Bravo, NJ!!!

Governor Chris Christie succeeded in getting a 2% property tax cap in NJ. Bravo!! Job well done, guv'na! It's not the most earth-shattering thing to happen in NJ vis a vis tax relief, but it's a start.

Read what NYS Governor David Paterson had to say about it here. Looks like NYS (at least some people in NYS) is looking south of the border and is starting to learn from their more progressive neighbors. Too bad that the impetus for reform has to come from outside stimuli...

Look carefully at Paterson's last sentence: “Now it is time for a similar agreement in New York, where families have waited long enough for property tax relief. And if Albany fails to deliver once again, those New Yorkers may be forced to look to two of our neighbors now – New Jersey and Massachusetts – to find the property tax relief they deserve here.”  He's not implying that New Yorkers may actually leave the state and take their potential tax revenues with them, should the tax burden become to great to bear, is he? IS HE??? Nah. Why would anyone do that...??

Wow

I normally don't come up with back to back posts - I'm not THAT brilliant. But an article on Matzav popped into my Google Reader this morning that looked interesting. After reading it, I'm pretty shocked - I mean he's essentially saying the same thing I am - even better because his readership is like 1,000x bigger than mine! Everyone should read this article; I really like the way this guy thinks.

I'm shocked that this actually made it through the censors though... Wow...

Of beverages, hedge funds, and... bullies?

There's been a lot of buzz about New York State's proposed beverage tax lately. The proposed tax, backed by both NYC Mayor Bloomberg and NYS Governor Paterson, would be levied at a penny/ounce rate on sugary beverages and the like - though I'm not sure how they'll define what would be taxed and what wouldn't. The tax would be expected to theoretically bring in around $465m, ostensibly to combat obesity and help offset the state's rising healthcare costs due to obesity.

I can agree in theory (GASP!) with the reasons behind the tax - legislators wants to reduce obesity and help stem the (allegedly) spiraling healthcare costs that rampant obesity can cause. Sounds noble. However, I totally disagree with the methods and don't believe for a minute that the many a**holes who run the state have any noble intentions whatsoever.

Let's analyze for a minute. Remember when I said that all NYS knows how to do is tax, tax, tax? This certainly bears this out. There is certainly a problem with obesity in the state - so what does NYS do about it? They instinctively reach for the tax button to wipe it out. Did they think of alternatives to taxing the hell out of NYS citizens? Of course not (well, maybe some Republicans did). Instead of adding to the burgeoning state tax burden on individuals, elected officials might have considered other methods to go about their business, like using tax as a reward instead of a weapon. They might have weighed the option of creating a state-wide "weigh-in" with tax incentives tied to positive, long-term results (don't laugh - this was tried with some success on a city-wide level in a city in Oklahoma, I believe). They might have allowed deductions or tax breaks on gym membership fees or gym equipment purchases to encourage people to sign up for gyms or purchase fitness equipment (of course the problem of whether the purchasers would actually use the membership or equipment would still exist and have to be addressed). They might have given tax breaks to businesses who purvey healthier foods or businesses that can prove they reduced sales of sugary foods and increased sales of healthier options. These are just a few ideas that floated to the top of my head. I'm sure that they have their flaws, but they reflect a general idea - using the tax code as a reward, not a punishment.

The truth is that I really don't believe one word the hot air comes out of any of these NYS officials' mouths. They say this tax is noble in nature and would be levied to help make everyone healthier and alleviate health care costs. Eventually, we will all live in happiness, harmony and in peace with our new, physically fit selves and we'll get on our knees and thank the great State of New York everyday for helping us cope with a problem we couldn't deal with on our own - thanks, NY!!

More likely, instead, are the reasons why this tax is truly nasty. It's not really about health - that's just a by-product. It's really just an obscure and obtuse way to help plug budget holes, plain and simple. All the state is really doing is balancing their horrendously bloated budget on the backs of people who can ill afford it. This is a regressive tax in the worst way. It's the lower strata on the economic scale who tend to buy more of these drinks and foods, because they're cheaper than the healthier alternatives. With the tax, they'll still be cheaper, but significantly less so, so these families will continue to purchase these foods and drinks despite the tax. They'll just have to squeeze more out of an already strapped budget. Richer families, on the other hand, will easily absorb the extra couple of bucks and their household budgets will barely crack a sweat with this tax.

