Boehner Caves with Plan B and Obama Gloats

Speaker John Boehner offered a "Plan B" to avert the so-called Fiscal Cliff that would raise rates on those making $1 million or more and President Obama had a very predictable response.  Obama welcomed the capitulation from the principle that no one's tax rates should be raised and he scolded and belittled Boehner for holding up an agreement due to his unwillingness to raise tax rates on those making $900,000.

Nancy Pelosi piled on and said her suggestion earlier in the year that we could raise rates on those making $1 million or more (instead of the President's proposed $250,000) was bait.  It was just an exercise to see if the Republicans would accept raising rates at some level.  Now that the Republicans have given up the stand that no rates should go up we can really get down to some negotiations according to Pelosi.

When will the Republicans learn.  There is no level of compromise or capitulation to the President and his Congressional allies that will appease them.  Obama wishes to rub Republicans' noses in this tax hike - either by total surrender or by allowing us go over the Fiscal Cliff.  I believe either is acceptable to Obama.  And in either case he will scold the Republicans for raising taxes and for not caring for the middle class.

If hearing Obama gloat and then scold him is not enough for Speaker Boehner's blood to boil then he is too far gone in DC's political morass.  He should immediately pull back his Plan B and fight for principle.  He should boldly declare that the federal budget is out of balance because they have been spending too much, not taxing too little. 

Everyone, including Obama, knows that raising tax rates on the top 2% or Plan B's Top 1% is not going to solve anything.  It is merely another attack on the so-called rich by Commander-in-Chief of Class Warfare Obama.  Some say that the revenue raised is enough for 8 days of Washington spending.  Obama is not serious about solving anything. He is acting 50% vindictive politician and 50% re-distributor.

Boehner's Plan B is a bad plan economically and will do nothing to cut the deficit.  Obama has rejected it and insulted and bullied the Speaker.  Now Mr. Speaker, show some spine and call Obama out as the one wanting to raise taxes on all Americans.  Pull back to principle.

Pay Your Fair Share?

Popular political discourse today is rife with calls for the rich to pay their "Fair Share."  This begs the question, what is a citizen's fair share in taxes?  And who is to define what a fair share is?  Does this fall to President Obama to decide, or to Congress, or maybe to those who are not paying any income tax?

Let me pose the following multiple choice question to you in which you have a household income of $100,000 and your neighbor has a household income of $50,000 (I know, some of you want to complicate it with deductions and "unearned" income, but stay with me...): 

You pay your fair share in income taxes if you

(a) pay the same dollar amount as your neighbor - say, an imaginary $10,000
(b) pay the same percent of your income as your neighbor - say 10%, meaning you pay $10,000 and your neighbor pays $5,000
(c) pay a higher percent of your income than your neighbor (since you are obviously much more well off) - say you pay 20%, meaning $20,000 and your neighbor pays 10%, or $5,000
(d) pay an even higher rate (since you are obviously much more well off than 90% of America), say 35%, meaning $35,000 in income taxes and since your neighbor unfortunately just lost his job due to the poor economy he pays $0.

In today's environment of class warfare, a,b,c are not acceptable and you would be accused of not paying your fair share. If each individual receives the same services equally from the federal government you could make an argument that we should all pay the same dollar amount (choice "a" above).  However, this certainly would be unpopular with most people and considered unfair to lower income earners. (And do we all receive the same services?)

In choice "b" above you pay proportionally and so does your neighbor.  You have twice the income and you pay twice the income tax.  Seems fair.  However, do you receive twice the benefits or services from the Feds? No, you probably do not, but because you can pay more you are required to help support others, or perhaps allow the government to do more.  The proportional tax is similar to the biblical tithe principle where one is to give (10%) as God has blessed him.  The difference being- the tithe is freely offered where the income tax is confiscated under penalty of law.

Choice "c" above expresses a simple graduated tax code.  The more you make the higher RATE you pay.  (In the U.S. income tax we use brackets and in reality you pay at the lower bracket and only dollars earned above the floor of the next bracket are taxed at the higher rate.)  So the federal government, through the tax code, has expressed that the proportional tax system (my choice "b" above) is not paying your fair share and that to really be fair the higher your income the higher the rate the Feds will impose.  I don't know about you, but logically this seems UNFAIR to me.

President Obama is insisting that the "top 2 percent pay their fair share."  By this he means the richest are currently NOT paying their fair at a 35% rate while some pay at a 10% rate.  Understand that the rich are in reality now paying more than their share.  They are paying certainly many more dollars than you or I for about the same service and are paying at a proportionally higher rate.  According to Obama that is not enough.

Of course what I am pointing out is that the graduated or progressive income tax system that we have already has the rich paying more.  They are paying three and a half times more than those at the lowest tax bracket.  If Obama was honest he would be saying that while the rich are paying more than their fair share he needs even more of their money to redistribute to those he deems worthy.  (Yes, I know that in my simple example I have not accounted for marginal rates and tax deductions and effective tax rates, et al.  I think you would agree with me that even with those complications that most of the "rich" pay at a much higher rate if not certainly more dollars. Even Romney's effective tax rate of 14% was higher than 97% of Americans.)

How did we get here?  Well, we have allowed the rhetoric of class warfare to go unchallenged. Obama is the king of it.  Republicans fearing to be connected to evil rich will not argue against him.

