Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 18, 2014, 11:04:49 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
79121 Posts in 2226 Topics by 1036 Members
Latest Member: Evgeny Vasilyev
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Politics at the State & Municipal level
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Politics at the State & Municipal level  (Read 1087 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« on: April 09, 2013, 08:28:56 AM »

This thread is for articles of interest at the State level:


BATON ROUGE, La. — In a short address Monday on the first day of the legislative session, Gov. Bobby Jindal described why his next big plan — a plan that had been applauded by conservative pundits nationally, pitched at meetings around the state and promoted in slickly produced commercials — was crucial to Louisiana’s success.






Then he announced he was shelving it.

“Governor, you’re moving too fast, and we aren’t sure that your plan is the best way to do it,” Mr. Jindal said, describing what he had heard from legislators and citizens alike.

“Here is my response,” he said. “O.K., I hear you.”

The plan, to get rid of the state income and corporate taxes and replace the lost revenue with higher and broader sales taxes, was not dropped altogether. Mr. Jindal emphasized that he was still committed to losing the income tax, but that he would defer to the Legislature to suggest how exactly to make that work.

But it was a rare admission of defeat for Mr. Jindal, 41, a constant Republican in the mix for 2016 and rising conservative luminary since his early 20s. And it was only the latest in a season of setbacks.

In the fall, Mr. Jindal was tapped to lead the Republican Governors Association and after the 2012 election appeared often on national op-ed pages and at Washington forums, diagnosing the party’s ills and earning a reputation as a politician who could deliver straight talk.

Back home in Louisiana his troubles were piling up. Unfavorable polls, once discounted as the byproduct of an ambitious agenda, were only getting worse — recently much worse.

The governor’s statewide school voucher program, a pillar of his education reform package, was blocked by a trial court judge on constitutional grounds.

Judges have since also blocked his revamp of teacher tenure rules and a change of the state retirement system (the administration has appealed the rulings and is pushing for legislative action should they stand).

Then at the end of March, Mr. Jindal’s health secretary, Bruce Greenstein, announced his resignation amid reports of a federal grand jury investigation into the awarding of a $185 million state contract. Mr. Greenstein had also been the point man for one of the administration’s most complex, consequential and potentially risky projects: the accelerated transfer of the state’s safety-net hospital system to a system of public-private partnerships.

All along, opposition to the tax swap was growing broader and more bipartisan by the day. Clergy members urged the governor to drop the plan, saying it could hurt the poor, while the state’s most prominent chamber of commerce group came out against the plan for its potential impact on businesses.

With the math behind the tax swap remaining vague and variable, the plan’s few outspoken friends in the Legislature began to wobble.

Most legislators said on Monday that the governor had made the politically wise decision to stop championing something that had such unfavorable prospects, and some even expressed admiration.

“It’s a monumental thing for any politician to realize that what they’re trying to promote the public isn’t behind yet,” said John Alario, a Republican and the president of the State Senate.

But it sets up a legislative session no less contentious. Democrats immediately criticized Mr. Jindal for remaining committed to the elimination of the income tax while dropping the more politically difficult insistence that any tax plan be revenue neutral.

On the right, where Mr. Jindal has been facing some of his most vociferous opposition, a group of budget-minded Republican lawmakers who call themselves the fiscal hawks seemed far from satisfied as well.

“It doesn’t bode well for a governor’s leadership skills just to, in essence, kind of throw his hands up and say, ‘I don’t want to have anything to do with it but if it passes I’ll take credit for it,’ ” said Representative Cameron Henry, a member of the hawks, who has become so dissatisfied with the governor’s fiscal management that he and a colleague have sued to have Mr. Jindal’s most recent two budgets declared unconstitutional.

It is in fact the state budget, more than any reform plans, that accounts for the governor’s slide in the polls. In particular, surveys show a growing frustration with the annual deep cuts to higher education and health care, partly because of a reduction in federal Medicaid rates but also of Mr. Jindal’s fiscal policies.

Mr. Jindal says that these policies have made Louisiana more business friendly, and indeed the state has weathered the recession better than many others; there are regular announcements by major companies moving plants or offices into Louisiana, often taking advantage of generous tax incentives. The unemployment rate is a full two percentage points below the national average of 7.6 percent.

“There are only a handful of states that have more jobs now that than they did when the recession started and Louisiana’s one of them,” said Timmy Teepell, a political consultant and Mr. Jindal’s former chief of staff.

But in a state that is still poor, routine deep budget cuts — made even deeper after routine midyear revenue shortfalls — are hard to counter with a message of growth, said Bernie Pinsonat, whose polling firm, Southern Media & Opinion Research, released a survey last week showing Mr. Jindal’s approval rating below even that of President Obama’s within the state.

Mr. Pinsonat said that the governor’s upbeat message is further compromised when it is delivered, as it frequently has been, to audiences outside of Louisiana. “It is very difficult to play national politics and come back home and not suffer,” Mr. Pinsonat said, adding: “They see his reforms as not as helping Louisiana but putting another trophy on his mantel.”

