(c) 2010 Soowee
All rights reserved.
Barack Obama's Administration and the Chair of the Federal Reserve continue to pursue the sort of "supply-side"/"free-market capitalism" nonsense that has slowly but surely screwed the US and world economies into the dirt over the past 30 years or so. The latest example was reported by the NY Times this October 4, 2010 expressing shock and dismay that US corporations have borrowed, at little or no cost, monies "intended" to help the economy recover then bank the money rather than to spend or "invest" it, thereby reaping big profits on mere savings.
Well, Duh!
What in the world should anyone expect a fairly well-educated managerial group to do? OF COURSE they are going to bank the money rather than to spend it (or "invest" it at risk). That is merely sound business practice, unless otherwise required to do something different, which they were not.
This demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the widespread expectation that, somehow, inanimate corporations should manifest altruism and helpful deeds for the "good of the country." This absurd expectation has driven a lot of really stupid policy among both sanctimonious Democrats and protective Republicans. The flip side of this nonsense is the assumption that government oversight of large corporations is somehow unnecessary and debilitating to economic growth. As both of these concepts rest upon the assumption that corporations respond to the "marketplace" (they control) and ARE (or ought to be) inherently altruistic, neither the "socialists" nor the "good capitalists" will disparage that assumption, as it serves the warped viewpoints and vested interests of each side in the debate. And so, because the debate is always absurdly dominated by merely two sides, nothing changes.
I would propose that voters and thinkers (not that they should be considered as separate functions) stop moralizing and fantasizing and then recognize that corporations are NOT inherently altruistic, but that they are (and should be) purely profit-driven entities. Acceptance of that reality would serve to clear up a lot of nonsense that otherwise gets blathered about.
And, because they are purely profit-driven entities, any altruistic influences must come from a governmental structure exclusively dedicated to (1) protecting true competition in the markets, (2) protecting the taxpayers' "investments" in corporate America, and (3) eliminating needless meddling in small businesses. These policies are exactly inverse now. No government--state or federal--protects competition, they protect big business FROM competition. In fact, the states are utterly unequipped to properly monitor the activities of big corporations. Their legislators are easily bought and paid for. And, governments meddle needlessly in small (mostly local) businesses because they must appear to be doing something, and they suffer from misdirected focus and resources which should properly drive oversight of big corporations instead. The laissez-faire "itch," if it must be scratched, should benefit local businesses instead.
The low/no-interest loans made by the Fed to the banks and/or the large corporations should have been made with more strings attached, if made at all, and the extent of that is very much doubtful. Had some of those dollars been instead directly spent by the US government in the rehabilitation of infrastructure, public health and education, the "return on investment" would be manifest in the form of more jobs, EVEN IF the deficit would have been enlarged, which is the problem anyway. President Obama and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke decided, instead, to follow the usual supply-side/top-down model of economic recovery by shoveling practically all of the taxpayers' money out to the large so-called "Wall Street" firms, expecting it to eventually "trickle down" to the benefit of the vast unwashed masses. Right.
President Obama wonders why all that did not work. He wonders why jobless rates are still nosebleed-high. He can blame his own inclination to follow absurd Republican supply-side crap like the good little puppy-dog he is.
THE SOLUTIONS:
(1) Immediately cut the combined FICA tax to 10%. An unknown Republican congressman first suggested this idea, and it would leave more spending money in the pockets of workers as consumers. That, in turn, would allow those workers to spend some money DIRECTLY into local economies which, in turn, would allow local (small) businesses to post some profits and possibly hire more workers. The widely embraced fantasy that Social Security is going broke is not true. A careful reading of the Social Security Trustees' Report from last year would reveal as much. I have read some of it, and I refuse to witlessly parrot the breathless conclusions of the Trustees in their Summary as so many other "experts" have done. Pumping up the payrolls might be enough to keep Social Security IN SURPLUS, AS IT CURRENTLY IS, despite the me-too message of the Chicken-Littles running around worrying about the coming imaginary demise of Social Security.