The founders would have been appalled. The principle behind the progressive income tax—the more you earn, the larger the percentage of tax you must pay was rejected by them. James Madison said, “the spirit of party and faction” would prevail if Congress could tax one group of citizens and confer the benefits on another group. In Federalist No. 10, Madison warned, “The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice.”

You'll find that in the 1800s thinking usually conformed to the founders’ guiding principles of uniformity and equal protection. There was an exception during the Civil War, when a progressive income tax was first enacted. However, the tax had a maximum rate of 10 percent, and it was repealed in 1872. A Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont declared, “in this country we neither create nor tolerate any distinction of rank, race, or color, and should not tolerate anything else than entire equality in our taxes.”

The temptation was too great and in 1913 a constitutional amendment permitting a progressive income tax was ratified; the ideas of uniform taxation and equal protection of the law for all citizens were overturned. Seven percent was the top rate first set by Congress.  Married couples were only taxed on income over $4,000 (equivalent to $80,000 today). During debate over this tax, William Shelton, offered a selfish reason to support the income tax: “because none of us here have $4,000 incomes, and somebody else will have to pay the tax.”

This leads me to one of my rules of thumb on taxes: Never support a tax increase on someone else, because it is only an amount of time until they have one for you!

I've had it with the demands that the rich pay their "Fair Share."  Let's face it, when President Obama says that all Americans need to pay their fair share he doesn't mean that we all pay the same.  He isn't even suggesting that all Americans pay the same percentage in taxes.  President Obama's definition of "Fair Share" doesn't even mean that the so-called rich pay more total dollars or be taxed at a higher rate.  He means that the rich need to pay more than their "Fair Share."

Change America

Okay, it was disastrous.  Half of the voters chose Barack Obama as President for a second term.  President Obama came out with a sizable lead in electoral votes over Governor Romney.  In Pennsylvania, not only did we go Blue for President, but Senator Casey (D) easily won re-election and the state row offices all went to Democrats.  Disastrous.

This morning after- I am disgusted, discouraged, and disillusioned.  I know, my Democrat friends, you are elated and that is understandable.

As is always the case, the losing party in the presidential sweepstakes immediately begins introspection and finger pointing. The media will soon develop a narrative (they do no news anymore) of how the Republican Party did everything wrong and the Democrat Party had all the right moves.  We know that is not true, and the same narrative was wrong when Bush was winning elections.

The country continues to be deeply divided.  Since the close election in 2000 brought the template of Red States and Blue States, our nation suffers from clearly different visions of what we want for our federal government.

I admit that I grow increasingly distant from the half that wants a government that cares for them and  controls me.  I grow increasingly bewildered that we ask for or accept our federal government to do things that are extra-constitutional.  I think our founders must be spinning in their graves.

There will be much written and said in the coming weeks and months as conservatives examine what went wrong and liberals gloat.  My first thought is that we have reached the tipping point and America has chosen to willfully ignore the Constitution, has renounced Capitalism, and dismissed adherence to a wholesome morality.  Harsh words. Maybe I will moderate them with time, but that is the way it looks right now.

Already I hear the genius talking heads suggest that the Republican Party must change with the times or it will be relegated to a permanent minority party (again, this is always recommended to the loser of the presidential contest).  They must reach out to minorities, particularly Latinos. They must stop the war on women and foolish talk about contraceptives.  They must stop supporting big business over the 99 percent. And so with the caricature of the the Republican Party.

So the Republican Party should change what they stand for to counter the gross misrepresentation of what they stand for?  That is how you become more relevant and a winning party? And if half (or more) of the country believes the Constitution is no longer relevant, or that what we need not defend the innocent unborn should we change?

No my friends, we do not need to moderate or change our defense of the Constitution, of Life, or of Capitalism.  We need to change America.  Too many of our fellow-citizens are ignorant of our founding principles, the utter genius of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Too many of our citizens are adrift morally, having rejected Christianity.  (Our founders cautioned that the Republic is only suited to a moral people, and that without a religious people it would not hold together.)  How sad it is today that success is suspect or outright ridiculed and morality is mocked.

Yes, times have changed and perhaps it has passed the Republican Party by.  But we do not need to change for the times.  We need to change America, or we will lose her.

A Tyrant is Unfit to be Ruler of a Free People

When in the Course of National events, it becomes necessary for Citizens to consider re-election of its President, a decent respect to the opinions of fellow Citizens requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to vote in the negative.  Foremost in any consideration, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of its primary ends, those ends being to secure certain unalienable rights which were endowed by their Creator, that it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.  We have the duty and opportunity every four years to review the record of our national leaders as to their adherence to the primary ends of Government and their various other policies and this present President is found hostile to our unalienable rights and well being.

The history of the present President of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object, if not the establishment of, an unconstitutional restructuring of our system of government resulting in an absolute Tyranny over these States.  To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid nation. 

He has refused his Assent to Laws, namely the Defense of Marriage Act.  The law passed by the Congress is ignored by the Executive Branch and even opposed in court by the chief lawyer.  Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Likewise, he has refused to enforce applicable Immigration law, and after Congress failed to pass legislation (so-called DREAM Act) he desired providing sanctuary or amnesty for young illegal immigrants, he defied the Separation of Powers of the Constitution and issued orders executing the law anyway.  To add insult he has sued States who have attempted to enforce Immigration law or take action to defend their States from illegal immigration.