Supporters of Mr. Jindal strongly take issue with this perception, saying that Mr. Jindal has long been an advocate of these reforms. Mr. Teepell suggested that the governor’s current political difficulties are in fact a testament to his seriousness about improvements.

“You go through temporary rough patches,” Mr. Teepell said. “But that’s not going to slow him down.”
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 12:35:20 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2013, 10:13:25 PM »



I may oppose gay marriage, but this is a bit much:

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/07/cuccinelli-stands-by-his-beliefs-that-gays-are-soulless-and-self-destructive/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2013, 12:35:36 PM »

With Detroit languishing in bankruptcy, one would think city officials would be scrambling for every penny. Instead, a $1 million check from a local school district sat forgotten in a desk drawer for a month. If it seems odd that a million-dollar check would be sent in the first place rather than the funds transferred electronically, it is. Except in Detroit. The city that's been ruled by Democrats for 50 years hasn't invested in improving its computer system for efficiency since the 1990s and has no wire transfer capabilities. But it doesn't end there. Detroit has no central computer system, period, and it still does everything from payroll to income tax receipts by hand. With inefficiencies like this, the only surprise is that bankruptcy didn't come sooner.
Good thing Detroiters can still vote out incompetent leaders. If voters can get to the polls on the right day, that is. A billboard paid for by the city recently urged citizens to vote on Sept. 2. The election is Nov. 5. The mistake was set to be fixed yesterday -- unless, of course, doing so involves any sort of computer, in which case all bets are off.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2013, 05:02:52 PM »

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/11/05/va-libertarian-gubernatorial-candidate-funded-by-an-obama-campaign-bundler/?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2013-11-05_272656&utm_content=5054942&utm_term=_272656_272670
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2013, 09:46:24 PM »

In reporting that is unusually dishonest even for Pravda on the Hudson, POTH fails to mention the presence of a Libertarian candidate who was polling distinctly more than the margin between the Rep and the Dem and that the Dems funded the launching of the Libertarian's campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/us/politics/mcauliffe-is-elected-governor-in-virginia.html?emc=edit_na_20131105&_r=0
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2013, 12:35:41 AM »

In reporting that is unusually dishonest even for Pravda on the Hudson, POTH fails to mention the presence of a Libertarian candidate who was polling distinctly more than the margin between the Rep and the Dem and that the Dems funded the launching of the Libertarian's campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/us/politics/mcauliffe-is-elected-governor-in-virginia.html?emc=edit_na_20131105&_r=0

A now common tactic for the dems.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2013, 06:48:43 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/5/two-playbooks-for-defending-against-the-war-on-wom/?page=all#pagebreak

Again, no mention of the Dem sponsored Libertarian candidate in VA , , ,

============================

Minimal mention of the Dem sponsored Libertarian candidate:

THE FOUNDATION
"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that ... he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." --Samuel Adams
GOVERNMENT & POLITICS
Off Year Elections: Lessons Learned?
 

Tuesday's main events were the off-year elections in New Jersey and Virginia, and political prognosticators always look for trends that may be useful for the coming national elections. Let's just say the lessons Tuesday are mixed.
Beginning in New Jersey, Republican Gov. Chris Christie won a resounding re-election bid with more than 60% of the vote in a blue state. Christie is no "Tea Party" conservative, but he has governed on the conservative side, winning pension reform for public employees, tenure reform for teachers that makes it easier to fire bad ones, and vetoing an ill-advised tax increase on the wealthy. On the other hand, he banned gender-disorientation therapy, has generally been ornery toward conservative national Republicans and runs a state still mired at the bottom economically. Still, Christie worked well across the isle and made significant outreach to minorities who supplied his margin of victory -- that's what hugging Barack Obama can do. He is well positioned to make a run at the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, and it's worth remembering that Ronald Reagan was the last true conservative to win that nomination.
Perhaps the more interesting lessons, however, come from Virginia's governor's race, where Clintonista carpetbagger Terry McAuliffe edged conservative Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. It was the latter who spearheaded the major lawsuit against ObamaCare, so Democrats will crow about their Virginia victory, but Cuccinelli was defeated by factors well beyond McAuliffe's campaign, and if the GOP doesn't learn from its mistakes, there will be more disappointments to follow in 2014.
Cuccinelli entered the race with an uphill battle created by a largely fabricated scandal involving former Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell. But more than any other factor, his narrow defeat was due to the completely avoidable liability created by the ill-conceived box-canyon strategy to defund ObamaCare, which enabled Democrats to hang the partial government shutdown around GOP necks. This was particularly true in northern Virginia, where some 30% of the state's voters reside, including a heavy portion of government employees or contractors.
Indeed, Democrats certainly understand the principle of "divided THEY fall." Too many Republicans, particularly in our conservative ranks, have yet to figure out that "divided WE fall."
Of course there were other factors.
The Republican National Committee virtually gave up on Cuccinelli early on, giving him just $3 million. McAuliffe raised almost $15 million more than Cuccinelli, thanks to help from his old boss, Bill Clinton.
In the end, however, McAuliffe victory margin was less than 3%, when he had led in the polls by double digits for months. Thanks to the calamitous rollout of ObamaCare, Cuccinelli nearly pulled off the upset -- and undoubtedly would have but for the government shutdown baggage. Of course, it could also be argued that the third party Libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, who received almost 7% of the vote, handed the victory to McAuliffe.
And a final note on the subject of Democrats dividing and conquering their adversaries, it turns out that Sarvis had the benefit of an Obama bankrolling bundler.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2013, 11:07:32 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5523


« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2013, 11:57:58 AM »

1) Ken Cuccinelli is too conservative for a swing state.  Rule one for conservatives, run the most conservative candidate - who can win.

