I have been travelling quite a bit by plane and car over the past few weeks.
Yesterday, as I filled my tank, I noted that the price of gas has climbed over $3.00/gallon, just about everwhere. Funny, though, I have not seen any stories in the media nor heard Chuck Schumer calling for an investigation. I distictly remember that the last time gas prices were this high, apoplexy swept through Washington and the news media.
So what's different today? (Yes, it's a rhetorical question.) Obviously, the fact that Obama is in the White House means three dollar gas is OK, while when Bush was in there it was an outrage (and probably a conspiracy).
I guess that with Obama in charge we should not sweat $3.00 gas; its probably all part of some plan of his to make the country better. I can't wait for $4.00 gas!
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Kagan Appointment
As everyone knows, Pres. Obama has nominated Solicitor General, Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens who is retairing from the Supreme Court. The nomination has drawn fire from both left and right. I assume that she will be affirmed, however. She seems to be intellectually qualified even though she was never a judge and she has a rather sparse paper trail. I have to assume that she will be a reliable liberal vote on the Court.
Frankly, this is one of the consequenses of Presidential elections. The President gets to nominate judges that he believes think like him. Appointments to the Federal bench are, in my opinion, the most long-lasting and material impacts of a Presidency. During his eight years as President, Bill Clinton appointed a vast number of liberal judges whose rulings have grave impacts on a wide range of issues that affect our lives.
This is the second Obama nominee. While Kagan, like Sotomayor, is a liberal, her confirmation will not markedly alter the make-up of the Court. Both she and Sotomayor replaced other liberals, thus the balance of the Court is little changed.
It is interesting to note that the "liberals" they replaced were both appointees of Republican Presidents (Souter by H. W. Bush and Stevens by Gerald Ford). Its ironic that many GOP nominees move to the left over the years. It never seems to work the other way.
Frankly, this is one of the consequenses of Presidential elections. The President gets to nominate judges that he believes think like him. Appointments to the Federal bench are, in my opinion, the most long-lasting and material impacts of a Presidency. During his eight years as President, Bill Clinton appointed a vast number of liberal judges whose rulings have grave impacts on a wide range of issues that affect our lives.
This is the second Obama nominee. While Kagan, like Sotomayor, is a liberal, her confirmation will not markedly alter the make-up of the Court. Both she and Sotomayor replaced other liberals, thus the balance of the Court is little changed.
It is interesting to note that the "liberals" they replaced were both appointees of Republican Presidents (Souter by H. W. Bush and Stevens by Gerald Ford). Its ironic that many GOP nominees move to the left over the years. It never seems to work the other way.
Paterson Postures
Governor Paterson finally made it official. There will be no special election in the 29th Congressional District.
That was no surprise, but the concerns Paterson alleged as the reasons for his decison were simply bull. He cited the cost of a special election and the possible dis-enfranchisement of members of the military.
Funny, but the costs did not bother him when we had special elections in other districts. The disenfranchisement claim is the real hoot. First of all, he's disenfranchising the whole 29th district by refusing to hold the special election. Moreover, if he was concerned that military members might miss out on the vote, how is it possible that he allowed a special election in the 23rd district, which included Ft. Drum?
The answer is simple: pure politics. The Democrats don't have a credible candidate, so Paterson wants to put off allowing Republican Tom Reed getting into the seat.
Paterson made up his "concerns" to cover the political basis for the decision. We're not that dumb, Governor.
That was no surprise, but the concerns Paterson alleged as the reasons for his decison were simply bull. He cited the cost of a special election and the possible dis-enfranchisement of members of the military.
Funny, but the costs did not bother him when we had special elections in other districts. The disenfranchisement claim is the real hoot. First of all, he's disenfranchising the whole 29th district by refusing to hold the special election. Moreover, if he was concerned that military members might miss out on the vote, how is it possible that he allowed a special election in the 23rd district, which included Ft. Drum?