Contrary to the First Amendment, he has required people of faith to violate their conscience by forcing them to supply contraceptives, including abortifacients, in mandated health insurance. 

The present President has ignored repeated requests by the Congress to turn over facts regarding the botched Fast and Furious gun-running operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), forcing the Majority Party in the House of Representatives to sue the President and the Attorney General for contempt.

He has engaged in the most unbecoming and offensive examples of class warfare, constantly attacking the so-called rich (the richest twenty percent of Americans pay seventy percent of the taxes) for not paying their Fair Share.  He uses the "Fair Share" argument to fuel envious passions for his own political benefit and to the detriment of the American Dream.

He has exhibited an antipathy to Private Enterprise.  He constantly attacks any manner of "Big" business (health insurance, bankers, oil companies, et al), some directly by name, from the platform of his Office, to foster envy and hatred for successful enterprises, and to further his political agenda.

This present President has taken over private industry, such as automotive manufacturing, in the name of saving jobs, but in so-doing robbing bondholders of their investment and value, and unfairly placing the government in direct competition with similar businesses.

In general, he has favored a policy of "spreading the wealth around" and of attacking Capitalism as an evil impediment to his Statist desires instead of understanding the great engine of opportunity and wealth creation it has been for these United Sates.

He has supported, the crafting, and signed into Law, an unconstitutional mandate that requires the Citizens of these States to purchase a commercial good, health insurance.

This present President has embarrassed us abroad by repeated apologies for imagined offenses while abrogating his duty by ignoring real threats to our security. He has lacked moral clarity and failed to acknowledge the rising radical Islamist threat that brazenly attacks us and our interests at home and abroad.


He has placed an immoral burden of debt on future generations by operating this Federal Government at more than a trillion dollars in deficit per year.  He has showered the People with Government programs we cannot afford, to gain favor with special interests, and to trap vulnerable Citizens into dependency.

These are but eleven serious issues Citizens concerned about Liberty and the future Prosperity of these United States should consider.  There are many others we could list, but these alone are more than enough to provide just cause for our negative vote.

Our repeated petitions over these violations of the Constitution, abuses of power, bullying, usurpations, and immoralities have been answered only by repeated injury: were are described as clinging to our guns and religion, we are selfish, we are racist, we are intolerant!  This present President, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be ruler of a free people.

We must in good conscience, then, exercise our Right this next election and replace this present President with a new one.

America Should Act on Buyer's Remorse

A sizable portion of America experienced buyer's remorse when they didn't get what they bargained for in President Obama. A definition of buyer's remorse is the sense of regret after having made a purchase. It may stem from fear of making the wrong choice, guilt over extravagance, or a suspicion of having been overly influenced by the seller.  Obama sold the American voter in 2008 on Hope and Change.  During the last four years many of those people that voted for him realized they were hoodwinked and bamboozled.


America is a nation of good intentions and hopeful people. In 2008 voters wanted to believe in something bigger than themselves and they got caught up in the emotion surrounding Obama's campaign. America's vote for Obama can be likened to an emotional purchase, not a thoughtful one.  Obama voters ignored dangerous signs such as who were Obama's mentors and friends.  They accepted platitudes such as Hope and Change without asking what that really means in policy terms.

Obama saw ready buyers and played them.  Each buyer/voter  placed their own lofty aspirations into Obama's rhetoric and dreamed with others: "yes we can."  For the poor minority he offered hope that America was full of possibility, and by the way, he would see to it that the rich paid more in taxes.  For the white liberal he offered a way for them to assuage their guilt feelings for America's past racism.  For the peaceniks he offered a nonbelligerent America ready to apologize for past warmongering.  For Hollywood and the Entertainment movers and shakers he offered a grand stage to show how much they cared. For young people he offered a hip, new, feel-good cause and their support validated them as member of the in-crowd.  And so on, through many American population segments and many aspirations.

 (For those that didn't get caught up in the emotion and wanted to be thoughtful about this important "purchase," well, they were clinging to their guns and their religion.)

Now in 2012 we have many Americans with a serious case of buyer's remorse.  It is understandable.  Their particular aspirations for Hope and Change have been unrealized.  There is regret at having bought into the rhetoric and a suspicion that they were overly influenced by the seller.

I want to let those voters know that it is okay to feel buyer's remorse.  And you can feel better by returning your purchase!  Send it back and get a new item.

Let's Tax Not Going to Church

I think we should tax people if they don't go to church.  Really, we should. 

The U.S Supreme Court, in its ruling on Obamacare, declared that our federal government could tax the citizens for not buying health insurance.  The precedent has been set.  Logically and legally the feds can tax you for not doing something.  As silly as it sounds that is where we are.

Since that is the case I suggest Congress pass a law that for every Sunday you do not go to church you will be taxed $100.  How do you think the Left would like that one?  They are alright with Big Government mandating health insurance and placing a tax on you if you don't comply.  Won't they have to accept the same all-knowing, all-caring Big Government telling us to go to church or else?

I can come up with a lot good reasons why it would be good for you and for society as a whole.  I could cite studies that say church-goers live longer and are less of a burden to their fellow citizens.

