest incumbent governor in years with an opponent who comes off as being dipped in Crisco before being propped up on the podium. Davis wins with a paltry 47% of the vote, because the Green party candidate attracts a lot of people who would rather vote for someone sure to lose than have to be blamed if the guy they did vote for gets in office. Which, not surprisingly, leads directly to

(5) The recall. Sure it was a Republican power grab, financed by a rich Republican, who got a paltry number of signatures compared with total number of voters, and who had to supply no more justification than 'because I can.' Everyone has been wringing their hands over the TERRIBLE precedent this sets, but I think the truth of it is that when an especially callow and resourceless governor gets re-elected because he feels just slightly less like a sulphur-and-vinegar enema than the major party opponent, and then the full force of the sour economy and bad mandates and bad legislative moves finally soaks into the collective consciousness, why shouldn't folks support a recall? Three more years of this? Gimme a break. So we get a fellow with some acting skill, nice biceps, a cute wife, a half dozen Hummers (I hope they're not H2s), and standards of public decency in his own personal conduct that are subterreanean. I'm not talking about allegations here, but merely what he has apologized for, stated in public, or said in public that he had 'exagerrated' before. Under normal circumstances, McClintock would have wiped Arnold's Hummer with a Handiwipe in the Republican primary because of these indiscretions, but there was no primary. So the voters are faced with choosing among Arnold, McClintock (the only guy in the race with a clue about the budget, and the only one that seemed honest, for that matter), Camejo the Green guy (way too far left--he literally said he wanted to give illegals the vote), Bustamante (with millions of improper Indian casino dollars and absurd notions about where gasoline comes from) and Ariana Huffington, who defies rational description. Oh yeah, and about 130 other people. They pick Arnold. Hey, he can't do as bad as the last guy, could he? Wellllll...I'll get back to you onthat one. But he faces a tough road, not only because of pissed-off Democrats, but also because of

(6) The Republican party. They want him to be more like them, now that he's 'theirs.' It's not just that Arnold needs the Demos, he needs the elephant boys too. And they stand to be difficult, because they just usurped the order of things and they're sporting size 10 cojones in size

(7) Cities and counties which will lay off large percentages of their fire and police personnel if he again restructures the car tax that was reduced by 2/3 a couple of years ago, and now is set to go back to where it was before. This is what the spend-and-don't -tax types describe as 'tripling the car tax.' Almost all that car tax money is going to the cities and counties, who have already trimmed everything they could to get their budgets balanced this year. Curiously enough, everyone who pays car tax lives in a city or county, but the connection between A and B has not yet seemed to dawn on very many folks. This is the real 'socialist' dilemma of California right now--getting people to realize that they are only going to get what they pay for. Starting with Prop 13 many years ago, the notion of responsible citizens paying taxes as part of their civic duty has been under assault. By itself, that's not a bad thing--taxes are always a potential drain on the economy and personal financial circumstances. But it has been compounded by a host of anti-democratic measures--budget mandates by initiative, super-majority voting requirements by initiative, taxation disparities by initiative--that have delegitimized any kind of tax for any purpose. Now, I hope Arnold's audit uncovers a few billion bucks that can be saved, and that he can beat around the Bush for another five or six billion, but that's still going to leave a gap in the budget that he can't plug without raising taxes A LOT. Or he can let the cities lay off many cops, many firefighters, all the librarians, most of the road repair crews, and the schools can go to forty students per classroom with no custodial support and only one principal for every thousand or so students. And maybe he'll grant blanket amnesty to non-violent drug offenders, so he can lay off 15% of the state prison guards, but I don't think the Republicans would be too crazy about that savings idea.

This ain't a Socialist Republic--it's Never-Never Land.

Mark Schynert

Can't say that I envy you.....

Not just the Dems. In New York the Republicans are just as bad. There are way too many folks that come up for the freebies and contribute NOTHING. Old Nelson Rockefeller, a Republican, used to invite indigents up here "to get a good-paying job, and until you do, we'll help out with welfare". Some of these folks are in their fourth or fifth generation and STILL on welfare, making my state taxes the highest in the country. But after him, we had Carey, Cuomo and now Pataki, all adding to the mess. A few years ago, they tried (half-heartedly) to set up a residency requirement of one year before welfare. The ACLU flew in a guy from Puerto Rico, and trundled him right down to the welfare office. When he was refused, they slapped a class-action suit against the state. The case never came to trial, the state folded like a stuck balloon. My late mother-in-law was a welfare caseworker. She told of a woman who came up from Georga, set up an address at the local Post Office and applied for welfare, specifically medical benefits called Medicare, IIRC (or Medicaid, I keep confusing the two). Anyway, the applicant goes into the hospital and had an operation to correct a vision problem, and as soon as the doctors gave her a clean bill of health, she split back to Georgia. The cost of her surgery was over ten grand (1982 $$$$), all at the expense of New York State Taxpayers. And the family wonders why I want to move to Pennsylvania!

-- John ___ __[xxx]__ (o - ) --------o00o--(_)--o00o-------

The history of things that didn't happen has never been written - Henry Kissinger

Agreed, but in New York State, try driving a motor vehicle WITHOUT insurance. Ninety days, minimum.

-- John ___ __[xxx]__ (o - ) --------o00o--(_)--o00o-------

The history of things that didn't happen has never been written - Henry Kissinger

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

They can always try to change the Constitution; get rid of that pesky "provide for the common defense" stuff.

Scott G. Welch