The answer is simple: pure politics. The Democrats don't have a credible candidate, so Paterson wants to put off allowing Republican Tom Reed getting into the seat.
Paterson made up his "concerns" to cover the political basis for the decision. We're not that dumb, Governor.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
A Closer Look At Property Taxes
The Democrat and Chronicle had this story on the front of the Local section today. It is the latest installment in their long-running series of articles on the fact that propery taxes in New York are too high and that local governments should be consolidated.
At the outset, let me note my concerns that local property taxes, particularly school taxes, may be too high. But the treatment that the D&C gives to the topic in today's article (like most of their stories on the issue) is far too superficial and leaves many questions unanswered. Further, the statistics listed in the article are not given context which would help us determine their relevance.
The main stat in the story is that Upstate NY counties have among the highest real property taxes as a percentage of home values in the country. On its face, that seems like a damning fact. But how about some context? According to the National Ass'n. of Realtors, real property values in this area are in the bottom ten (10%) percent of values of the 150 largest metropolitan areas in the country (4th quarter, 2007). Given that fact, its not really surprising that taxes, as a percentage of value, are high.
The other regular feature of this type of article is the inevitable statement that property taxes in other states are far less than taxes here on the same value property. What the D&C has repeatedly fails discuss is what is in the basket of goods and services which local taxpayers receive for their money. In Gates, for example, my Town tax levy pays for police, fire and ambulance services, the highway department (plowing, street repair & maintenence, etc.), the library, the parks and recreation department and various other items. If I wanted to compare my taxes with those of someone in Virginia or North Carolina, I would have to know if all of those items were provided by the local government there, or if there were other taxes (for example, in Virginia where there is a personal property tax that covers some items our County property tax is earmarked for) or if there were private entities that provided those services for a fee. Only if we knew the relative cost of the same basket of goods and services in each location, could we make a fair comparison.
I would also like to see another statistic which I believe would be telling. I'd like to know the percentage of local taxes to total state and local taxes and where NY stands relative to other states in that vein. I pay substantially more in State income, sales and use taxes than I do in local taxes. I would be stunned if much more than 10-15% of my total state and local tax dollars went to local governments. When consolidation advocates statrt telling me we will save a lot by cutting down the number of governmental units, I'd like to ask them to show me the proof. We will still have the gaping maw that is Albany!
There is no question we are overtaxed in New York. I am sure that many municipal governments, particularly school districts, could tighten their belts. But in the end, I doubt there is as much disparity between local taxes here and in other states as people anecdotally believe. The real problem remains our State government in Albany. Until they stop spending money like there is no limit to our resources, we will continue to see our State lose people and opportunity.
At the outset, let me note my concerns that local property taxes, particularly school taxes, may be too high. But the treatment that the D&C gives to the topic in today's article (like most of their stories on the issue) is far too superficial and leaves many questions unanswered. Further, the statistics listed in the article are not given context which would help us determine their relevance.
The main stat in the story is that Upstate NY counties have among the highest real property taxes as a percentage of home values in the country. On its face, that seems like a damning fact. But how about some context? According to the National Ass'n. of Realtors, real property values in this area are in the bottom ten (10%) percent of values of the 150 largest metropolitan areas in the country (4th quarter, 2007). Given that fact, its not really surprising that taxes, as a percentage of value, are high.
The other regular feature of this type of article is the inevitable statement that property taxes in other states are far less than taxes here on the same value property. What the D&C has repeatedly fails discuss is what is in the basket of goods and services which local taxpayers receive for their money. In Gates, for example, my Town tax levy pays for police, fire and ambulance services, the highway department (plowing, street repair & maintenence, etc.), the library, the parks and recreation department and various other items. If I wanted to compare my taxes with those of someone in Virginia or North Carolina, I would have to know if all of those items were provided by the local government there, or if there were other taxes (for example, in Virginia where there is a personal property tax that covers some items our County property tax is earmarked for) or if there were private entities that provided those services for a fee. Only if we knew the relative cost of the same basket of goods and services in each location, could we make a fair comparison.