Now that I have offered up my own absurd idea for what the government could tax us for not doing, I am looking for your ideas.  Bonus points if it is something that will really agitate the Left, like going to church.  Comment here or email me.  Should be fun.

Support of Marriage is Now Hateful

Another example of the world turned upside down has been on display the last few days. Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press that the company was "guilty as charged" for backing "the biblical definition of a family."  Can you believe the hate that just pours out of this guy!? Well, his (free-for-now) speech has been labeled hateful by gay activists.

In a later radio interview, Cathy elaborated: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage."  So if I have this right, Cathy sounds an alarm that our nation is going against God's biblical instruction.  And today this is called hateful.  No, more than that.  Mayors in Chicago and Boston have stated Chick-fil-A is not welcomed.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced, "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values." Boston Mayor Thomas Menino wrote in a letter to Cathy: "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it."

Gay rights groups have called for a boycott, and the Jim Henson Co. pulled its Muppet toys from kids' meals.  The Jim Henson company said it has "celebrated and embraced diversity for over 50 years." It says it is directing its revenue from the Chick-fil-A toys to GLAAD, a leading gay rights organization. How nice kids.

I'll tell you what is hilarious: These gay activists demanding that Cathy and Chick-fil-A be more tolerant if they expect to do business in their town!  Their intolerance of supposed intolerance is breathtaking.

Not to be outdone, the Mayor of Pittsburgh chimed into today to say that Chick-fil-A is not welcomed.  Well neither I am then!


On the other side of the Bible and millennia of human understanding, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, declared next Wednesday, August 1st, "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" to support a business "whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values." 

"As the son of a dairy farmer who milked many a cow, I plan to 'Eat Mor Chikin' and show my support by visiting Chick-fil-A next Wednesday," the Rev. Billy Graham said in a statement, referring to the slogan in the company's ads, which feature cows urging people to eat poultry.

Guess where I'll be on Wednesday?  It ain't Pittsburgh.

The Mandate is a Tax!

The Supreme Court has declared that the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare) is a tax and since Congress has the power to tax the law is constitutional.  Let it sink in.  The mandate is a tax.

Haven't we tortured American English enough?  Since when can a mandate be defined as a tax?  Just for fun I looked up mandate in my Webster's Dictionary.  Basically it is a command or order.  True, one can be ordered to pay a tax, but the order is not the tax.  I guess once we accepted multiple and creative definitions of "is" anything goes from our public officials.

My point is that the mere statement that the "mandate is a tax" is nonsensical, or at least an oxymoron.  And if that is the case, how could this be the basis of judging the constitutionality of this momentous legislation?

I forced myself to read some of the Supreme Court's decision.  (I don't recommend this on a full stomach.)  Right there in the first paragraph it explains the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to maintain "minimum essential" health coverage.  Those who do not comply must make a "shared responsibility payment" (the creative language belongs to Congress here) to the Federal Government.

A few paragraphs later we learn from Chief Justice Roberts that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax.  The reason he gives is that the individual mandate commands individuals to purchase insurance and that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.  Therefore, in the following pages he explains it must be a tax.  No matter that Congress, and President Obama, went to great extremes in passing the bill to call it a penalty or a shared responsibility payment.

Does it seem to you that Roberts wanted a way for this legislation to muster the constitutional scrutiny, so a mandate becomes a tax?  His opinion says Congress does not have the power to order citizens to purchase things under the Commerce Clause (Amen), so this mandate must be a tax. The logic is: it must be a tax because that is the only way we can uphold this thing!

In trying to substantiate the illogical, Chief Justice Roberts cites a previous decision, Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657, in that "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality."  That's probably a good principle to keep the Court from a heavy-handed, overruling of Congress's duly passed legislation signed by the President.  However, there is no acceptable precedent  for unreasonable, no make that illogical and disastrous, construction.

Next step: repeal the Act.  To be addressed in a future blog, of course.

The Right Thing to Do?

President Obama announced unilateral changes to the country's deportation policies for young illegal immigrants yesterday (Friday June 15, 2012).  By unilateral we, of course, mean unconstitutional. Why is it that political observers on the Right are always objecting to Obama's policies as unconstitutional? Gee, I think it is because Obama is frequently trampling on the Constitution.

Here is another example of Obama using an "Executive Order" to enact a policy that is clearly against current law.  We have immigration laws, passed by Congress, that the executive branch is obliged to enforce. Obama, with a straight face, announced that this new policy of ignoring laws passed by Congress is "the right thing to do."  You got it; when questioned about this blatant disregard of the Constitution, Obama said it is the right thing to do!

Obama's policies would allow certain young illegal immigrants a renewable two-year deferral from deportation and provide eligibility to apply for work.  It's sorta like a get-out-of-jail-free card.  (Although liberals would tell us this provides "undocumented" individuals a needed get-out-of the-shadows card.) 

Obama's new policy would apply to those who are younger than 30 and came to the U.S. illegally before the age of 16 with their illegal immigrant parents.  They would need to have lived illegally in the U.S. for at least 5 continuous years and, while being illegal immigrants be attending school or have graduated from a high school, or be illegal immigrants serving in the military (how does that happen?). 