(2) Revoke the second-home deduction for higher-income brackets and allow, instead, workers to write off apartment rents. That so-called "second-home" mortgage interest deduction has driven the purchase of beach cottages, yachts, mountain cabins, RV's and other nonsense by higher-income taxpayers, all of which qualify as "second homes." Allowing workers to write off apartment rents instead would benefit the lower-bracket taxpayers directly AND it would revive the moribund multi-family housing construction markets, which might create some construction JOBS!
(3) Redirect government regulatory focus away from smaller, local businesses toward larger businesses instead. NOT BECAUSE government is good at business, but because businesses ARE purely profit-driven, and any other influences in the marketplace (like antitrust enforcement) should come from the sector (government) responsible for exerting those influences. Let businesses do their jobs (and expect no more), and let government do its job, which is primarily protecting consumers from hazardous products and practices and monopolies. Democrats, especially, ought to get off the insane merger-&-acquisition trolley they have been seduced into riding for 30 or 40 years now. Our economy does not need less diversification wrought by mergers and acquisitions, it needs much MORE.
(4) Raise income taxes on higher brackets. Let the so-called "Bush" income-tax cuts expire. Why? Because the federal government needs the money, and the rich can afford to pay it. That is it. It has not one damned thing to do with "morality," "fair shares," or "soaking the rich." Wealthier taxpayers do not pay FICA on any salaries above $110,000 nor on dividends, interest or capital gains, capped instead at a measly 15% income-tax rate. Lower-income wage earners pay not only income taxes in excess of 20% on most wage-dollars earned PLUS 6.2% FICA directly (not deductible), and their hapless employers must pony up another 6.2% on every employee's wage or salary under about $110,000, and THAT arguably influences employers to lay off people and buy machines instead. The present REGRESSIVE income-tax structure is an abomination, where wealthier individuals and households are keeping an absolute larger PERCENTAGE (not just dollars) of gross income after taxes and ordinary living expenses than workers. The gross median household income in the US is about $65,000 annually. That is, in most cases, two adult workers per household making less than $35,000 each. That means that HALF of all American households are below that line! Why are we wringing our paws over people making as much as $250,000 annually paying more taxes? The prevailing debate is absurd beyond belief.
(5) Preserve the Estate Tax on estates of $1 Million or more. A $1 Million tax-free estate is more than enough wealth to transfer to those of us who did not earn it. There is no such thing as the cleverly-named "death tax." There is no tax for merely dying. That is ludicrous. Estate taxes are paid with our parents' stupendous wealth. We beneficiaries got our money the old-fashioned way: we inherited it! It might be appropriate to raise the exemptions for individual recipients, and it might be appropriate to lower the brackets, which now start around 45%. If the Estate Tax is preserved, those options should be explored.
(6) Divert remaining TARP and bailout funds toward infrastructure and other make-work projects. We have already seen that individual wealth accumulation does NOT stimulate job growth, as has been argued against raising taxes on wealthier individuals. Income tax brackets were a lot higher when Bill Clinton was President, and the "Bush" tax cuts did not stimulate diddly over the past 9 years or so. Investment stimulation is not what is lacking. Look at General Motors, for example. There is no shortage of capital investment in General Motors, but they are STILL struggling to sell their products. More capital investment in General Motors is NOT going to induce more people to buy their cars, if those people have no jobs and no spending money, not even if they can get zero-interest loans! The workers are NOT going to borrow money to buy stuff. Those days are OVER! What General Motors (as do other large corporations, the real estate markets, and local businesses) all need is more BUYERS with more spending money in their pockets. That is the ONLY way that real job growth is going to happen. The true remedies are bottom-up, not top-down.