2) Outspent by $15 million!  I understand the McAuliffe is a crook with big money and big connections.  It is still time to stop being out-spent.  RNC for example put in 1/3 of their 2009 amount.  What did you (anyone reading) put in?

3) The Libertarian drew more than the margin of victory and ran I assume largely against the Republican for his votes.  Yes it was crooked that Dems funded him, imagine if Republicans got caught doing the equivalent!  Still, when will we learn.  This is a two party system.  Libertarians run against conservatives and the moderates in the semi-finals (caucuses, primaries etc.) not in the finals (general election).  If you want to defeat leftism, you must all come together with like minded to do that.  Whatever agenda the Libertarian(s) wanted, how is that going for you now?

4) What an  amazing upset this almost was, given the visits by the President, Joe Biden, Hillary, the money advantage, the media advantage, the double digit polling leads, the shortcomings of the candidate, and the third party problem.

5) Hopefully the close loss causes Republicans to re-think, re-focus, re-energize coming into 2014-2016.  That can be the only silver lining.

6) Don't we have a (libertarian) correspondent on the scene?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5523


« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2013, 12:04:30 PM »

Minneapolis tried ranked choice voting; the voter must list first three choices.  Leading candidate out of 35 candidates got 36% of the first choice vote.  No winner declared yet.  What a Liberal-Utopian mess.  How about just hold an election, count votes and declare a winner?

http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/230760571.html
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2101


« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2013, 04:46:27 PM »

"Yes it was crooked that Dems funded him...". I don't follow you here Doug. It is simply free speech. How is that crooked?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5523


« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2013, 07:09:19 AM »

"Yes it was crooked that Dems funded him [the faux-Libertarian]...". I don't follow you here Doug. It is simply free speech. How is that crooked?

My thinking is that a straight line in politics would be to advance and support issues, positions and candidates that you honestly favor, and a crooked path would be to use lies, deceit and subterfuge.  This strategy clearly falling  within the latter.

Your thinking is now that money equals speech?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2101


« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2013, 07:48:48 AM »

"Yes it was crooked that Dems funded him [the faux-Libertarian]...". I don't follow you here Doug. It is simply free speech. How is that crooked?

My thinking is that a straight line in politics would be to advance and support issues, positions and candidates that you honestly favor, and a crooked path would be to use lies, deceit and subterfuge.  This strategy clearly falling  within the latter.

Your thinking is now that money equals speech?

Goodness, no. But yours is, and I still don't see why spending money in the manner above is seen as crooked. Perhaps I am unclear what a "straight line in politics" means. It seems to me that Dems clearly favored the libertarian.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2013, 08:54:28 AM »



http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/25/virginia-gubernatorial-candidate-robert-sarvis-libertarian-name/

"I still don't see why spending money in the manner above is seen as crooked"

Sarvis is not a libertarian.  Libertarians would never support his positions.  That is why both Pauls were travelling through Virginia pointing this out.   

Why would do you think someone would run say as a Libertarian when he clearly is not, rather than say an "independent"?   Why does someone clearly and purposefully use the wrong label to describe himself?

Why would someone who was a major supporter of Obama fund this guy to the tune of 70% of his campaign funds through bundled donations?

He knew this guy wasn't going to win.  It had to be for some other reason.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5523


« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2013, 09:09:02 AM »

Thank you, CCP!
-------------------

Dems funded the Libertarian.
BD: "It is simply free speech"
Doug: Your thinking is now that money equals speech?
BD: "Goodness, no. But yours is"

Are you using my small mind as your playground - again?   wink


BD: "It seems to me that Dems clearly favored the libertarian."

Ah, Yes, the little known, Libertarian wing of the Cradle to Grave, Big Government party!  I can never tell for sure when you are pulling my leg.

The point is that, no, the Democrat operatives didn't favor the Libertarian.  They favored McAuliffe but were happy to take advantage of liberties afforded to them by libertarians in order to engage in this subterfuge.

BD: "I still don't see why spending money in the manner above is seen as crooked."

Maybe I chose my words poorly, but online dictionaries seem to back me up:
crook·ed
ˈkro͝okəd/
       bent, twisted, out of shape, out of place, contorted, warped, distorted

sub·ter·fuge
ˈsəbtərˌfyo͞oj/
    deceit used in order to achieve one's goal.

Proponents like me of unlimited money in politics generally like to balance that with a requirement of full and instant disclosure of the sources of the money.  One reason one might not want to engage in these shenanigans is that it might reflect poorly on oneself and backfire when exposed by our (laughable, AWOL) watchdog media.  Like the lies of Benghazi, this came to light only after it was too late to make a difference.






Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2013, 09:23:41 AM »

The FOR PROFIT Clinton Blue Chip were not going to let this strategic position pass by without throwing everything they have into it.  It is remarkable how coordinated the Democrats are in their money, their focus, their unified messages, and their playing as take no prisoners, kill them all war.  It is remarkable that coverage for BCP is one of so many people's minds as THE big issue for them.  What a screwed up country.

*****And Now, The Airing of Grievances

By Jonah Goldberg

November 6, 2013 8:50 AM
In the recent government shutdown fight I found myself in polite (on my part at least!) disagreement with the elements of the right inclined to denounce the “Republican establishment.” No need to rehash all that again. But, I will say that in the wake of the Cuccinelli defeat, I think the critics of the establishment have the better side of the argument.

If the folks running the party want the tea partiers to support their preferred candidates — when they’re the nominee, at least — it should work the other way around as well. It now appears that Cuccinelli, a flawed candidate running against an even more flawed human being, could have pulled this thing out if he’d had more help at the end. In fairness, the Republican Governor’s Association did help Cuccinelli, but it came too early. The RNC treated him like a write-off. I can understand that temptation when Cuccinelli looked like a sure loser. But I don’t understand why, when ObamaCare became a big issue, the RNC couldn’t have done more. I’m sure it’s hard to ramp up at the last second. But so what? Things are going to be hard in lots of ways for as far as the eye can see. Hard can’t be an excuse anymore. As for the more moderate Republican donors who stayed away from Cuccinelli, I certainly don’t think they’re obliged to give money to anyone or anything they disagree with. So maybe they’re pro-choice. Maybe they call themselves “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” (don’t get me started). Fine. But on the issues that make them Republican, McAuliffe will still be far more of a disaster than Cuccinelli ever would have been. McAuliffe says his first priority for the legislative session is accepting the expanded Medicare option under ObamaCare. That’s bad enough, but does anyone doubt that another, equally important, priority of his will be to prepare the ground for a Clinton candidacy should she run? Even if she doesn’t, McAuliffe in the statehouse is terrible news for every kind of Republican. McAuliffe is not a policy person. He’s not a “statesman.” He’s a purely political hack moneyman. And he’s going to use his skills as best he can to put Virginia in the Democrats’ column in 2016.

For all the talk about how the base needs to cooperate with the establishment more, it’s worth remembering that the base almost always does its part on Election Day. Its the establishment that is less reliable in returning the favor.*****
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2101


« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2013, 09:37:52 AM »

"Why would do you think someone would run say as a Libertarian when he clearly is not, rather than say an "independent"?"

Because the Libertarian Party can get on a ballot much easier than an independent.

Did the Libertarian Party disavow Sarvis?

"Why would someone who was a major supporter of Obama fund this guy to the tune of 70% of his campaign funds through bundled donations?"

Because he was freely speaking his mind? Why do you want limited campaign funding now? Maybe if McCain-Feingold had not been overturned....
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2101


« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2013, 09:49:43 AM »

"...the Democrat operatives didn't favor the Libertarian."

In a three horse race, the Dems most certainly did favor the Libertarian... over Cuccinelli. So they gave him money to speak their mind. I'll ask you the same question I pose to ccp: Why do you want limited campaign funding now?

Can't a Democrat give as much money to any candidate of his/her choice, in an effort to maximize freedom?

"Proponents like me of unlimited money in politics generally..."

Are you suggesting to me that the majority of those who want to give unlimited monies to candidates want all the information to be made public? Do you have evidence for this position? Do the Koch brothers? Warren Buffet? The people who are actually giving this money?

I didn't see "subterfuge" in your first post, but thanks for adding the definition.

And, for the record, Doug: I sincerely hope by now you know that I do not believe that you have a "small mind." I greatly enjoy and appreciate our exchanges.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3789


« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2013, 10:36:45 AM »

"I'll ask you the same question I pose to ccp: Why do you want limited campaign funding now?"

The topic I am speaking to is fraud and deception.  Running under a banner that did not represent his positions.

I am speaking about lying on the campaign trail about who one is, who one represents.  You are turning this into a free speech issue.

I am speaking of honesty in politics.  

"Because he was freely speaking his mind? Why do you want limited campaign funding now? Maybe if McCain-Feingold had not been overturned...."

This was a divide and conquer strategy from the Democrat side.  It is a dirty trick that is all.

The Libertarians who allowed him to hold up their banner must have been fooled.  And the two most prominent libertarians absolutely were disavowing this guy later on when they realized his true colors.

BTW BigDog, I was never against campaign finance reform.  It does bother me how wealthy people, corporations, wealthy lobbyists can outright control or influence elections.

I believe I am on record somewhere way back when on the board about this.  

Probably one of the few times I diverge in opinion from Doug who is one of my favorite posters over the years.

« Last Edit: November 07, 2013, 10:39:00 AM by ccp » Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2101


« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2013, 11:23:20 AM »

One of my favorite parts of this forum is finding common ground, even among much disagreement.

