One of the hottest issues with voters is the automatic 5% property tax increase Oklahoma property owners face each year! Sen. Jim Reynolds held a press conference on Tuesday, April 27, and is asking for HELP from voters to gain a floor vote on Senate Joint Resolution 5, the property tax cap that he has pressed in recent years! [reduction from 5% to 3%]. The State Senate has approved this bill and Reynolds has ask that House Speaker, Chris Benge, R-Tulsa, let the bill be heard by the House of Representatives. Benge has not agreed to let this bill be heard.
The Grapevine would encourage all who have interest/concern in this bill to contact Speaker Benge, Senator Reynolds, along with your area Legislator. Voters need to read a copy of the bill. Voters want ALL properties included as in original State Question, not just applying to a homestead [only].
Now, the Legislature could place this question [directly] on ballot [state question] for the people to vote with no signature required by the Governor; OR..... it could be passed through the Legislature and appears any veto by the Governor could be over ridden by the Legislature. Seems problem is.....Legislature (House) doesn't want to address this issue. Why? No doubt the teachers union lobbies hard against any reduction in this tax.
It's an election year. Voters need to ask the candidates where they stand on this issue. Property owners need relief NOW!
Senator Jim Reynolds: (405) 521-5522; reynolds@oksenate.gov
Speaker Chris Benge: (405) 557-7340; chrisbenge@okhouse.gov
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
PLAY as you PAY!
TAXES and VOTING
Walter E. Williams
According to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington, D.C., research organization, nearly half of U.S. households will pay no federal income taxes for 2009. That's up from the Tax Foundation's 2006 estimate that 41 percent of the American population, or 121 million Americans, were completely outside the federal income tax system. These Americans pay no federal income tax either because their incomes are too low or they have higher income but credits, deductions and exemptions that relieve them of tax liability. This lack of income tax liability stands in stark contrast to the top 10 percent of earners, those households earning an average of $366,400 in 2006, who paid about 73 percent of federal income taxes. The top 25 percent paid 86 percent. The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers paid less than 4 percent of federal income taxes collected.
Let's not dwell on the fairness of such an arrangement for financing the activities of the federal government. Instead, let's ask what kind of incentives and results such an arrangement produces and ask ourselves whether these results are good for our country. That's a question to be asked whether or not one has federal income tax liabilities. Having 121 million Americans completely outside the federal income tax system, it's like throwing chum to political sharks. These Americans become a natural spending constituency for big-spending politicians. After all, if you have no income tax liability, how much do you care about deficits, how much Congress spends and the level of taxation?
Political calls for tax cuts and spending restraints have little appeal. Survey polls revealed this. According to The Harris Poll taken in June 2003, 51 percent of Democrats thought the tax cuts enacted by Congress were a bad thing while 16 percent of Republicans thought so. Among Democrats, 67 percent thought the tax cuts were unfair while 32 percent of Republicans thought so. When asked whether the $350-billion tax cut package will help your family finances, 59 percent of those surveyed said no and 35 percent said yes. Tax cuts to many Americans mean just one thing: They pose a threat to the federal handouts they receive.
Here's my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management? Let's put it another way: I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Company. Do you think I should have voting rights or any say-so in the management of the company? I'm guessing that the average sane person's answer is no.
You say, "Williams, just where are you heading with this?" I'm not proposing that we take voting rights away from those who do not pay taxes. What I'm suggesting is that every American gets one vote in every federal election, plus another vote for each $20,000 he pays in federal taxes. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making right. Of course, unequal voting power could be reduced by legislating lower taxes.
This is not a far-out idea. The founders worried about it. James Madison's concern about class warfare between the rich and the poor led him to favor the House of Representatives being elected by the people at large and the Senate elected by property owners. He said, "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property."