If this sounds to you like it would be almost impossible to enforce you would be correct.  And that is probably part of the reason for Obama's Executive Order.  He knows very well that overwhelmed immigration officials could not possibly do the investigation to determine an illegal aliens status under the policy.  They would simply ignore all young, or young looking, illegal immigrants, granting them de facto amnesty.  In addition, the policy would be a magnet for fraud and inducement for more illegals to enter the country with their young.

These illegal young people are basically the people that the so-called DREAM Act was geared for.  Oh, and this act was NOT passed by Congress.You see, these policies were proposed and debated in Congress.  In an unusual instance of clarity and display of backbone the act was rejected.  Apparently a majority of Congress, our national legislature and representatives of the people, decided against such a law.  Obama wanted to do "the right thing," though, and found it necessary to circumvent Congress and the people and enact the law by kingly fiat.

I repeat my call for Congress to stand up for the Constitution.  Do not cede your delegated power to a tyrant.  Any member of Congress who thinks this Executive Order is the right thing to do has abrogated their duty to the Constitution and is not worthy of the office.

Get Off My Property - Part 2

After two necessary sidetracks (Obama's unsurprising support for same-sex marriage and a short blog for Mothers Day, below) I return to the exciting topic of Real Estate Property Taxes.  In Part 1 of Get Off My Property I provided a history of the property tax and pointed out a number of problems with it.  There are "fairness" problems due to real estate property not approximating wealth or the ability to pay and there are problems implementing the tax equitably due to inherent flaws with assessments or valuations (including timeliness).  And not to mention that the whole exercise is expensive to implement and operate.

I concluded Part 1 by claiming that the real estate tax as a source of local government revenue has outlived its usefulness.  I promised (threatened?) to discuss abolishing property taxes.

Before I get too far I want to note two local occurrences subsequent to Part 1.  PA State Senator Wayne Fontana (D) introduced a bill that would allow either county councils/commissioners or voters in a referendum to eliminate property taxes.  It would allow local governments the option of implementing higher income and sales taxes and/or a fee based on the square footage of property. 

Then last week former Allegheny County Councilman Dave Fawcett wrote an op-ed and he proposed what he claimed was a more objective process to conduct reassessments. He wrote in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette "[a]ssessments should be based upon the sales price of the home being assessed (not some comparable), adjusted for inflation....The price paid for the home, adjusted for inflation, would be presumed to be the property's current market value. This value could be additionally adjusted based on the previous year's sales in a defined geographical area in order to capture local market trends and account for places where values are changing in a manner that is out-of-step with the county average."

I like Senator Fontana's proposal to eliminate (almost) property taxes, but some aspects are scary.  Pennsylvanians have voted on so-called tax reform before and always voted it down, fearing the devil they don't know.  Most voters, rightly, found it unacceptable to vote for reduced property taxes in exchange for higher income taxes.  They all smelled a rat - that is, that in the not too distant future nothing was going to prevent local government bodies from increasing property taxes, resulting in property owners paying higher taxes across the board.

Fontana's inclusion of an optional per square foot property tax falls into the unacceptable.  Any effort at reform must prevent local governments the ability to raise future property taxes.  In other words, tax shifting needs to be an all or nothing proposition.

Dave Fawcett's proposal has some merit I suppose.  Maybe it would reduce the subjective nature of using comparables, but really it just reduces the subjectivity.  The inflation adjuster could be a can of worms.  It would not be sufficient to use the CPI, for example.  This does not reflect property price inflation. Further, we all know that property values in the county do not inflate uniformly.  That is why we have the current problems with reassessments.  Fawcett allows for some adjustments to capture local market trends, but isn't this again going to be subjective?

I have for years trumpeted the idea of abolishing property taxes for all the above mentioned reasons.  The common response then is what tax will local governments use?  I suggest either the earned income tax or personal income tax.  The earned income tax has the attraction of being easy to implement - nearly every municipality already uses it.  The personal income tax has the advantage of better reflecting a person's ability to pay (or wealth).

I acknowledge some issues with this reform proposal, but any shortcomings I think are far less a problem than what we live with now.

In abolishing property taxes, usually the question of commercial property comes up.  I have two ideas. Allow local governments to forgo taxing businesses within their boundaries.  Probably won't happen; but it could be a good way to bring businesses in that would provide jobs to citizens.  The other idea is, of course, locally tax the businesses' income.  This could get complicated, but it is doable.

Some people have pointed out to me that there are municipalities in the Commonwealth that don't have many full-time residents (e.g., resort areas or large farming or forest areas).  These few citizens would be carrying a heavy individual burden if local government relied on their income tax contributions to run government.  Well, could there be exceptions for these type of areas?

Perhaps Senator Fontana has a good idea about allowing counties the option of abolishing property taxes.  For those counties where the property tax better reflects wealth and the ability to pay allow them to keep it.  The great majority of counties in Pennsylvania would be better off without property taxes.  Maybe the optional route would get around another objection heard in Harrisburg: that many counties do not have the problems with property taxes or reassessments that western PA has and therefore they are not interested in so-called reform.

I would insist on an important proviso to Fontana's option.  Once the property tax is eliminated there is no going back.  Citizens must be assured that government is not trying to pull a fast one on them and later add on a property tax.

Are you ready for radical reform in local taxes?  Abolish property taxes. Let me know what you think.

Moms. Can't Live Without Them.