The state is being a cold, calculating, son of a b**ch with this tax. They know their demographics quite well; in fact I'd go so far as to say that, despite what these two-faced lying bastards say they want, they actually want these families to continue buying these drinks because the revenue that will accrue to the state from the tax will accrue NOW, whereas the health problems and increased costs (if this is even true) will accrue to the state MUCH LATER. The state will not "save this revenue for a rainy day". They will take the money as it comes in and throw it down the sh***er that is the state's bloated, current budget. This is their dirty little (well, not so little) secret. "Who cares about the next generation's problems" - that's one of the state's creeds with which the incomepetents in the legislature and executive branches live by. They are balancing their ruinous budget on the backs of households that can ill afford it because a) they can get away with it - those households don't have the powerful lobby or under-the-table representation that the higher socio-economic demographic does (fact o' life, people) and b) those households are far more in number and buy far more of this stuff - this tax works for the state's benefit in volume of items purchased, it's not like income tax. The truth is that the state purports to be primarily interested in the public health. That's utter bulls**t. No one ever became healthier from higher taxes. In fact, a serious argument can be made that higher taxes for those that can ill afford them carries it's own health hazard - rising stress levels, which can lead to the same place obesity can - cardiac problems. So all the state may be doing is leading people down the garden path to hell, just via a different route. Bravo, NY!! 

Let's talk about hedge funds. The state has been mulling over taxing hedge fund managers who reside out of state that commute into NYS for work. While this has been dropped (for now), this is a further example of how the state operates and thinks - just reach for that tax handle, guys!! The fact that the governor didn't even seem to think about some of the repercussions when proposing this tax - these funds would simply relocate, DUH - shows how myopic these 'leaders' can be. Notice how Connecticut Gov Jodi Rell responded by trying to poach hedge fund firms who would try to escape the tax by relocating. Did ANY of this occur to Gov Paterson...???!!!

This is the direction that NYS has been inexorably moving in for years. Use the state's taxing power as a weapon and blunt instrument to fix problems that are only in front of your nose with total disregard to repercussions, both now and in the future. Bludgeon the vast majority of your residents with idiotic regressive taxation policy while refusing to cut the most wasteful spending. Nothing seems to change; it just gets worse with the passing years.

So much for beverages and hedge funds. Let's talk about bullies. Lets go down, south of the border.

Ah, New Jersey, a state that has historically shared NYS's distinction of being synonymous with corruption and incompetency. A state where cars still have "Dump Florio" bumper stickers, a state that will never forget the sordid McGreevey episode, etc. But, unlike "same ol'" New York, there's a whiff of change.

New Jerseyans woke up one fine day late last year and decided they've had enough. Enough of the same problems that plague New Yorkers to this very day. They threw out the ineffective Democrat  Jon Corzine and elected a Republican, conservative governor in Doug Christie, and seemed ready for the beginning of a sea change in policy. They may be getting that.

See this article and video interview by CBS News. I like Christie's tone and demeanor; it speaks volumes as to where he wants to pull the state. This guy has balls. He is tough. I like how he says "I'm not a bully... just direct" - in truth, I'd love a bully in my (the taxpayer's) corner, bullying those pesky interest groups and unions that tend to hold NYS and NJ budgets hostage. I like how he is determined to reform the state's biggest issue - property tax, and wants to get it done NOW. We've heard this tired proclamation many times from NJ governors through the years, but this time, the governor seems to truly mean it and has the balls and fortitude to actually follow through. Something's changing in Jersey - that landfill stink is slowly ebbing away. Best of all, he really seems to mean it when he says he's not interested in any higher office than where he is right now. If he really does mean it, that just bolsters the impression that what he wants to do in his turn at playing guv'na is truly reform NJ to make it a streamlined, efficient, tax-friendly state.

So, to echo Dickens, it's a tale of two governors and two states. Both have creaking, antiquated fiscal policy structures. One state refuses to acknowledge its failings and continues to contribute to its demise. The other seems hell-bent on reform and improvement. One governor seems fiercely determined to right the ship and do what's best for the state's residents. The other probably wants to do something, anything, but is too spineless and weak to take on the entrenched, Tammany Hall-like "boss" system that seems to run New York these days.

If NYS keeps on its current route to hell, it'll find businesses and households turning their taxpaying, revenue-generating backs on the joke they call NYS, raising both middle fingers in a time-honored "F*** YOU!" salute and never looking back. New York can very easily be an economically poisonous environment in which to live and do business. It sucks money from your pocket and promises the world to you but gives appallingly little back in return.