Walter E. Williams
According to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington, D.C., research organization, nearly half of U.S. households will pay no federal income taxes for 2009. That's up from the Tax Foundation's 2006 estimate that 41 percent of the American population, or 121 million Americans, were completely outside the federal income tax system. These Americans pay no federal income tax either because their incomes are too low or they have higher income but credits, deductions and exemptions that relieve them of tax liability. This lack of income tax liability stands in stark contrast to the top 10 percent of earners, those households earning an average of $366,400 in 2006, who paid about 73 percent of federal income taxes. The top 25 percent paid 86 percent. The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers paid less than 4 percent of federal income taxes collected.
Let's not dwell on the fairness of such an arrangement for financing the activities of the federal government. Instead, let's ask what kind of incentives and results such an arrangement produces and ask ourselves whether these results are good for our country. That's a question to be asked whether or not one has federal income tax liabilities. Having 121 million Americans completely outside the federal income tax system, it's like throwing chum to political sharks. These Americans become a natural spending constituency for big-spending politicians. After all, if you have no income tax liability, how much do you care about deficits, how much Congress spends and the level of taxation?
Political calls for tax cuts and spending restraints have little appeal. Survey polls revealed this. According to The Harris Poll taken in June 2003, 51 percent of Democrats thought the tax cuts enacted by Congress were a bad thing while 16 percent of Republicans thought so. Among Democrats, 67 percent thought the tax cuts were unfair while 32 percent of Republicans thought so. When asked whether the $350-billion tax cut package will help your family finances, 59 percent of those surveyed said no and 35 percent said yes. Tax cuts to many Americans mean just one thing: They pose a threat to the federal handouts they receive.
Here's my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management? Let's put it another way: I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Company. Do you think I should have voting rights or any say-so in the management of the company? I'm guessing that the average sane person's answer is no.
You say, "Williams, just where are you heading with this?" I'm not proposing that we take voting rights away from those who do not pay taxes. What I'm suggesting is that every American gets one vote in every federal election, plus another vote for each $20,000 he pays in federal taxes. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making right. Of course, unequal voting power could be reduced by legislating lower taxes.
This is not a far-out idea. The founders worried about it. James Madison's concern about class warfare between the rich and the poor led him to favor the House of Representatives being elected by the people at large and the Senate elected by property owners. He said, "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property."
Thursday, April 1, 2010
"I Thought"...... vs Reality
People who expected change from President O. had this in mind.....one in every garage!
As 'big brother', set-us-back-100 years, policy takes shape this is what the President and Congress have in mind for you. Enjoy, it gets great milage, few green house emmissions! And, if push comes to shove....you can eat it! Can Mercedes do that?
As 'big brother', set-us-back-100 years, policy takes shape this is what the President and Congress have in mind for you. Enjoy, it gets great milage, few green house emmissions! And, if push comes to shove....you can eat it! Can Mercedes do that?
Monday, March 29, 2010
"..longest wet kiss....".
Monday, March 15, 2010
'WE' Know What Works....
A crowd of 6,000+ were in Tulsa to hear Glen Beck and Sarah Palin on March 13.
"The funny thing is that Washington wants all of us to think this (healthcare reform package) is just way over our heads and all of this is just way too complicated for all of us to understand. But everyday Americans know better.
And we’re not taking it anymore.
We’re not believing everything the ‘lamestream’ media is spewing at us, and that the White House wants to twist and pivot around … We know better, because we know real history, and we know what works.”
~ Sarah Palin
"The funny thing is that Washington wants all of us to think this (healthcare reform package) is just way over our heads and all of this is just way too complicated for all of us to understand. But everyday Americans know better.
And we’re not taking it anymore.
We’re not believing everything the ‘lamestream’ media is spewing at us, and that the White House wants to twist and pivot around … We know better, because we know real history, and we know what works.”
~ Sarah Palin
Thursday, March 11, 2010
STOP SQ 744
Oklahomans For Responsible Government has taken its fight against State Question 744 up a notch with the purchase of an ad on The McCarville Report Online and Mark Shannon.com seeking petition signers.
Those who click on the ad are taken to www.STOP744.com an online resource to help defeat State Question 744 on the Oklahoma ballot this November! (scroll down, link on right of this page).