I would also like to see another statistic which I believe would be telling. I'd like to know the percentage of local taxes to total state and local taxes and where NY stands relative to other states in that vein. I pay substantially more in State income, sales and use taxes than I do in local taxes. I would be stunned if much more than 10-15% of my total state and local tax dollars went to local governments. When consolidation advocates statrt telling me we will save a lot by cutting down the number of governmental units, I'd like to ask them to show me the proof. We will still have the gaping maw that is Albany!
There is no question we are overtaxed in New York. I am sure that many municipal governments, particularly school districts, could tighten their belts. But in the end, I doubt there is as much disparity between local taxes here and in other states as people anecdotally believe. The real problem remains our State government in Albany. Until they stop spending money like there is no limit to our resources, we will continue to see our State lose people and opportunity.
Broder Misses The Mark
David Broder penned this column today. In it he described the Obama presidency as one which will be deemed "an era of substantial but deferred accomplishments".
This is at least the second Broder column since the passage of "Obamacare" in which Broder, like so many inside the beltway pundits, has lauded the President's accomplishments and essentially predicted an Obama "comeback" in stature and effectiveness.
The strangest part of this column (at least to me) is that Broder used the President's recent nuclear arms summit as the basis for his views. Broder lauds the President for seeking "a nuclear free world" (I'll leave aside my view that this is more a bumper sticker slogan than a well-defined policy). But Broder goes on to discuss the summit as if it represented real movement towards nuclear arms reduction.
Obama has done little in the real world to stop the growth of nuclear weapons. Broder and others will point to his deal with the Russians to reduce the number of nuclear warheads. But the Russians only did that deal so that they would not have to replace obsolete missles to retain parity with the US. We got rid of useful weapons, they got rid of junk.
Further, I'd argue his inaction on Iranian nukes will lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and virtually insure that terrorists get their hands on nuclear materials. The Israelis cannot let Iran actually develop weapons that the Iranian President says he will use on Israel. As such, Israel must inevitably attack the Iranian nuke facillities. The US has apparently decided it will not acquiesce in such an attack and has denied Israel the "bunker buster" bombs which it would likely have used in such an effort. That will leave Israel with only one choice; use tactical nuclear weapons on Iran. That will set off an effort by every major Middle Eastern arab nation to get nuclear weapons.
Broder though thinks this summit will have the effect of going dramatically further down the path of disarmament. After all, Broder noted that 46 nations sent representatives who expressed their assent to the goal. I wonder if some aging pundit in 1928 waxed eloquent over the banning of war as public policy when more than 50 nations signed the Kellog-Briand Treaty? That worked out well, didn't it?
Sadly, Broder is clearly past his prime. He is wrong on both his belief in the value of the nuke summit and the re-birth of the Obama presidency. I think the November elections should allow for a useful evaluation of what Americans think on this score.
This is at least the second Broder column since the passage of "Obamacare" in which Broder, like so many inside the beltway pundits, has lauded the President's accomplishments and essentially predicted an Obama "comeback" in stature and effectiveness.
The strangest part of this column (at least to me) is that Broder used the President's recent nuclear arms summit as the basis for his views. Broder lauds the President for seeking "a nuclear free world" (I'll leave aside my view that this is more a bumper sticker slogan than a well-defined policy). But Broder goes on to discuss the summit as if it represented real movement towards nuclear arms reduction.
Obama has done little in the real world to stop the growth of nuclear weapons. Broder and others will point to his deal with the Russians to reduce the number of nuclear warheads. But the Russians only did that deal so that they would not have to replace obsolete missles to retain parity with the US. We got rid of useful weapons, they got rid of junk.