I'm sure many people will accuse me of just being whiny. Do those people think I'm the only one who thinks and writes this way? Yeah, me and 10 million other taxpaying citizens. Let's not forget - Gov Christie was probably a whiny bastard, harping on the same things over and over. And look where he is now and what he's doing... Just sayin'...

Communists

It used to be a ritual for many New Yorkers who wanted to buy clothing - hop in the car, travel to your nearest NJ or CT mall, and buy clothing there, at a lower (read: zero) tax rate. New York State lawmakers (read: a**holes) realized that their exorbitant tax rates were doing much to drive commercial activity away from the state, and were enabling business and economic growth in the surrounding, out of state areas. So NYS legislators passed a law exempting tax on clothing articles under $110 each to bring that business back.

This law is may be about to change - see this article on VIN. Legislators are seriously considering bringing back sales tax on all clothing and doing away with so-called "tax holidays" - periods of time during the year when certain items are exempt from sales tax - in order to plug a multi-billion dollar hole in an overdue budget.

As usual, NYS legislators are showing their true colors: RED. These communist bastards think that the solution to nearly every problem lies in the state's power to levy all manner of taxes, fees and excises. In reality, these blowhards aren't really solving problems by throwing money at them as much as creating new problems by refusing to cut the state's freakishly bloated, corrupt entitlements system. All these idiots know how to do is tax and spend, not cut and save. Want to get fat people slim, and earn some revenue in the process? Tax sugary foods and drinks. Want to help otherwise undeserving people obtain mortgages so that they, too, can live "the American nightmare" (oops - I meant "dream")? Tax mortgages and home financing. Want to throw more money into a failing school system? Tax local properties. And on and on and on.

I have a great idea for Paterson, Silver, Espada, and their rag-tag cast of spineless communist idiots. How about cutting entitlement programs instead of throwing money at them? How about tightening fraud detection to crack down on abuse of the system so people who really need state aid can get it?
How about growing a pair of balls when it comes to dealing with the teacher's union? How about passing a school voucher system to inject a little competition into the education market? How about learning from states like Texas, New Hampshire, and Florida as to how to effectively run a state with minimal individual tax burden (granted the demographics are different but there must be something that can be learned and adapted).

The sad fact is that the lazy, whiny babies in the NYS legislature and the idiots who represent this state in Congress seem to view themselves in unassailable positions and therefore have little incentive to change. All these people know how to do is tax and tax and tax, I truly believe this. They don't even think of drastically altering the state's time-honored tradition of raising and creating taxes by actually cutting programs. This is why I look into my crystal ball and see NYS becoming a failed, bankrupt state in the future - its tax structure is such that it creates little to no incentive for firms to do business in the state and ultimately drives established firms from the state. The individual tax burden that exists to fund all these wasteful entitlement programs will drive residents from the state, leaving fewer households to fund ever growing deficits. That spells doom.

Adam Smith was right. The 'invisible hand' has it's flaws, but it works. It's not by accident that the US has become the economic and political powerhouse that it is in such a short span of time. Capitalism has its flaws, but it WORKS. Reagan had it right - people should be given as much freedom as possible to decide what to do with their money, not governments. Income redistribuition just does not work. Governments have proven time and time and time again to be extremely poor decisors on how to spend other peoples' money and they have little moral right to tell individuals how to spend theirs. Free markets do a far, far better job in apportioning resources than do "central command", essentially government-run economies, such as exists in New York right now.

New York state, as it exists today, is not a state that's worth residing or doing business in from an economic point of view. The return on your the average NYS household's tax investment is staggeringly miniscule. Taxpayer dollars - whether business, sales, or personal - are funding programs that will bring the state to economic ruin, a la California. This article on VIN is just another example of how myopic these legislators can be. They either don't realize or don't care that all they're doing is, to use a tired cliche, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.


POSTSCRIPT - while I obviously have nothing but vile contempt for the elected nincompoop babyish a**holes that make up the great state of New York's legislative and executive structure, I would somewhat exempt Governor David Paterson from my ire. He's not too bad a fellow and doesn't seem much like all the others: greedy, power hungry, and grasping. He kind of seems to want to do something right by NYS citizens and taxpayers (this is because, in part, he's not elected); he's just terribly weak and incompetent as governor and completely the wrong person for the job.
As for all the other elected officials: if the aliens from Close Encounters of the Third Kind would come to take them away tomorrow for aeons of experimentation, I'd be very happy. Good riddance.