 "...But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised." Proverbs 31:30b

My Mother, Sarah

I have been blessed by seeing two great moms in action, my mother and my wife.  My quasi-adopted daughter and my first-born daughter both are now mothers and doing wonderful jobs as mothers.  I mean jobs.  I am not an expert, but I don't think there is another more demanding, frustrating and exhilarating job as mother.

Can we appreciate the job mothers do enough? I don't think so.  We set aside a day to honor them and that's nice.  But unfortunately America does not seem to value mothers as it should.  Recently a political commentator inaccurately mused that Ann Romney had not "worked" a day in her life.  Obviously a thoughtless thing to say about a mother of five boys.

Incidentally, I understand Mrs. Romney has and continues to deal with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). In 2006 she received the MS Society Inspiration Award from the Central New England Chapter of the National MS Society.  The reason I mention it is because I am thinking of my mother who succumb to the disease a number of years ago.

My mother was a great encouragement to me.  When I was small boy she told me that I could do anything that I put my mind to.  What a priceless gift to give a child!  Because I loved and trusted my mother it wasn't until many years later that I had to consider the possibility that I might indeed have some limitations!  But this advise gave me such confidence as a boy that it lead to many useful successes that I could build on into adulthood.

My mother inspired each of her children, and for each of the seven she had a special bond. When my mother passed away I learned from my six siblings that each of them had thought they were my mother's favorite!

My mother wasn't especially political.  Like most suburban housewives of the time she shied away from talking politics in public.  It wasn't the polite thing to do.  Ever the encourager, she supported my political interests, though likely not all my political positions.  After I lost my third election she sent me a note of encouragement and a newspaper clipping of all of Abraham Lincoln's failures (political and business) before he was elected President.

I am sure many of you could share similar stories today about your mother.  Let me close this political blog by thanking all the mothers that have helped to make America the land where we are free (and encouraged) to pursue happiness.

Obama Devolves on Same-Sex Marriage

President Obama announced a couple of years ago that his view of same-sex marriage was evolving.  Wednesday he evolved, or better devolved.  He now supports same-sex marriage.

As only Obama can do with a straight face, he cited his Christian faith among the reasons for his decision.  It is being true to the Golden Rule, treating others as you want to be treated, that compels him to support same-sex marriage.  Funny, in his 2008 campaign Obama framed his opposition to same-sex marriage in Christian terms. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

I guess his Christian faith has evolved, or devolved too. Before I get too far about the same-sex marriage issue let's address his contrived, convenient, and totally wrong application of scripture. (It's not his first.) Obama's application of the Golden Rule is misplaced and absurd.  If my neighbor kills his wife do I say to myself I must treat him like I want to be treated, therefore I support the action?  Of course not. I condemn the behavior and want justice to take its course.  I may apply the Golden Rule by treating him with dignity and fairness (even though our human nature says he he does not deserve it) as he tried for his crime. 

The Golden Rule does not excuse sin.  (Oh my, did I actually use that offensive three-letter word that we have no use for anymore?) The Golden Rule challenges us to treat others how we would want to be treated.  It is easier to think of self, but Christ invokes the Golden Rule to get us to think of others.
 
There are a lot of good, logical reasons to oppose same-sex marriage.  The traditional family has been the building block of society from the beginning of mankind.  Regardless of your religious perspective the union of male and female is natural.  It leads to the propagation of the species. To argue against human understanding that has stood for millenia and to argue against nature is irrational. There is the logical argument: there actually is no discrimination in regards to our marriage laws.  Any man or woman can marry - as long as a man marries a woman and a woman marries a man.  Homosexuals can marry, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. I could go on and many before me have debated the issue in these terms.  Let's get to the real issue.

We need to oppose same-sex marriage because God calls homosexual acts sin.  I say this in all humility and with the acknowledgement that I too am a sinner.  I repeat that God calls homosexuality sin and I say it with no malice to the sinner.  I did not make this up and I do not hold myself up as holier than another sinner, but I accept God's laws.  God provides a moral code for our own good. Society is better when it accepts God's laws.


The President spoke of committed gay couples that he knows and/or work for him.  These people love one another and are good citizens.  This may be true. Let's just say that 99% of practicing homosexuals have wonderful, endearing qualities. This does not negate that they also willfully disobey God with no repentance.  Because they are really committed to their relationship does not make it right.  Because they have good qualities does not require society to condone their bad behavior, or to legitimize it with a legal "marriage."

If I am a wonderful family man, but I steal from my neighbor are you going to condone my stealing? Or if I am a good public servant and I cheat on my wife are you going to think we need to change the laws to permit infidelity?

Fortunately President Obama's announcement in support of same-sex marriage has no effect on federal or state policy.  It is another warning shot to states like Pennsylvania that we need to pass a constitutional amendment that declares the obvious (yes, that is where we are): marriage is between one man and one woman.

When society accepts sin as normal we are committing a slow suicide.  Or maybe we have already slid down that slippery slope.  Accepting same-sex marriage is not evolving, Mr. President.  It is a devolution of what God created to be wholesome and good.

Get Off My Property - Part 1

Lady Godiva !