(7) There may be a valid point to eliminating corporate taxation, because it is persuasively argued that taxes on all corporations become a pass-through expense, a rising tide that lifts all corporate "boats" and are passed on to consumers. Corporate-entity taxation was, at one time, regarded as a proper trade-off for the guarantee of limited liability for investors. Just ask the hapless partners who invested as such in the famous insurance company, "Lloyd's of London," when there was a capital call on all partners a few years ago for money to cover excessive claims paid. Lloyd's was not incorporated back then. Today we have "S" corporations and limited-liability companies that effectively evade the so-called "double-taxation" issue faced by with "C" corporations, where net profits earned are taxed, then paid out as dividends and taxed again to the individual recipient. But the "double-taxation" issue is a bogus issue, because most gross income received by a taxable entity is paid out in wages, salaries, loan interest or capital investments, all of which is allowed either a direct deduction or a depreciation deduction. Only non-deductible dividends are again subjected to individual income taxes, yet those other deductible expenditures are mostly taxable income to those recipients as well! A better course of action might be to examine possible income-tax-exemption of ALL businesses, regardless of form, and to tax all net receipts therefrom at full individual rates.
(8) Instead of cutting taxes on capital gains when prior investments are liquidated, it might be better to allow a sliding-scale-refundable tax credit on capital investments. Repeal of the long-term capital-gains tax rate should be considered, replacing it instead with a capital-investment incentive that would be recaptured at ordinary income-tax rates if the investment were liquidated prematurely, using a sliding scale that would penalize earlier liquidations more than later liquidations. An immediately recognizable tax credit for capital investments could completely avoid recovery by taxation if allowed to remain in place for a designated period of time, like seven years, with ordinary taxation of the entire amount of capital gains levied anytime, and recovery of the previously allowed tax credit required on a sliding-scale percentage if liquidated in the interim. Certain exemptions for liquidations mandated by such matters as health crises or payment of estate taxes could be incorporated.
There are ways to address our economic problems, but the present course of action being pursued by the Obama Administration is doomed to fail. Workers need good jobs, and this is no secret. The Obama Administration has been mining fool's gold, trying to make the old nonsense work. That is because the same Usual Suspects remain in Washington to give bogus "expert" supply-side advice to succeeding administrations, as presidents come and go. President Obama needs to find some new blood, some totally new thinking, and jettison the Usual Suspects.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
WHEN THE FAT LADY SINGS
(Part of the following was e-mailed to a friend who had collated stats on a trivia quiz.)
Recently I was reminded again of widespread cultural deprivations on matters we Baby-Boomers now take for granted. Today's kids and even younger adults seem terribly isolated now from the many cultural things that we used to share with adults, like cartoons, especially the Warner Bros./Bugs Bunny/Porky Pig/Daffy Duck/Elmer Fudd stuff. Those wonderful cartoons were effective on two levels, both for kids and adults. The "double-entendre" and satirical stuff only adults might get, but they were powerful latent influences for kids our age as well.
Totally hilarious! AND, THAT is how I "know" Wagnerian opera and how I know what the "fat lady" phrase means. I have known that ever since I first heard the phrase, INSTANTLY! I knew it as a kid. Do today's children know any of that? I doubt it. That is just but one of many examples, and I have no idea how we might infuse that cultural knowledge into anyone. Today's cartoons are an abomination. I would NEVER let a child of mine watch such crap. NEVER!
We just had to "be" there, and I am really grateful I was.
Recently I was reminded again of widespread cultural deprivations on matters we Baby-Boomers now take for granted. Today's kids and even younger adults seem terribly isolated now from the many cultural things that we used to share with adults, like cartoons, especially the Warner Bros./Bugs Bunny/Porky Pig/Daffy Duck/Elmer Fudd stuff. Those wonderful cartoons were effective on two levels, both for kids and adults. The "double-entendre" and satirical stuff only adults might get, but they were powerful latent influences for kids our age as well.
FOR EXAMPLE:
The phrase, "it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings" is an obvious reference to amply-built Kirsten Flagstad's performances in Wagnerian operas. However, I have never seen a Wagner opera in full tilt. I have seen some film clips of Flagstad's performances in the horned helmet and blonde braids, etc., but only in passing. HOWEVER, I have seen “What’s Opera, Doc,” a 1957 Bugs Bunny cartoon featuring Elmer Fudd singing the Götterdämmerung with the ever-stronger lyric, "Kill de wabbit!” Bugs is, of course, attractively dolled up with horned helmet, breastplates and blonde pigtails, singing the Lied as Flagstad did!
