Monthly Archive for October, 2007

Does the Illegal Alien Problem Justify Churches Breaking the Law?

Published
by
Wilson
on October 4, 2007
in Blog
. 0 Comments

Take a look at this CNN video featuring Reverend Spencer Frances Barrett and D. A. King discussing the “New Sanctuary Movement.”

People like the good Reverend who interpret scripture to suit their purposes, bother me. If I recall correctly, the New Testament doesn’t even support the ideas that slaves should be rebellious. I don’t mind the debate about what to do with and about illegal aliens, but injecting the church into it is a little much. No, it’s not a little much, it’s ridiculous.

I don’t remember Martin Luther King hiding in churches. It also seems to me that he got arrested for protesting bad laws, rather than breaking the bad law itself. I could be wrong, but that is what I remember.

Now if you want to break the law, whether you call it civil disobedience or something else, in order to make a point, that is fine with me. Have at it, but if you get arrested, don’t blame the police. Just don’t hide in the church building (or on the church farm) as if God has blessed your efforts in particular. After all, even the devil thinks he is God.

Global Warming and The Evolution of Credit Freezes

Published
by
Wilson
on October 3, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

If you haven’t heard, two of the three nationwide credit reporting bureaus, TransUnion and Equifax, have announced plans to offer the ability to freeze their credit to consumers in all 50 states. The third big credit bureau, Experian, is apparently not motivated to join the party.

The effective date is supposedly October 15th. So get ready to make that call and tell them you don’t want any more credit. Good grief, that sounds weird to me. It is somewhat like swearing off water. While I am not at that age and status in life (retired/debt free) where I can, would, should, freeze my credit, I know there are plenty of people out there that want to be able to freeze their credit and avoid any risk of identity theft. To me, this is a matter of who owns my credit, me or them. Seems to me I do, since I pay the debts. I and anyone else ought to have the right to freeze our credit any time and for any reason we want.

In this interview with Danny Orock, Legislative Coordinator for Georgia Watch, we discuss various aspects of the “credit freeze” debate. While it is certainly a good thing that two of the credit bureaus have bestowed this favor on the people that make their existence possible, without legislation, state or federal, what business gives, business can take away. That is precisely why the effort to get our state legislature to pass appropriate legislation should continue.

Of course, my take on the matter is that this voluntary program is an effort to forestall legislation. Can anyone think of an industry where self-regulation has worked?

For example, the two credit bureaus will freeze your credit, as long as you are willing to pay for it, $10 or so. And to be effective you have to freeze it with all three, so that is $30 to do it right. And you can’t really do it right with only 2 of the 3 credit bureaus participating. There is still one left from which your credit and identity can be stolen. I wouldn’t mind a fee to freeze your credit that reflects the cost of actually doing it (push two buttons, 5 seconds each, multiplied by $7.15 per hour, equals $.02 rounded). To be fair you also have to cover the time on the phone or email, cost of equipment, etc. So let’s add 1000% of the actual costs and a good fee seems to be $0.20. What the heck, I am a generous man, give them a quarter.

According to Danny, there is a hearing this Thursday in the House Banks and Banking Committee on the credit freeze bill or bills. But don’t expect any progress. The committee, chaired by James Mills, (R-25), has failed to do anything so far.

Danny and I discussed two other issues with regard to which the legislature seems to be unable to oppose insurance companies. First, there is uninsured motorists (UM) coverage. You know, the insurance that pays you cash when the other guy didn’t buy insurance. Must be kind of like AFLAC, I guess. Most people don’t understand how important UM coverage is. You don’t have to buy it, but everyone should. It is cheap and can provide a degree of protection when the person that hits you has no insurance. Under the current law, if you purchase the coverage you may not get any benefit from it, even if the other person doesn’t have enough liability coverage to pay your bills. Why? Because your insurance company gets a credit for the amount of the other person’s (the one that caused the accident) liability coverage. You paid for it, but you don’t get it! Get it!

The other issue is getting the boys in power (the Republicans) to change some of the laws they screwed up in 2005 when they tried their very best to make it as hard as possible to sue your doctor, no matter how bad he screws up. They hit a home run for the insurance company when they passed a law that said you can’t sue hospitals and doctors for what happens in the emergency room of your local hospital, unless they actually intend to hurt you. The Senate Republicans have been saying for two years they realized the law they passed in 2005 was unfair and needs to be changed. Yeah, sure! They tell you this, and then say they are impotent to actually get it changed.