What is the difference between a taxidermist and a tax assessor? A taxidermist takes only your skin. ~ Mark Twain


Man has been using some sort of property tax since ancient times. Believe it or not, near the Acropolis there is a monument to the honest tax assessor, Aristides the Just. Easy to believe though, in Roman times assessors were no longer honored but considered evil and low class people who often required military escort. And how about in the 11th century - Lady Godiva rode naked on a horse through the streets of Coventry, England to protest the tax assessment her husband imposed on his tenants' property. She won an abatement.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, criticism of the uniform, universal property tax was widespread. Even a scholar of taxation (Seligman) called the tax one of the worst taxes ever used by a civilized nation.  

In 1902 the property tax provided forty-five percent of the general revenue received by state governments from their own sources. That percentage declined steadily, dropping the most between 1922 and 1942 as states adopted sales and income taxes. Today property taxes are an insignificant source of most states' tax revenue. For local governments the property tax as a percentage of own-source general revenue rose from 1902 until 1932 when it provided 85.2 percent of total general revenue. Since that time there has been a significant gradual decline in the importance of local property taxes.

There are a number of problems with the general property tax. Property taxes failed to deal with the problems resulting from differences between property as a legal term and wealth as an economic concept. When we had a simple rural economy wealth consisted largely of real property and tangible personal property -- land, buildings, machinery and livestock. In that economy, wealth and property are the same things, and most importantly, the ownership of property was closely correlated with income or ability to pay taxes.

However, in today's economy ownership and control of wealth is related to a variety of financial and legal instruments such as stocks, bonds, notes, and mortgages. These rights though may not be absolute; they may be shared with many others. It's not hard to guess that our our local property tax administrators lack the legal authority, skills, and resources needed to assess and collect taxes on such complex systems of property ownership.

There are increasing numbers of wage-earners and professional people who have substantial incomes but little property that make property ownership a less suitable measure of ability to pay taxes.

Then we come to problems with the assessments due to the inability or unwillingness of elected local assessors to value their neighbor’s property at full value. Let's face it, when property assessments are valued well below their market value and changed infrequently the tax assessor is our friend.  And if the assessor is an elected position he is more apt to be reelected.

Pennsylvania is one of six states that don’t require periodic assessments.  In some counties in Pennsylvania comprehensive real estate assessments haven't been done in years - or decades.  Of the commonwealth’s 67 counties, 22 have not reassessed since the mid-1980s. That includes four of Allegheny County’s neighbors.  Realize when property is not reassessed regularly inequities develop - usually with newer home purchasers carrying a heavier load than the old-timers.  And when the real estate market is rapidly climbing or falling old assessments easily become inaccurate.

In Allegheny County a judge stepped in and forced the reassessment.  Then politicians fell all over themselves to declare a horrible injustice.  They hollered "unfair" and pointed to other Pennsylvania counties that had not been subjected to this indecency. Of course, while the politicians were grand-standing about the unfairness of implementing reassessments residents were burdened with wildly inaccurate assessments.  The popular stand of our county politicians was to call for a freeze or a moratorium. In essence - kick the can down the road for more courageous politicians to deal with it.

It's true that modern day property assessments are very expensive for states or municipalities.  Allegheny County’s 2001 assessment cost $23.9 million and the 2010 assessment cost $12.4 million.   

Perhaps you have heard of places where assessments are done regularly with little fuss. There are some sophisticated mathematical models employed to the task. That's nice, but sometimes the new assessments aren't accurate. In a review by the Post-Gazette of the 2010 reassessment of Pittsburgh "treated expensive land and buildings gently, while overestimating the values of low-priced properties. The Allegheny County-run reassessment fell far short of the goal of distributing the tax burden fairly among owners of high-dollar properties and residents of modest homes."

One more argument.  Some activists and observers have recently called into question the justice or even constitutionality of real estate taxes.  They argue that owners of property are not really able to fully enjoy the property even after it has been paid for (say after a 30 year mortgage).  "Owners" are forced to continually pay the government to hold on to that property.  They are never secure in their property because of the property tax.  Some people describe it as renting the property from the government.  While I understand this argument, I don't totally buy it. (Owners do in fact substantially, even if not fully, enjoy their properties. They may dwell on the property, build a home, raise a family, or gain revenue through rents, etc.)

However, I am convinced for all the reasons above that the real estate tax as a source of local government revenue has outlived its usefulness. In my next blog I will discuss abolishing property taxes.

My Big Fat General Assembly

Downsizing the Pennsylvania General Assembly has been the target of reformers and even the State House recently.  The House passed a bill a couple of weeks ago that would shrink the House from 203 to 153 members.  The bill would also reduce the Senate from 50 to 38 members.

Why do we want to shrink the legislature?  Well, the reformers point out the PA General Assembly is America's Largest Full-Time state legislature.  Or as the title of the blog declares, it's "My Big Fat General Assembly."  The argument goes that the size of the legislature means exorbitant costs to the taxpayer, an out of touch behemoth, and likely contributes to corruption.

I'm going to go against the "reformers" and popular opinion on this one.  Let me say that I like My Big Fat General Assembly.  Not the corruption part.  Not the lack of backbone sometimes displayed. Not the failure to act on needed legislation such as reducing business taxes, school choice, privatizing the liquor stores, and others.  No, I like the representation that it gives the average citizen.  The good thing about a large General Assembly is we have relatively small house and senate districts.

