Tag Archive for 'blogger'

Pye and The Second Amendment!

Anyone that knows Jason Pye knows he is a strong believer in the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. Jason has been blogging about a case pending before the Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller. Jason even recorded the oral argument and put it on his website! Just go to his home page and scroll down to “More on Heller.”

Jason hasn’t been to law school yet (He should go, I mean he really needs to go!), but he can best many lawyers when quoting cases and explaining decisions. Me? I hated constitutional law, not because it isn’t beautiful and majestic, but because trying to figure out what the law was in any particular area was akin to hearding cats. And, I don’t heard cats well–no patience!

According to Jason, the Heller case focuses the gun sights on a central question, which apparently has never been definitively answered by the Supreme Court: Is the right to bear arms an individual right? If you had asked me, I would have thought the issue was decided years ago, but apparently not.

In Heller the laws under attack are the District of Columbia’s ban on all hand guns and restrictions which require that other guns, like shotguns, be disassembled and unloaded. The argument is that the DC law effectively bans all guns, since the only guns you can have, you can’t use. It is hard to believe there is any place in America where you can’t have a gun ready and available in your home to protect yourself, your family and your property.

The odd thing is that Cheney and 200+ Senators and Congressmen signed on to a brief filed with the Supreme Court asking the Court to hold that the right to bear arms is an individual right. The problem: The Bush Administration filed a brief opposing such a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment because of concern that such a ruling might result in federal gun control legislation being declared unconstitutional. Cheney v Bush? For a better understanding you really need to read Jason’s post on JasonPye.com.

The quandry? The now conservative Supreme Court that loves to uphold the power of the government to do just about anything (like tap our phones) has to choose between its love of federal power and its love of guns, or should I say conservatives’ love of guns. I predict the guns win, the law is declared unconstitutional and the Supreme Court does some fancy dancing to preserve both guns and power. When you are the Supreme Court you can have the best of both worlds!

We covered a little Georgia politics, as well. Jason thinks Speaker Richardson’s Great Tax Plan was all about him, the Speaker that is. Cagle proposed a 10% cut in income taxes. Must be running for something! In a recession, who are these guys kidding? The voters, of course. Governor Perdue opposes both proposals since now that he won’t be running for re-election, he sees recession and decreases in revenues.

The budgets (supplemental and 2008-09) have passed both the House and Senate. Jason says there might be a showdown with the Governor over the budgets before the legislature adjourns.

The interesting part? I asked Jason to grade Cagle and Richardson’s performance this year. The results: Cagle: B- Richardson: F.

Personally, I give Jason an A for citizenship.

Politics: Drifting With the Grift!

Talk about gambling, predicting the outcome of presidential politics is pure fantasy, but also fun. James Williams always gives me hope that someday I will understand something–anything about politics, that is. Which is a lot more than I can say about those TV pundits who take the insignificant, blow it up, out of proportion and not only predict winners and losers, but cast eternal judgment (condemnation) upon the poor candidate who happens to be in their sights at the moment. And 4 hours later, they completely reverse their predictions and damnations. James, you are a breath of fresh air.

I wish I could do this interview justice, but I am afraid I am still pressed for time, so if you want to hear two guys chew the fat, this is a good listen. The first half focuses on the presidential race, who we like, whose up and whose down and whether that means anything. The last half jumps into Georgia politics and the hot items at this legislative session like property tax reform.

Gotta go!

Jason Pye on the Speaker’s Tax Proposal: Going Down in Flames!

Anyone who keeps up with politics in Georgia, keeps up with JasonPye.com. It’s always a pleasure to talk to Jason and get his take on issues and people.

In this interview, Jason discusses some of the details of Speaker Richardson’s proposal to eliminate the property tax and broaden the sales tax. Jason gives credit to Travis Fain for the details of what goods and services would be taxed under the plan. Jason says there is a need for clarification as to some of the things that will be taxed. For example, the plan would tax temporary lodging over 90 days. Does this refer only to the extended motel or hotel stay, or does it include your apartment rent. For a list of what exemptions will be eliminated, go here.

If the Speaker has his way, we will be paying sales tax on water bills, phone and long distance services, dental services, and haircuts, just to name a few. The state portion of the sales tax we pay is currently 4% and, as I understand it, would remain unchanged.