In this case, ccp, you and I have two:

"BTW BigDog, I was never against campaign finance reform.  It does bother me how wealthy people, corporations, wealthy lobbyists can outright control or influence elections." You and I are of like minds on this subject.

"...Doug who is one of my favorite posters over the years." And here too.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, ccp.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5523


« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2013, 01:34:47 PM »

Why do you want limited campaign funding now?"

I'm not advocating limits, just exercising my own free speech to call them out on their chicanery.  ('the use of trickery to achieve a political, financial, or legal purpose')   smiley

I should disclose that I contemplated doing the same for one of my good buddies when he was Green party endorsed candidate for Governor in MN, and then for congress in St. Paul.  Obviously my effort would have been to help a Republican defeat a Democrat, not to favor far left over left.

"Are you suggesting to me that the majority of those who want to give unlimited monies to candidates want all the information to be made public? Do you have evidence for this position? Do the Koch brothers? Warren Buffet? The people who are actually giving this money? "

No.  I was clarifying my view shared by others who oppose limits but favor full disclosure.  Big donors, I would guess, prefer privacy and anonymity.  Transparency might actually help those like Koch brothers who get blamed beyond their actual involvement.  Now we have the worst of both with limits on involvement and then information coming out when it is of no use.

(CCP) "It does bother me how wealthy people, corporations, wealthy lobbyists can outright control or influence elections."

My thought on this is that IF government was mostly removed from the business of picking economic winners and losers, wealth redistribution, crony governmentism, over-regulation, etc., the utility of special interest money would be much smaller.  The enterprises of the Koch brothers for example are under constant political attack, perhaps justly, but we deserve to hear both sides.  I recall that Microsoft did not have one lobbyist on staff in Washington the day the Clinton/Janet Reno Justice Department set out to break them up, justly or unjustly.  They do now.
-----
I appreciate the kind words!
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2101


« Reply #20 on: November 07, 2013, 04:20:41 PM »

"I'm not advocating limits, just exercising my own free speech to call them out on their chicanery.  ('the use of trickery to achieve a political, financial, or legal purpose')  smiley"

I just laughed out loud. Literally. Well played, Doug.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2013, 11:08:43 AM »

Red State Tax-Cutters
By Stephen Moore
connect
Nov. 22, 2013 12:58 p.m. ET

After five years of wrenching fiscal deficits, states are once again experiencing stable budgets and healthy revenue growth. A new report by the American Legislative Exchange Council—a national network of more than 2,000 state legislators—finds that about one-third of the nation's governors have cut taxes. "Some of these tax cuts," says Jonathan Williams, the fiscal policy expert at ALEC, "also move in the direction of tax reform. Income tax rates are falling."

This is especially true in states with Republican governors. Indiana Gov, Mike Pence signed a 10 percent income tax rate reduction. Tax rates also fell in North Carolina, a state that turned red after the 2012 elections. But even Arkansas passed a small income tax cut, which might have been larger had Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe allowed it. If Republicans win the governorship there in 2014, as expected, bigger income tax cuts are possible.

GOP Govs. Rick Scott of Florida, John Kasich of Ohio, and Scott Walker of Wisconsin all face tough re-election bids next year, and all three will tout their tax-cutting on the campaign trail. In Kansas, Sam Brownback continued to trim the state income tax with the eventual goal of eliminating it. "We want to be the most tax competitive state in the midwest," Mr. Brownback tells me. "We're not done bringing rates down."

Tax cuts were also enacted in Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota and Tennessee. Taxes rose in California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Virginia. States were most likely to cut income taxes and least likely to cut sales taxes. Not every Republican governor is a tax-cutter. Virginia's Bob McDonnell leaves office next year with a legacy of signing the biggest tax hike in the Dominion State's history.

"On balance," says Mr. Williams, "states are moving in a supply side direction. Republican governors are trying to make their states pro-growth showcases."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #22 on: November 25, 2013, 11:12:11 AM »

Why does Obama only create jobs in the states that voted against him? Strange...
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5523


« Reply #23 on: November 25, 2013, 01:30:59 PM »

Why does Obama only create jobs in the states that voted against him? Strange...

Yes.  I can't figure out why he want those new jobs to be in Texas when Detroit needs them more?  (BTW, how is cash for clunkers working out in Detroit?)

He takes credit for the oil boom in North Dakota while opposing it and while stopping any improvements (Keystone Pipeline?) in transporting the new oil.  Strangest of all is during this period of having a laser-like focus on jobs, he is not even curious how North Dakota has had the lowest unemployment rate for his entire Presidency:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/11/22/october-state-unemployment-rates/3673397/

What else is N.D. doing right?  They aren't moving there for the climate, -14 degree windchill tonight!
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/n-d-house-passes-m-tax-cut-bill/article_e47a77ea-b3b0-11e2-9057-001a4bcf887a.html
N.D. House passes $250M tax cut bill
May 03, 2013 12:18 am  •  By Nick Smith
BISMARCK, N.D. _ The North Dakota House passed a bill containing
$250 million in personal and corporate income tax cuts on Thursday.
Senate Bill 2156 passed by an 89-1 vote.