SQ 744 is a proposal by the Oklahoma Education Association (OEA) that would force the state to spend nearly a billion dollars more on education by cutting all other state agencies or raise your taxes by the same amount.
SQ 744 will be on the November 2010 ballot.
Those who click on the ad are taken to www.STOP744.com an online resource to help defeat State Question 744 on the Oklahoma ballot this November! (scroll down, link on right of this page).
SQ 744 is a proposal by the Oklahoma Education Association (OEA) that would force the state to spend nearly a billion dollars more on education by cutting all other state agencies or raise your taxes by the same amount.
SQ 744 will be on the November 2010 ballot.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The MOTHER of All Bail-outs To Come!
The Mother of All Bail-outs To Come!
Opinion/editorial by J.C. Watts Jr.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal - 2/28/10
I'm all for bipartisan agreements that make sense. However, when I look at what is unfolding in Congress in the name of bipartisanship on banking reform, it makes me extremely nervous.
Here we go again. Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., are working on bipartisan legislation to revamp the regulatory structure of the financial services industry. The House passed Rep. Barney Frank's version Dec. 11. The bill from Frank, D-Mass., would create a controversial Consumer Financial Protection Agency and codify a permanent bailout authority for the federal government.
The big question for Americans who hate bailouts is whether the Senate will follow the House's lead and grant the Federal Reserve the statutory authority to bail out individuals, partnerships or corporations to the tune of $4 trillion.
On Page 506 of the House-passed bill, which is titled the "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act" is the following language: The amounts made available under this subsection shall not exceed $4,000,000,000,000.
This so-called "reform" and "consumer protection" legislation authorizes a $4 trillion bailout fund for Wall Street. That is more money than President Obama's 2011 budget ($3.8 trillion), the gross domestic product of Germany ($3.7 trillion), and between five and six times the amount of the Troubled Assets Relief Program. A majority of House members actually voted for a bill containing $4 trillion in new bailout authority. You just can't make this stuff up. It is really in the bill.
David Reilly, a columnist for Bloomberg News, said the bill "authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes. So much for 'no-more-bailouts' talk. That is more than twice what the Federal Reserve pumped into markets last year. The size of the fund makes the deal-making in the Senate's health care bill look minuscule."
Current law allows the Federal Reserve to open the lending window in "unusual and exigent circumstances." According to the Congressional Research Service, this authority had been used in the past to authorize entities created by the Federal Reserve's Bear Stearns merger and bailout of AIG. Nowhere near $4 trillion has been committed under existing authority.An explicit authority would be created under the Frank approach to financial services reform to allow the Federal Reserve to make $4 trillion in commitments in unusual and exigent circumstances.
This provides the Federal Reserve with more authority to bail out failing industries without the need for getting the prior consent of Congress. The words "unusual" and "exigent" are vague and ambiguous enough to give the Federal Reserve sweeping new bailout authorities to dispense massive commitments to private and public entities.
Here's how it would work: The Fed would have to make a written determination that a "liquidity event exists that could destabilize the financial system" with a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Financial Oversight Council. The next step would be to secure the written consent of the secretary of the treasury as another condition to the commitment of monies, and the president would have to certify that an emergency exists. The Fed then would authorize a Federal Reserve bank to make a commitment in consideration for "notes, drafts, and bills of exchange" consistent with the order from the Fed, Treasury and the president. The House and Senate would be notified of the action by the Fed. There is a requirement that the secretary of the treasury believes that the funds will be paid back.
I remind you these are all the same entities who were asleep at the wheel in oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, allowing them to run amok. There is a provision for a joint resolution of congressional disapproval, but the commencing of any resolution would not happen until after the commitment of funds had already been made. It is unlikely that members of Congress would be able to unravel any action.
The Senate has the power to run away from this new bailout authority or to embrace it when senators debate financial services reform legislation. The direction that Dodd and Corker take in negotiations on this important issue will have severe ramifications for government policy on the proper role of the Federal Reserve to prop up failing companies in times of crisis.