Of course, one of the most important issues is whether or not enough revenue can be generated from the expansion of the sales tax to make up the revenue lost through the elimination of the property tax. Jason said there was a study by Georgia State University which indicates there would be a significant shortfall. However, the Speaker insists there won’t be a short fall. The question is whether the Speaker’s optimism is merely blind faith or reliable economic analysis.

Jason points out that one of the problems with the Speaker’s plan is the manner in which it is being revealed and promoted. For example, Speaker Richardson has made it apparent that he is not receptive to any criticism of his plan, and generally avoids discussing it in public.

Politically, the unknown consequences of this battle over the Speaker’s tax proposal is the repercussions it will have on Republicans in the ’08 elections. The elimination of the property tax is a sticky local issue for two reasons: (1) every citizen is likely to jump up and salute the elimination of the property tax, and (2) the local city and county governments oppose its elimination since it is their main source of revenue. There is not, at least as far as Jason and I are aware, any city or county elected officials that support the Speaker’s plan. In fact, Jason said one mayor compared it to the centralized government proposed by Karl Marx. Next year in seeking re-election, Republican representatives are going to have to explain their support for the plan and that could make them vulnerable to significant criticism at home. And if they don’t support the plan, they are subject to criticism as well.

Everyone believes, thinks and assumes that Speaker Richardson controls the House Republicans with an iron rod. Jason thinks he is literally staking his political future on passing this plan. But, when all is said and done, Jason says the plan will go down in flames because it has no chance of passsing the Senate. And maybe that is part of the Speaker’s plan, too! Is this a strategy to build a platform to run for Governor in 2010? Trying to eliminate the property tax may get the vote of a lot of Georgians, regrdless of whether or not it is a bad idea. And what happens if an opponent in the Governor’s race, say one from the Senate or elsewhere, opposed eliminating the property tax?

I was disheatened when our discussion turned to the Atlanta Water Shortage. I thought Jason, smart guy that he is, would jump at my offer to rent my trailer to him when they run out of water in Atlanta. He seems oddly unconcerned, even though I was only charging two grand a week for hot water and 6 baths a day.

Jason says there is no sense of panic, at least not in the county where he lives, Newton. Its reservoir is full. Although no outside water use is allowed, he thinks people, generally, have a degree of blind faith that the problem will get resolved. No one seems to be laying blame for the situation getting this bad–other than whoever caused the drought. On top of that, the Governor is getting favorable approval ratings for the manner in which he is handling the problem.

Jason did say that if the optimism proves unfounded, he is coming to live with me. Fine Jason, but without a paid, advance reservation, the rate goes up!

We ended the interview with a few comments about Ron Paul and the libertarian philosophy. Ron Paul seems to be experiencing a spike in his campaign and support. He is one of those who says what he means and means what he says and to that extent he is refreshing. But then, you ask the next question and find out he thinks the Food and Drug Administration (or a dozen or so other federal agencies) should be eliminated, not reformed, eliminated. Jason seems to think that is a good idea and believes the drug companies and market forces will make sure dangerous drugs don’t stay on the market.

Me? I am not concerned about bad drugs staying on the market. I am concerned about them getting on the market in the first place. Apparently, Jason thinks a few deaths to test a drug out are well worth the costs savings in not having the FDA require proof a drug is safe.

Back to Ron Paul. Jason doesn’t think America is ready to support a strong, independent third party, whether Libertarian or otherwise. Neither do I–right now. But if any man can birth a viable political party, virtually overnight, its George Bush. Rarely, has one man done so much, so wrong, so faithfully.

The Shelbinator on Romney!

The Shelbinator’s video post on Mitt Romney’s recent visit to Atlanta, via the Varsity, is worth a look.

I enjoyed the comments by the Shelbinator himself, interspersed with Romney’s stump speech, not because they were an expose’ on Romney, but because they demonstrate how void of meaning most political campaigning really is. I am sure that the same kind of criticism could be leveled at just about any politician and his campaign speeches, Democrat of Republican.

Would we be better citizens and voters if we all constructed this kind of video in our brains when politicians talk? My point is not that politicians talk nonsense, although many and most of them do and all of them do at times. My point is that, sadly, their nonsense satisfies us. We prefer the sound bites to real discussions of real issues. We pick the guy we like, and stick with him through thick and thin and war and deficits and only after 5 or 6 years do we ask ourselves: “Why didn’t he know who the president of that country was?”