Further, I'd argue his inaction on Iranian nukes will lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and virtually insure that terrorists get their hands on nuclear materials. The Israelis cannot let Iran actually develop weapons that the Iranian President says he will use on Israel. As such, Israel must inevitably attack the Iranian nuke facillities. The US has apparently decided it will not acquiesce in such an attack and has denied Israel the "bunker buster" bombs which it would likely have used in such an effort. That will leave Israel with only one choice; use tactical nuclear weapons on Iran. That will set off an effort by every major Middle Eastern arab nation to get nuclear weapons.
Broder though thinks this summit will have the effect of going dramatically further down the path of disarmament. After all, Broder noted that 46 nations sent representatives who expressed their assent to the goal. I wonder if some aging pundit in 1928 waxed eloquent over the banning of war as public policy when more than 50 nations signed the Kellog-Briand Treaty? That worked out well, didn't it?
Sadly, Broder is clearly past his prime. He is wrong on both his belief in the value of the nuke summit and the re-birth of the Obama presidency. I think the November elections should allow for a useful evaluation of what Americans think on this score.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Rooneys Are Not Amused
I am proud to be a Steeler fan today.
The Rooney's showed that some things are more important than winning. They think that character counts. Santonio Holmes was dealt for a fifth round draft pick after he violated the NFL's substance abuse policy again. This followed his drink throwing and DUI incidents. The Steelers said good-bye despite his prowess as a player.
Then they made it clear that Big Ben is also on thin ice. Unlike last year's denial speech, none of Steeler management backed up Roethlisberger while he gave his lame "I'm sorry, I was drunk", quasi-apology. Sorry Ben, this excuse isn't cutting it with Steeler management and many Steeler fans.
Ben has a lot of work to do to win back respect. He might start by staying out of college bars and hitting on coeds.
At least the Rooney's aren't just slapping him on the back saying "boys will be boys". I think that another incident will be strike three for Ben, no matter how good a QB he is. Letting Holmes go for a song was a pretty good indication that the Steeler's owners have a tolerance limit.
Good for them!
The Rooney's showed that some things are more important than winning. They think that character counts. Santonio Holmes was dealt for a fifth round draft pick after he violated the NFL's substance abuse policy again. This followed his drink throwing and DUI incidents. The Steelers said good-bye despite his prowess as a player.
Then they made it clear that Big Ben is also on thin ice. Unlike last year's denial speech, none of Steeler management backed up Roethlisberger while he gave his lame "I'm sorry, I was drunk", quasi-apology. Sorry Ben, this excuse isn't cutting it with Steeler management and many Steeler fans.
Ben has a lot of work to do to win back respect. He might start by staying out of college bars and hitting on coeds.
At least the Rooney's aren't just slapping him on the back saying "boys will be boys". I think that another incident will be strike three for Ben, no matter how good a QB he is. Letting Holmes go for a song was a pretty good indication that the Steeler's owners have a tolerance limit.
Good for them!
Monday, April 12, 2010
Failure To Connect The Dots
This morning's Democrat & Chronicle contained a story about the nuclear non-proliferation summit being hosted by President Obama.
According to the story, one focus of the summit is to prevent the spread of nuclear materials to terrorists, who could smuggle same into the heart of a big city. The President is correct in wanting to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists, but his actions belie his words.
The complete failure of this Administration to take serious steps to stop Iran from developing atomic weapons undercuts anything the President is doing to stop the spread of nukes. Does anyone doubt that Iran will provide nuclear material to Hamas or Hezbollah or Al-quida or the Taliban? Once Iran has nukes, terrorists will get the capability soon thereafter.
According to the story, one focus of the summit is to prevent the spread of nuclear materials to terrorists, who could smuggle same into the heart of a big city. The President is correct in wanting to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists, but his actions belie his words.
The complete failure of this Administration to take serious steps to stop Iran from developing atomic weapons undercuts anything the President is doing to stop the spread of nukes. Does anyone doubt that Iran will provide nuclear material to Hamas or Hezbollah or Al-quida or the Taliban? Once Iran has nukes, terrorists will get the capability soon thereafter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