-- Senate Bill 2171 expands the Homestead Property Tax Credit. It changes the income eligibility requirements to open the program to more seniors who own homes. It also raises the limit on total assets a person can own and qualify for the program from $250,000 to $500,000. It passed the House by a 90-0 vote.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2013, 11:11:54 AM »



Chuck Reed: A Liberal Mugged by Pension Reality
Mayor Chuck Reed knows the way to San Jose's solvency. Now he wants to take his approach statewide. Public unions aren't happy.
By Allysia Finley

Nov. 29, 2013 7:28 p.m. ET

San Jose, Calif., was the richest major city in the country last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's survey of median household incomes. More than 100 tech-related firms including Adobe Systems, ADBE +0.28% Cisco, CSCO -0.75% PayPal and eBay EBAY +2.44% are based in the self-proclaimed capital of Silicon Valley.

Yet in Mayor Chuck Reed's view from the 18th floor of city hall, San Jose in recent years has been dead broke and slouching toward bankruptcy, propelled by ruinous public-pension obligations. Over the past decade, he says, the city has shed 25% of its workforce, including 20% of its police department, to cover soaring retirement costs.

Since his election in 2006, Mr. Reed has been that rare creature, a Democrat in a liberal bastion who is nonetheless focused on salvaging government finances while inviting the wrath of public unions and their political allies. The city's budget problems, he says, "have made it impossible to do many of the things that I would have liked to have done as mayor."

Mr. Reed points to a bar graph showing how the city's pension obligations soared to $245 million from $71 million in 2001. The average San Jose police officer last year earned $203,211 in total compensation—more than many software engineers in Silicon Valley. The city is spending $45,263 each year per worker on pensions. Mr. Reed notes that San Jose has boosted retirement benefits several times over the past decade. Police officers can retire at age 50 with up to 90% of their final pay.
Enlarge Image

Ken Fallin

Last year, Mr. Reed piloted an innovative approach to fixing pensions that involves curbing future benefits for current workers. He plans to take the approach statewide with a ballot referendum next year that may throw a lifeline to other struggling California cities, like Fresno, Oakland and Desert Hot Springs. But he faces a more immediate hurdle at home: The public unions are suing him. "Nothing important happens without litigation in California," he quips.

The referendum is a last hurrah for Mr. Reed, who is term-limited out of office next year and has spent most of his 65 years in public service. After growing up in public-housing in Kansas, he applied to the Air Force Academy, which he says was "the most difficult school that I could afford to go to."

While at the academy, he says, "I met my wife on a blind date at a football game. It was love at first sight." The two married a couple of days after Mr. Reed graduated (second in his class) and remain together 43 years later. His frugality goes way back: While in the Air Force, he sewed his wife's maternity dresses.

In 1975, upon completing his rotation in Thailand during the Vietnam War, Mr. Reed attended Stanford Law School while his wife, Paula, worked at a nearby hospital as an oncology nurse. They settled in San Jose with their son and daughter, and Mr. Reed says he "probably served on 20 different board commissions."

In 2000, Mr. Reed was elected to the San Jose City Council with "about 200 items on my to-do list. The highest priority were items like building parks in areas that didn't have parks," he says, noting that "pension costs never crossed my mind." He frequently knocked heads with then-Mayor Ron Gonzales. For instance, he opposed the mayor's idea to use eminent domain in 2003 to take over and redevelop the Tropicana Shopping Center. He also opposed a $343 million city hall building, which opened in 2005, as an unaffordable extravagance.

With Mr. Gonzales term-limited, Mr. Reed ran for and won the top job—along with a ticking bomb of pensions obligations. It took several years, and plenty of fruitless negotiations, before he finally confronted the city's unions. In June 2012, Mr. Reed quarterbacked a city ballot initiative to limit pensions for new hires and scale back future benefits for existing workers. He says merely reducing new workers' benefits, as many other cities and states have done, wouldn't have achieved meaningful enough savings.

Mr. Reed's initiative gave current workers a choice between paying up to 16% more of their salary for benefits—which would amount to about 27% of a police officer's pay—or accepting lower future benefits. Giving workers a choice, the mayor says, was intended to circumvent state court decisions that protect workers' "vested right" to their pensions under the state constitution's contracts clause—meaning that their benefits after being hired "can only go up and not down."

Mr. Reed's pension initiative enjoyed the support of a majority of the San Jose City Council, including six Democrats. It also got a big boost from the Bay Area Council, whose steering committee includes the chief executives of Virgin America, the San Francisco Giants and 49ers, Safeway, Webcor and the San Francisco Federal Reserve.

Businesses don't often publicly wade into such controversies because they don't want to alienate customers or risk retribution. But Bay Area companies saw how retirement costs were draining the San Jose budget, threatening public safety and forestalling important public works. Driving a Tesla over pot-holed roads is no fun. The initiative passed with nearly 70% support.