We just had to "be" there, and I am really grateful I was.
Friday, July 2, 2010
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION
Elena Kagan, Solicitor-General of the United States and former Dean of the Harvard University Law School, has been nominated by President Obama to the US Supreme Court to take the seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
I am uncertain of Kagan's commitment to personal liberty, which is the most important quality a Supreme Court justice should have, in my opinion. Among other matters, she has been credited with fashioning the legislative compromise on "partial-birth abortion" when she worked for the Clinton Administration. My problem with the whole "partial-birth" abortion thing is that it was dishonestly presented as a procedure whereby perfectly healthy babies were being wantonly killed off in late-term pregnancy. "Partial-birth" abortion is not even a recognized medical procedure.
The correct medical term is "dilation and extraction"--"D&X"--and it is performed whenever a fetus is "anencephalic," which is a fetus that forms without a brain, and the skull is filled with fluid and thus too large to SAFELY pass thru the birth canal. The D&X procedure allows the attending to drain the fluid by puncturing the skull and deliver the poor brainless fetus normally without having to perform a somewhat dangerous Caesarian, which will now be required in the case of an anencephalic fetus in all cases because the D&X is now outlawed. Had perfectly healthy babies been killed off as alleged, I think we would have heard about it from horrified healthcare personnel long before now. I have never heard of such an provable instance.
I fault the healthcare professions for not speaking out against the political "tsunami" when these matters were pending in the Congress and state legislatures. Most tucked their tails between their legs and scurried for cover, there being a shocking lack of courage and intellectual honesty on their part.
Much of what has stirred the "booboisee" up on this issue is the Big Lie writ large, once again.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
ACCOMMODATING TYRANNY?
In 1964, as a graduating high-school senior, I was opposed to the public-accommodations section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist and candidate for the US Senate from Kentucky, has made some recent comments about that which have stirred up a very unpleasant memory. I cringe to admit what my thinking was back then.
As a product of very conservative instruction on American government in my senior high-school year, I was focused solely on the consideration of the owners of “public” businesses being controlled by the federal government in deciding whom they would serve in their eating or lodging establishments. I was indifferent to the very real suffering of those who were denied such service solely because of their skin color. I was obsessed with whether or not the “Commerce Clause” legally authorized the federal government to intrude into local commerce. The Commerce Clause in the US Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate “interstate” commerce, and the US Supreme Court confirmed that includes most public accommodations as regulated under the Act.
Fast-forward about eight or nine years, and my thinking had undergone some considerable revision, probably due to some very timely and welcome legal education. No longer was I willing to make legal excuses for bigots. Ironically, my recent thinking has been hardened even further by the dust-up over the federal mandate to purchase health insurance from private vendors in the recently adopted healthcare law, which I think is unconstitutional because I do not believe it is a proper exercise of the powers set forth in the “Commerce Clause.”
These seeming contradictions can be best explained (from my point of view) by noting that “commerce” is, by definition, a “public” activity. It seems clear to me that the Congress can require that anyone who CHOOSES to enter the marketplace (as a seller or buyer) must play by the rules of fairness. Given his obvious stale obsessions with the well-settled 1964 Civil Rights Act, Rand Paul should have already analyzed this situation to provide him with a firm position on the matter. Instead, he hemmed and hawed and dissembled about the validity of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and he winds up looking like the buffoon he obviously is.
Watching the crowd on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” the other day, several were excuse-mongering about Paul’s status as a “mere” ophthalmologist who might well have a poor understanding of the law. But Senate candidate Paul willingly chose to take and express an extreme position on the law based upon a thoroughly discredited line of thinking, in which case, as an obviously well-educated, intelligent Board-certified ophthalmologist, he should have been prepared to defend his point of view. That he flip-flopped on the matter demonstrates that he is not ready for prime time. Any Kentucky voter who votes for Paul hereafter is a fool.