FNY!!

Testing on microblogging from the EVO

Lessons from the Rubashkin trial

The Rubashkin trial is now officially over. Yes, there will be appeals of the 27 year sentence, but that could take years and may not be successful, unfortunately.

It would be easy to feel dejected and to say that all the prayers, gatherings, tehillim recitals, and letter and phone campaigns were all, in retrospect, for naught. That the Jewish community expended all that energy, time, and money and came away with nothing to show for their trouble. That, I think, would be a grave mistake.

It's a fundamental Jewish belief that things don't just happen arbitrarily. Judaism believes that God runs the world and that He will make things happen or not happen for our ultimate good, hard as it is for us to see. Therefore, there must be something, some good that can come out of the Rubashkin sentencing, some message that we're meant to take. So what could it possibly be?

There are probably many messages and hints that we can glean from this episode. One of the big ones I can think of is, despite whatever your opinion of the matter itself, the sheer achdus that we are capable of when we want to be mis'ached. I think that the one theme that overarches many others, though, is that of honesty and integrity.

Let's call a spade a spade. Nobody (or nearly no one) is saying that the guilty party is or was completely innocent in this case, now that the case itself has been laid to rest. The trial, conviction, and sentencing occurred and is occurring over a time period marked concurrently with relentless chilulei Hashem of legal and financial flavors splashed across all manner of media outlets. Is it beyond the pale of reason to suggest that maybe, just maybe, for whatever reason, God is telling His people to keep their noses clean, that He's had enough of seeing His name desecrated in the NY Times, the LA Times, the London Times, the NY Post, etc? Maybe God is, for whatever unknown reason, using this particular case as a warning message to His people to look within themselves, to better themselves regarding this aspect of life - to strive to act with utter honesty and integrity when dealing within the legal and regulatory system with each other and non-Jews alike, and to take the grave sin of desecrating His name a lot more seriously.

This is not meant to be an argument for or against Mr. Rubashkin's innocence or whether his sentencing was fair or not. That's been argued ad infinitum and the trial is over and done with. The question is, what will we take from this episode? Is this a test, a nisayon, from God? If it is, will we pass it or pass it up?

Food for thought...

Thoughts at a Bar Mitzva

I was attending a family bar mitzva recently and was struck by a thought after the music started up and people started dancing.

What other group of people or religion can you find a bunch of virulently homophobic Orthodox men get up and dance with each other, sweaty hand clasped in sweaty hand??

MI KE'AMCHA YISRAEL!!!

;-)

Censoring...

I've been getting involved in what's turning out to be a nice, lively, healthy discussion on tuition over at YWN. I've put a few posts up there and the tone of the discussion is suprisingly civil and intelligent.

I made some interesting comments in a few of my posts. I suggested that our entire community (laymen and leaders alike) have possibly had our collective heads in the sand in ignorance of basic economics vis a vis our current and future tuition obligations and burdens as they relate to COLA (cost of living). I merely brought up the issue of family size, without really alluding to it as such, but did not advocate or condemn. I suggested that perhaps the very likely burden current and future families will have may not be the true ratzon Hashem (chas rachmana al m'mona shel yisrael), as the tuition issue and crisis is largely of our own making.

My posts got posted, oh yes. But these salient points which I INTENDED to be included to merely stir discussion and which I tried as carefully as I could to word innocuously got left out; lost in the cyberspace mail perhaps? Hardly. I saw a big fat EDITED at the bottom of all my posts that contained this "salacious" material.

This really P***** ME OFF. I don't think anything I wrote is beyond the pale at all. What, I'm not allowed to even obliquely suggest mild criticism of communal leaders? Not even when I lump everyone, the whole community in together?? What, is a subsection of Yahadus so perfect and omniscient as to be beyond any human reproach whatsoever?? Is merely suggesting that leaders are human and may take, from time to time, constructive criticism from the klal a heresy? Or do we live under ideals that Kim Jong Il would be proud of...? I'm not allowed to suggest issues and thoughts that are intended to get discussions moving, such as ratzon Hashem, number of children, etc? Not allowed to mildly inject things into the discussion just to try to open people up and face and tackle tough issues in an attempt to consensually solve a very serious problem??