 
 Danny Orock, Georgia Watch [9:51m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (293)

Alan Essig on the Speaker’s Property Tax Reform Proposal

Published
by
Wilson
on October 2, 2007
in Podcast
. 1 Comment

Alan Essig of the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute is my go to guy when I want to try to get to the bottom of something that involves taxes or budgets. In this interveiw Alan comments on Speaker Glenn Richardson’s proposal to eliminate the property tax.

The curious thing is that there is no substance to the proposal, it’s just all talk–at least right now–and that is what bothers me. You would think that when it came to something this important, there would be an effort to give everyone enough time and information to make a reasonable decision. Alan said he would like no less than 3 to 6 months to study any proposal and run the numbers. My bet: he won’t get that much time and neither will anyone else, including those guys we elected to represent us.

Alan says that every state in the union has a property tax. For Georgia to think it can become the first to eliminate it in one fell swoop, seems irresponsible to me. Alan mentions the fact that a few years ago one of those northern states, Michigan, I think, enacted sweeping rollbacks in property taxation and almost went bankrupt when there was a blimp in the economy.

Also, the State levies only a small property tax, like .5 mil. The majority of the property tax is levied and controlled by local cities, counties and school boards. It is where they get their operating budgets, their power. Eliminating property taxes is going to eliminate a lot of local power. Now why would a state legislator, even one serving as Speaker, be in such a hurry to eliminate the foundations of local power and transfer that power to the State, particularly the leaders thereof? I understand all the local governments and their organizations, like GMA, oppose the Speaker’s plan.

The real question is where is the additional money going to come from? Property taxes account for about 8 to 10 billion in tax collections. So where are you going to get that kind of money? As I understand it, the Speaker initially proposed to just eliminate all (or most) exemptions to the sales tax. According to Alan, two of those exemptions need to be kept: (1) governmental purchases, and (2) business to business purchases. And these two exemptions account for $5 billion in exemptions. The point: if you keep just these two exemptions in place, there is no way the sales tax can make up the tax revenue lost by the elimination of the property tax.

Now if I were planning a budget, I would conclude game over, you can’t eliminate property taxes and make up the difference in sales taxes. But there he is, Speaker Richardson, going around the state pumping up the landed gentry and making this sound like it is a walk in the park–a tax exempt park, no doubt.

There is only one thing to be accomplished by the elimination of property taxes. Rich folk that own a lot (and I mean a lot) of property will get a tax break. The rest of us that don’t own tons of rental property or commercial property or anything much more than our homes, that just work at a job everyday for a living, that have kids and buy everything on the shelves, will pay more in taxes–sales taxes.

Let me predict the future. The Speaker (more likely, someone else at his direction) will drop the bill to eliminate the property tax a week or so before the 2008 legislature begins. The Speaker will flex his muscles, threaten a few recalcitrants, and ultimately his power will make sure the proposal (whatever it is) sails thru the House with little or no hearings and none worth a damn. Then, it’s over to the Senate where the question will be whether or not Lt. Governor Casey Cagle (or some other Republican leader with the guts to “just say no”) is man enough to tell the Speaker to go back to the country club and kill this kind of cram it down your throat leglislative initiative. You have my vote Casey!

Think I am nuts! Look down the road to the 2010 gubernatorial elections. Will it be the Speaker who single handledly eliminated the property tax and saved 500 Georgians a ton of money versus the Lt. Gov. who protected Georgians from the selfish impulses of power and kept the property tax in place?

 
 Alan Essig, Georgia Budget and Policy Institute [29:45m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (298)

Tort Deform: Now There’s a Website!

Published
by
Wilson
on October 2, 2007
in Blog
. 0 Comments

This article in the New York Times about tobacco companies losing before the Supreme Court today led me to a new website dedicated to that atrocious, obnoxious, sinister, deceitful, un-American, pile of legislative hogwash known as tort reform. Choke, gag, vomit. But at least this website has it right: It’s Tort Deform!

I can’t say that I know much about the site other than the fact that Allie Wall, Excutive Director of Georgia Watch is a contributor on occassion, so that indicates to me that it has credibility. It does look like a good site to keep up with developments nationwide in the law, access to the courts, etc.

Comments anyone?