As for the healthcare law, while Congress obviously has the power to demand fairness from those who choose to enter the marketplace, to my memory it has never exercised power to force private individuals to enter the marketplace and have business dealings with other private entities. This will be banged out in the courts, and properly so, but I reject the analogy of auto liability (not collision nor comprehensive) insurance because those who choose to avoid use of the roads are not required to buy such insurance, and those programs are established under state law, not federal law. The 10th Amendment draws a significant distinction between state and federal authority, not that very many voters, journalists, politicians or judges seem to care these days.
I am deeply sorry for failing to recognize the pain and suffering that my stingy analysis of the 1964 Civil Rights Act disregarded so long ago. I am grateful I finally saw the light. There is a big legal difference between the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the healthcare law.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
PLEASE, DADDY!
This is going to be a tough essay to write. I have lived for almost 64 years, and I am just now getting around to putting down on "paper" what has become probably the most terrifying memory that I have, listening to my drunken father threatening to come upstairs and kill my 11-year-old self as I lay in my bed, presumably sleeping, but actually eavesdropping in abject horror on his drunken rantings.
I STILL, to this day, have in my bedside table drawer (the same table I had by my bed as a child) the cast-iron swag-lamp counterweight that I kept handy after the swag-lamp fell apart. I was determined to whack my Old Man in the head as hard as I could if he dared show his drunken mug in my bedroom. I truly believed he would make good on his threats, and I was as prepared as I could be. If I faked being asleep, perhaps I could take him by surprise and beat his fucking brains out before he was able to do something to me. I was as serious as a heart attack. I had resolved to beat his head as many times as I could with the counterweight. I knew I had to kill him first before he killed me.
I spent about 5 years coping with this, from about Age 11 to Age 16, in rural North Carolina. I entered boarding school right after my 16th birthday, so all I had to fear then were my schoolmates! My father's drunken threats were not happening every night, but it was random enough to keep me on my toes all the time.
My father was a pretty nice person if he was not drunk, but if he WAS drunk, then he was like Mr. Hyde to Dr. Jekyll. My mother was worthless; he would beat the shit out of her if she got in his way. I used to surreptitiously watch him do that. I should have killed him anyway, like the mad dog he was! She was a horrible enabler in any event, wishing to keep surface appearances smooth, but that was typical of the times.
As the oldest, with his name and same birth-date, I think I reminded him of himself, and as he was obviously into self-loathing, it manifested as a death wish on me. He was really fucked up. If I look back on it, I think his father probably ignored him unless he was being punished. I think his father was a royal prick. But, those are after-the-fact speculations. I was not given to that much in-depth analysis when I was a child.
My father was a raging "juice-freak," an alcoholic, and I am sorry for that burden he had to carry. He quit drinking about two years before dying right after his 60th birthday in 1977 (about 8 days after Elvis!), but he was an overweight, heavy smoker, and it got him. I am fat now, but I don't smoke, thankfully. I like my beer, but I don't get drunk anymore, though I have done so in the past. I don't want to walk in his shoes.
As for forgiveness, I readily accept the necessity of doing that to free myself from the grip of this terror that still rages in my memory, but I am not there yet. Some years thereafter he tried to assault me while drunk, and I beat his ass horribly. I beat him until he stayed away from me. I was about 22 years old at the time. He never threatened or fucked with me thereafter. Served him right.
I won't forgive him. Not yet. Maybe never. If you think I should well, fuck you, too!
I STILL, to this day, have in my bedside table drawer (the same table I had by my bed as a child) the cast-iron swag-lamp counterweight that I kept handy after the swag-lamp fell apart. I was determined to whack my Old Man in the head as hard as I could if he dared show his drunken mug in my bedroom. I truly believed he would make good on his threats, and I was as prepared as I could be. If I faked being asleep, perhaps I could take him by surprise and beat his fucking brains out before he was able to do something to me. I was as serious as a heart attack. I had resolved to beat his head as many times as I could with the counterweight. I knew I had to kill him first before he killed me.
I spent about 5 years coping with this, from about Age 11 to Age 16, in rural North Carolina. I entered boarding school right after my 16th birthday, so all I had to fear then were my schoolmates! My father's drunken threats were not happening every night, but it was random enough to keep me on my toes all the time.