It's not the censorship itself that really bothers me. It's the thinking behind it: All leaders are completely beyond reproach. Their actions are inviolable and not subject to even mild questioning or gentle criticism. They are all knowing and can see into the future. Tough, gnarly subjects such as family size, the will of God, etc are to be avoided at all costs in any discussion. These are inviolable, even if they're used as a tool to hash out issues and help with possible solutions to very complicated questions. I'm not suggesting that our leaders are doddering, that we should all have no more than two kids, and we can always deign to know exactly what the razton Hashem is. But these are complicated and tough issues, the introduction of which may help in opening up other issues and helping solve problems within the discussion. But for fear that someone may get the wrong idea about all this and be 'porek ol', etc, etc, etc....

The faint sense of paranoia just seems to linger on and fester and suffocate our ability to dialogue and thrash out very complicated issues and complicated answers. And, as Steve "Turtleneck" Jobs would say, oh, and one more thing. This was in reference to a discussion on tuition. If we pay so much $$$ for quality education, why the paranoia that even the slightest hint of a suggestion of a hint will cause 'prikas ol' en masse? If we are so convinced of the frailty of our billion-dollar chinuch system's message, wouldn't it then be better to just have cheaper, "1984" and "Brave New World" style education modalities where subliminal messages are played into our kids' ears as they sleep and all our kids sit on chairs in an auditorium and throw garbage at the Satans of this world as they appear onscreen...?

A good idea, part II

I came across another good idea (boy, the web seems to be full of them).

The Tax Foundation has an article posted regarding complete (as in, not only medical), taxed, controlled legalization of marijuana for personal consumption and use and for cultivation. I think this is a great idea. I think it's ridiculous that we allow (controlled and taxed) consumption and cultivation of tobacco and alcohol which are substances that can do significant damage to a person's body and can impair one's activities - but criminalize and stigmatize marijuana use. Legalized marijuana use and cultivation is now actually a ballot initiative in California.

Billions upon billions of dollars are completely wasted in the law enforcement and counter-terrorism areas of federal and state governments in waging a "war" on marijuana (among other drugs). I say wasted because approximately 100 million Americans admit to have used marijuana in the past - that's one third of the entire population. More and more will use as time passes, I have little doubt. Yet we wage a "war" on this use and spend billions upon billions doing it, with almost zero results. People still use and all manner of crimes still get committed in relation to the cultivation, sale, and use of the drug.

Legalizing marijuana could have numerous beneficial effects. It could increase tax revenue significantly to the states who so desperately need income. It could serve as a cost savings to the federal, state, and local governments by reducing the costs associated with the "war on drugs". It could remove the undeserving social stigma from casual users of marijuana, whose use parallels a casual drinker or smoker (do we stigmatize they guy or gal who goes out for a drink every week??). It could allow easier access to those that need the drug for medical use. It could help reduce or eliminate the violent crime, trafficking and other nasty activities associated with the current cultivation and trade of marijuana (though also eliminate and entire Hollywood genre in the same stroke). Lastly, it could help provide secondary or alternative streams of revenue for  individuals, thereby producing more tax revenue for federal, state, and local governments.

No one's proposing that we just legalize all willy-nilly; that would be inappropriate. What the state of California's ballot initiative proposes is a controlled and taxed legalization, similar to how the state (or almost any other state for that matter) controls and taxes alcohol or cigarettes (no sale, gift, or smoking to or around minors, require license to sell, minimum legal age, can't use while driving or operating machinery, etc). I urge everyone to read or skim through the actual text of the ballot proposal, found here.

I think it's utterly ridiculous that we the people have no problem with allowing people to drink alcoholic drinks and smoke or chew tobacco, and that we don't view a (casual) smoker or drinker as 'bad', but are unwilling to allow a person to smoke marijuana or remove his or her social stigma. Part of that stigma comes as a result of the illegality of the act. Marijuana doesn't have the same horrible side effects as do cocaine, heroin, etc; those substances should be and are illegal. I do understand that allowing marijuana could lead us down a "slippery slope", but we need to recognize that the cost/benefit analysis could probably end up a net positive and that the reality is that many people can and do use the drug.

This post isn't meant as a personal statement on whether or not I think marijuana is good for you or not, or whether smoking it is a great thing or not. I'm just saying that we need to see the realities on the ground and adapt to them, and pursue the policy that's in America's best interests.

A good idea...

See this post on HonestlyFrum's blog:

A good idea... will we run with it?