If this bill passes the Senate with bailout authority intact and gets one step closer to the president's desk, then voters will be mad at yet another abuse of the taxpayers' dollars. The idea of a small and limited government is inconsistent with the idea that the Federal Reserve should have $4 trillion more in bailout authority.
-posted Fair and Biased
Opinion/editorial by J.C. Watts Jr.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal - 2/28/10
I'm all for bipartisan agreements that make sense. However, when I look at what is unfolding in Congress in the name of bipartisanship on banking reform, it makes me extremely nervous.
Here we go again. Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn., are working on bipartisan legislation to revamp the regulatory structure of the financial services industry. The House passed Rep. Barney Frank's version Dec. 11. The bill from Frank, D-Mass., would create a controversial Consumer Financial Protection Agency and codify a permanent bailout authority for the federal government.
The big question for Americans who hate bailouts is whether the Senate will follow the House's lead and grant the Federal Reserve the statutory authority to bail out individuals, partnerships or corporations to the tune of $4 trillion.
On Page 506 of the House-passed bill, which is titled the "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act" is the following language: The amounts made available under this subsection shall not exceed $4,000,000,000,000.
This so-called "reform" and "consumer protection" legislation authorizes a $4 trillion bailout fund for Wall Street. That is more money than President Obama's 2011 budget ($3.8 trillion), the gross domestic product of Germany ($3.7 trillion), and between five and six times the amount of the Troubled Assets Relief Program. A majority of House members actually voted for a bill containing $4 trillion in new bailout authority. You just can't make this stuff up. It is really in the bill.
David Reilly, a columnist for Bloomberg News, said the bill "authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes. So much for 'no-more-bailouts' talk. That is more than twice what the Federal Reserve pumped into markets last year. The size of the fund makes the deal-making in the Senate's health care bill look minuscule."
Current law allows the Federal Reserve to open the lending window in "unusual and exigent circumstances." According to the Congressional Research Service, this authority had been used in the past to authorize entities created by the Federal Reserve's Bear Stearns merger and bailout of AIG. Nowhere near $4 trillion has been committed under existing authority.An explicit authority would be created under the Frank approach to financial services reform to allow the Federal Reserve to make $4 trillion in commitments in unusual and exigent circumstances.
This provides the Federal Reserve with more authority to bail out failing industries without the need for getting the prior consent of Congress. The words "unusual" and "exigent" are vague and ambiguous enough to give the Federal Reserve sweeping new bailout authorities to dispense massive commitments to private and public entities.
Here's how it would work: The Fed would have to make a written determination that a "liquidity event exists that could destabilize the financial system" with a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Financial Oversight Council. The next step would be to secure the written consent of the secretary of the treasury as another condition to the commitment of monies, and the president would have to certify that an emergency exists. The Fed then would authorize a Federal Reserve bank to make a commitment in consideration for "notes, drafts, and bills of exchange" consistent with the order from the Fed, Treasury and the president. The House and Senate would be notified of the action by the Fed. There is a requirement that the secretary of the treasury believes that the funds will be paid back.
I remind you these are all the same entities who were asleep at the wheel in oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, allowing them to run amok. There is a provision for a joint resolution of congressional disapproval, but the commencing of any resolution would not happen until after the commitment of funds had already been made. It is unlikely that members of Congress would be able to unravel any action.
The Senate has the power to run away from this new bailout authority or to embrace it when senators debate financial services reform legislation. The direction that Dodd and Corker take in negotiations on this important issue will have severe ramifications for government policy on the proper role of the Federal Reserve to prop up failing companies in times of crisis.
If this bill passes the Senate with bailout authority intact and gets one step closer to the president's desk, then voters will be mad at yet another abuse of the taxpayers' dollars. The idea of a small and limited government is inconsistent with the idea that the Federal Reserve should have $4 trillion more in bailout authority.
-posted Fair and Biased
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