My father was a pretty nice person if he was not drunk, but if he WAS drunk, then he was like Mr. Hyde to Dr. Jekyll. My mother was worthless; he would beat the shit out of her if she got in his way. I used to surreptitiously watch him do that. I should have killed him anyway, like the mad dog he was! She was a horrible enabler in any event, wishing to keep surface appearances smooth, but that was typical of the times.
As the oldest, with his name and same birth-date, I think I reminded him of himself, and as he was obviously into self-loathing, it manifested as a death wish on me. He was really fucked up. If I look back on it, I think his father probably ignored him unless he was being punished. I think his father was a royal prick. But, those are after-the-fact speculations. I was not given to that much in-depth analysis when I was a child.
My father was a raging "juice-freak," an alcoholic, and I am sorry for that burden he had to carry. He quit drinking about two years before dying right after his 60th birthday in 1977 (about 8 days after Elvis!), but he was an overweight, heavy smoker, and it got him. I am fat now, but I don't smoke, thankfully. I like my beer, but I don't get drunk anymore, though I have done so in the past. I don't want to walk in his shoes.
As for forgiveness, I readily accept the necessity of doing that to free myself from the grip of this terror that still rages in my memory, but I am not there yet. Some years thereafter he tried to assault me while drunk, and I beat his ass horribly. I beat him until he stayed away from me. I was about 22 years old at the time. He never threatened or fucked with me thereafter. Served him right.
I won't forgive him. Not yet. Maybe never. If you think I should well, fuck you, too!
Saturday, May 1, 2010
MY LOVELY AFTERNOON
(From personal experience, (c) April 29, 2010, all rights reserved.)
I was cutting grass one beautiful, cool April afternoon down in a field behind my garage, mowing the path that runs through that field to my barn. There is a "wet spot" there that is usually soft and muddy, and I tried to "power" through it but got stuck about 6:00 PM. My mower, a huge, heavy zero-turn-radius Diesel mower with a 72" cutting deck, has turf tires and gets stuck very easily. I was royally pissed off.
Sulking and feeling sorry for myself, I trudged all the way up to the house and lay down in my recliner to drink a beer and nurture a righteous pity party, then I suddenly realized I could not just leave the mower where it was, BECAUSE the left rear tire was leaking and consistently going flat, and I was going to have one hell of a mess if I left it there overnight, thereby allowing the tire to go flat in the mudhole, as it most probably would do. I HAD to get it unstuck before dark and bring it up to my workshop where my air compressor reposes. That way, I could pump up the tire AGAIN the next day, as I must about every 2 days or so. I would not be able to get it repaired until the following Monday, having to jack up the mower, chock the wheels and remove the rear wheel over the weekend, then take it to the tire shop about 40 miles away, PROVIDED I got the yard mowed first, which normally takes about 3-1/2 hours.
NOTHING IS SIMPLE.
That very morning I had dropped off my truck (with towing chain in the toolbox) at a dealership to be worked on, so I did not have the towing chain. So, cursing and muttering at the unfairness of it all, I reluctantly went back outside, climbed up on my tractor and drove it down into the field with a web-nylon strap and a spare hitch ball stuck in the drag bar on the tractor. I did not even have a big nut to hold the hitch ball on the drag bar. There was nowhere else on the tractor on which to hook the web-strap!
After backing the tractor up to the mower, I got down, looped the strap around the front axle and the other end looped onto the hitch ball on the drag bar, then I heaved my body back up onto the tractor and dragged the mower sort of sideways out of the mudhole. I backed up the tractor slightly to relieve the tension on the strap, got down off the tractor again, locked the brake on the mower and removed the nylon strap from the hitch-ball, which strap was now CONVENIENTLY pinched in a vertical caster shaft on the front axle! (The front mower wheels are like big casters.) Eventually freeing the strap, I then climbed back onto the tractor, moved it about 50 ft. away, climbed down, got on the mower, started it and finished mowing the grass in the immediate vicinity. (I kept the tractor handy in case I got the mower stuck again.) I then got off the FUCKING mower, climbed back onto the tractor and drove it up into the yard and parked it, where it still sits. Then I walked back down to the mower, finished cutting the area, and then drove it up to the shop and parked it by the compressor. WHEW!