San Jose's public unions sued the city almost immediately for violating their pension rights, and a state court is expected to rule in the next few weeks. Mr. Reed says he's confident the reforms will be upheld since San Jose, as a charter city, has plenary authority under the state constitution to modify compensation. The city also has "an ordinance that says we can make them pay more" to their pensions and "we've negotiated past contracts with the unions in which they have paid more."

Yet it could take a few years before the state Supreme Court issues a final ruling, and other cities now going broke from retirement costs can't afford to wait. As Mr. Reed notes, asking employees to pay more for pensions "is only an interim solution that gives you a little bit of relief for a little while because the real problem is these benefits are too expensive."

Mr. Reed has organized a small bipartisan group of current and former mayors, including Pat Morris (D., San Bernardino) and Tom Tait (R., Anaheim), to place an initiative on next November's state ballot that would give cities and the state flexibility to negotiate changes to future benefits for current workers.

The purpose is to "empower cities," most of which "are seeing crowding out and services being cut," Mr. Reed says. The initiative would also bar state agencies and retirement boards, including the California Public Employees' Retirement Systems (Calpers), from interfering in city efforts to fix pension problems.

In the Bay Area suburb of Vallejo, which filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy in 2008, Calpers threatened to "litigate forever if they took on pension reform," Mr. Reed notes. Calpers has done the same in Stockton and San Bernardino. Vallejo chose not to modify existing workers' pensions, Mr. Reed says, and as a result "they're in trouble again because of rising pension costs."

Calpers has also harassed San Jose, which has a small retirement plan for elected officials with an unfunded liability of $900,000. The city wanted to end the plan, Mr. Reed says. "Calpers said if you do that, you have to give us $5 million" as a "termination fee."

Now Calpers and public unions are gearing up for a war on Mr. Reed's statewide initiative. In October, Calpers published a warning that "if this initiative were to pass, then all contractual rights in California could be in jeopardy."

How does the straight-shooting mayor plan to counter the spin? Simply by educating voters, he says, pointing to a chart showing that taxpayer contributions to state and local retirement systems increased to $17.4 billion in 2010 from $3.4 billion in 2000. Meantime, the average annuity for a newly retired California highway-patrol officer is $89,000, up from $44,000 in 1999, thanks to retroactive boosts to pension benefits.

"You have to buy a lot of paid media" to educate people, Mr. Reed says. And "you have to have big contributors who are willing to step up and fund [the initiative], and they're not all going to be from inside California. They're likely to be from all around the country because this is a national issue."

That will give unions an opening. Stanford physicist Charles Munger Jr. , who financed a losing initiative last year to limit union spending on politics, was pilloried as a "billionaire bully." The writer David Sirota at Salon has provided a taste of what's to come, denouncing a $200,000 contribution from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, a Houston-based philanthropy, as an "Enron billionaire's diabolical plot to loot worker pensions." John Arnold used to work at Enron.

Yet the mayor remains optimistic and says the public is receptive to his message, as he found in San Jose. But that move also had the backing of Democratic city council members. Mr. Reed now has only two Democratic mayors in his corner, and he says that "lots of other mayors" have expressed support but "they don't want to do so publicly." So far Democratic politicians in Sacramento have also been mum. Given that this is spendthrift California, that's encouraging.

Ms. Finley is an editorial writer for the Journal.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5523


« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2013, 01:06:49 PM »

“Every day we get calls from people about changing residency,”  And they tend to be employers!

This could go under Tax policy.  Also under Calif as the problems, post-Pawlenty here, are nearly the same with Dems controlling the state house, senate and Governor office.

http://www.startribune.com/business/234843991.html

Alarming excerpt buried in a positive, economic piece:

"This is the largest upward move in tax progressivity … since we started our tax-incidence reports in 1990.”

Many liberals and moderates like this trend. But some high-earners predict an exodus of affluent Minnesotans to Florida and other low-tax states. Especially troubling, they say, is the state’s failure to increase the amount excluded from inheritance taxes closer to the higher federal estate tax exclusion. Federal law exempts the first $5.25 million, Minnesota only the first $1 million.

Hunt Greene, a veteran Minneapolis investment banker, said: “I’m a Democrat. I can afford and tolerate paying higher income taxes. This is different. The Minnesota gift-and-estate taxes kick in at $1 million. The federal level is $5.25 million. And Minnesota is one of only a few states that have a gift tax.

“The result is that, as I talk to the big law firms about their business … their estate practices are swamped with people figuring out how to change their residences,’’ Greene said.

He’s not alone. Others predict that more wealthy Minnesotans will leave rather than subject their estates of over $1 million, or gifts made to heirs, to what can be up to a 40 percent tax that doesn’t exist in states such as Florida or Arizona.

“Every day we get calls from people about changing residency,” said Bob Abdo, a political moderate and 40-year Minneapolis business lawyer. “This pains me. I grew up and was educated here. Essentially, what we have got now is a disincentive for longtime Minnesota residents to stay in Minnesota.