I think the call for reducing the size of the General Assembly is the wrong solution to address the cost problem.  I understand arguments about the need to reduce cost in state government, and putting the General Assembly on a diet is a good idea.  While running the assembly takes something less than 2 percent of the budget, I'm all for action to reduce this cost. How about reducing benefits and pensions?  The pension system is ripe for reforms - the kinds that most businesses have implemented, such as defined contributions instead of defined benefits. 

Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi supports the downsizing and said that lawmakers are asking others to do more with less, so "its important we're seen as doing our part."  I would agree and I want to take him at his word.  However, after reducing the number of legislators none of the remaining legislators (including Senator Pileggi) will be doing more with less.

The citizens of Pennsylvania are rightly frustrated with the General Assembly's corruption and ineffectiveness.  You add in the very difficult economic times and budget arguments and you can understand the bubbling up of calls for reform.  However, let's not overreact and reduce our representation to solve these problems!  No one really thinks that if there are less representatives these problems will go away.  As a matter of fact, reducing the number of members could put more power into leaders hands and lead to even more corruption. (Funny how the leaders are now thinking shrinking the General Assembly is not a bad idea.)

Under the bill passed by the House new districts would have about 20,000 more constituents than they do today.  There is no getting around your vote being watered down and the distance from your representative growing.  And I don't care that California has way more (maybe 4 times more) constituents per district than we do.  Do we really want to compare ourselves to them?

In recent polls, 76 percent of Pennsylvanians said they supported the idea of a smaller Legislature. Supposedly the House-approved bill has broad support from House and Senate members.  Please, let's put the brakes on this "reform" and keep our representatives closer to the people.

Term limits anyone?

Be Careful for What You Wish For

Well, Rick Santorum threw in the towel today in the Republican Presidential Primary.  I guess it's "game over."  It's what the Republican establishment has wanted. It is what CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and even FoxNews seemed to be asking for. Be careful for what you wish for.

Let me summarize why for the last month we have had Republicans, Democrat leaders and strategists, and major media urge Santorum to leave the race.

• Governor Mitt Romney had secured an overwhelming number of delegates for the nomination.
• We (Republicans) must pick our nominee as soon as possible so the nominee can get to the important task of campaigning against President Obama.
• We (Republicans) must pick our nominee as soon as possible so the nominee can get to the important task of raising funds to compete against President Obama.
• We (Republicans) must end the negative attacks of the presidential primary contenders or the winner will end up too bloodied and bruised to carry on the fight in the general election.
• Santorum may act as a spoiler and prevent Romney from gaining enough delegates to secure the nomination on the first ballot. This will lead to an ugly spectacle on national television as the Republicans fumble around choosing the nominee at (gasp) the convention.
• Santorum has alienated women due to his rhetoric on social issues and he therefore does not have broad enough support to be a credible presidential nominee.
• Romney is the only Republic contender that has broad support among many segments of the electorate.
• Santorum lacks the organization to pull off a nationwide campaign.  Romney has experience at this and has flexed his organization in every state contest.
• Democrat party leaders and PACs want Republicans to settle on a candidate so they can begin their focused campaign (i.e, attack).
• Obama campaign officials must run a negative campaign (they have no positive record to run on) and need to have a target to spend the dollars efficiently.
• The news media needs a compelling story.  Santorum dragging out the race was not compelling.  They squeezed as much as they could out of Santorum and the contraceptive flap.  Rich, out-of-touch, Romney versus President Obama starts to be compelling.
  

The list of reasons, though not exhaustive, is impressive.  However, to me these reasons are not sufficient.  So here were my arguments for dragging it out...

Romney had a huge lead in delegates, but it was not mathematically insurmountable - particularly given the very generous and questionable count attributed to Romney.  More importantly, had Santorum managed to stay competitive (which required volunteers and money to stay with him) he may have prevented Romney from securing enough delegates before the convention.

Oh, my!  A convention where the nominee is not crowned before the opening gavel?  Yes.  This would not be the end of the world.  It may have even done the party good.  There could have been an actual convention where delegates debated the platform and the advantages of one candidate over another.  The American people could have seen a thorough and thoughtful consideration of Republican principles and candidates.  If Romney had secured the rest of the needed delegates in this process then so be it.  The process could have been a catalyst. Instead of hurting the party it could have provided momentum for the candidate - even Romney.

Throughout the early primary process and even through the latest voting there was considerable "anti-Romney" sentiment and votes.  This is why for awhile we had a new leader in the polls every couple of weeks.  There was the Michelle Bachman bubble; the Rick Perry bubble; the Herman Cane bubble; the Newt Gingrich bubble; will-someone-else-get-in-the-race panic; and the Santorum surge.  I don't think  this can be interpreted any other way except that Republican voters were not very keen on Romney.  Of all the races that have occurred thus far how many has Romney won over 50%?  A handful.

Even while Romney collected his nearly insurmountable lead in delegates he failed to inspire the Republican majority.  I think the reason to this is obvious.  They don't believe he is a conservative.  He occasionally will spout a few conservative sounding lines, but they are really not convinced.  His record as governor was not very conservative (Romney-care?).

So Republicans are now left with a presidential candidate who perhaps doesn't even have half of them keen on him.  I suspect most Republicans will acquiesce to the choice, but they will not be enthused. Is this enough to beat Obama in the fall?

And for this pregnant question I answer "be careful for what you wish for."