“This means mom and dad … who are loyal to Minnesota because they earned a lot of money here, may now be worth more than $1 million. So, dad dies. No estate tax consequence to mom. But mom is worth $1 million, and it doesn’t take much if you add a house, your retirement accounts and a life insurance policy. Mom dies. It’s supposed to go to the kids. Any amount that goes to the kids in excess of $1 million, whether one kid or 12, will be taxed at about 40 percent for the first $250,000. The tax goes down from there.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #26 on: January 12, 2014, 10:38:26 AM »

Long article by Pravda on the Hudson about the rise of political monopolies in sundry States

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/us/politics/a-national-strategy-funds-state-political-monopolies.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20140112&_r=0
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2014, 12:55:56 PM »



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/17/state-in-the-worst-fiscal-condition-is/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5523


« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2014, 11:00:34 AM »

Wisconsin had a $4 billion deficit in 2011 and has a $1 billion surplus now.  Hmmm.  I wonder if it is the policies?  How is California doing?  Detroit?

This could go under Presidential 2016, or Media Issues - where else have you read this, lol.

How Scott Walker and the conservatives saved Wisconsin. America, take note
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100256645/how-scott-walker-and-the-conservatives-saved-wisconsin-america-take-note/

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/give-the-surplus-back-to-wisconsin-taxpayers-b99189017z1-241915501.html
Give the surplus back to Wisconsin taxpayers,  by Gov. Scott Walker
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2014, 05:42:34 AM »



National Review's Michael Auslin: "Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel is increasingly
a textbook example of how far the Democratic party has moved to the left since
Bill Clinton's day. Emanuel, who cut his teeth in Clinton's administration,
just presided over a $1.9 billion increase in Chicago's debt, only months
after Moody's downgraded the city's bond ratings three notches based on its
growing and unsustainable spending and debt obligations. ... All told ... the
Windy City has $29 billion in long-term debt. ... Old-line Democratic cities,
it seems, have learned nothing from Detroit's collapse."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #30 on: February 14, 2014, 02:05:06 PM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/370910/obama-turnout-machine-crashes-san-diego-loses-mayors-race-nine-points-john-fund
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #31 on: February 17, 2014, 05:31:22 AM »

http://capoliticalnews.com/2014/02/16/unions-fail-to-retain-san-diego-mayors-office-despite-advantages/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5523


« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2014, 10:30:12 AM »

Also relevant to Presidential 2016, but first he faces reelection contest in Wisconsin. Walker was not charged after years of investigators pouring over all these communications.  Surviving this may actually strengthen him for what lies ahead, where many of the other contestants have not had political executive experience.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/02/20/us/20walker-emails.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/us/wisconin-political-investigation.html?ref=us&_r=0

The accusations involve mixing government and campaign business.  I wonder if equivalent investigations are gong on in Dem strongholds like: the White House, Rahm's Chicago mayoral office, and Barack and Hillary's Senate offices 2008.

In the article:

...there were also signs among the documents that Mr. Walker had called for a stop to some of the activities. At one point in May 2010, Ms. Wink resigned after allegations that she had posted pro-Walker comments on The Journal Sentinel website while at her county job. Mr. Walker sent an email to another aide, writing of Ms. Wink: “I talked to her at home last night. Feel bad. She feels worse. We cannot afford another story like this one. No one can give them any reason to do another story. That means no laptops, no websites, no time away during the workday, et cetera.”

Also, the passing of an internet joke by the Chief of Staff was discovered:

In 2010, Mr. Nardelli forwarded what appears to be a long chain email to undisclosed recipients that concluded, “I can handle being a black, disabled, one-armed, drug-addicted, Jewish homosexual on a pacemaker who is H.I.V.-positive, bald, orphaned, unemployed, lives in a slum, and has a Mexican boyfriend, but please, Oh dear God, please don’t tell me I’m a Democrat!”
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2101


« Reply #33 on: February 22, 2014, 09:10:08 AM »

http://news.yahoo.com/plan-split-california-six-states-gains-ground-222139687.html

From the article:

A plan to divide California into six separate US states is closer to making it on to a November ballot, with organizers gaining approval to collect signatures.


Any comments/thoughts, my California friends?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29579


« Reply #34 on: February 22, 2014, 09:32:04 AM »

Well, that would increase the Senate by 10 senators.  Should it get so far as to be on the ballot and approved, one suspects fierce political fighting in Congress about this.  What articles of the Constitution would control this?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2101


« Reply #35 on: February 22, 2014, 09:45:37 AM »

Well, that would increase the Senate by 10 senators.  Should it get so far as to be on the ballot and approved, one suspects fierce political fighting in Congress about this.  What articles of the Constitution would control this?


Article IV, section 3.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5523


« Reply #36 on: February 22, 2014, 02:37:39 PM »

"A plan to divide California into six separate US states is closer to making it on to a November ballot, with organizers gaining approval to collect signatures."
"that would increase the Senate by 10 senators"

And decrease the clout of every other state and Senator.

Article IV, section 3:

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
----------------

Surprisingly, I don't see anything about super-majorities.  I would have expected the procedure to be more like the process of ratifying a constitutional amendment.

Northeastern Colorado wants to split too.  As do I.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/06/07/secession-colorado-north-northern-weld-county/




Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.17 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!