It was getting cold and dark by then (I had found ice in the truck bed that morning), so I got all that drudgery done in the nick of time. I really had not wanted to go back out there and do all that after going into the house the first time, but I knew it would be a royal mess the next day if I did not. I had argued with myself internally for about 30 minutes! The self-pity was almost crippling! I was truly surprised at myself for actually going back out there and getting it done, considering how much I had NOT wanted to do it!
I had been hoping it would fix itself, but unfortunately, those things rarely happen. I still had most of the yard left to mow, including taking a hard run at the mint patch which is always soft and muddy. I have gotten stuck therein several times. Unfortunately, when one hits a mudhole, the momentum of that mower dies like a miner in a Massey coal mine. It is like smacking a brick wall!
If one must purchase a riding lawn mower, do NOT trust turf tires. They are worthless. They were obviously designed by someone who has NEVER had to cut his own grass. Get the great big knobby tractor-style tires instead.
I was cutting grass one beautiful, cool April afternoon down in a field behind my garage, mowing the path that runs through that field to my barn. There is a "wet spot" there that is usually soft and muddy, and I tried to "power" through it but got stuck about 6:00 PM. My mower, a huge, heavy zero-turn-radius Diesel mower with a 72" cutting deck, has turf tires and gets stuck very easily. I was royally pissed off.
Sulking and feeling sorry for myself, I trudged all the way up to the house and lay down in my recliner to drink a beer and nurture a righteous pity party, then I suddenly realized I could not just leave the mower where it was, BECAUSE the left rear tire was leaking and consistently going flat, and I was going to have one hell of a mess if I left it there overnight, thereby allowing the tire to go flat in the mudhole, as it most probably would do. I HAD to get it unstuck before dark and bring it up to my workshop where my air compressor reposes. That way, I could pump up the tire AGAIN the next day, as I must about every 2 days or so. I would not be able to get it repaired until the following Monday, having to jack up the mower, chock the wheels and remove the rear wheel over the weekend, then take it to the tire shop about 40 miles away, PROVIDED I got the yard mowed first, which normally takes about 3-1/2 hours.
NOTHING IS SIMPLE.
That very morning I had dropped off my truck (with towing chain in the toolbox) at a dealership to be worked on, so I did not have the towing chain. So, cursing and muttering at the unfairness of it all, I reluctantly went back outside, climbed up on my tractor and drove it down into the field with a web-nylon strap and a spare hitch ball stuck in the drag bar on the tractor. I did not even have a big nut to hold the hitch ball on the drag bar. There was nowhere else on the tractor on which to hook the web-strap!
After backing the tractor up to the mower, I got down, looped the strap around the front axle and the other end looped onto the hitch ball on the drag bar, then I heaved my body back up onto the tractor and dragged the mower sort of sideways out of the mudhole. I backed up the tractor slightly to relieve the tension on the strap, got down off the tractor again, locked the brake on the mower and removed the nylon strap from the hitch-ball, which strap was now CONVENIENTLY pinched in a vertical caster shaft on the front axle! (The front mower wheels are like big casters.) Eventually freeing the strap, I then climbed back onto the tractor, moved it about 50 ft. away, climbed down, got on the mower, started it and finished mowing the grass in the immediate vicinity. (I kept the tractor handy in case I got the mower stuck again.) I then got off the FUCKING mower, climbed back onto the tractor and drove it up into the yard and parked it, where it still sits. Then I walked back down to the mower, finished cutting the area, and then drove it up to the shop and parked it by the compressor. WHEW!
It was getting cold and dark by then (I had found ice in the truck bed that morning), so I got all that drudgery done in the nick of time. I really had not wanted to go back out there and do all that after going into the house the first time, but I knew it would be a royal mess the next day if I did not. I had argued with myself internally for about 30 minutes! The self-pity was almost crippling! I was truly surprised at myself for actually going back out there and getting it done, considering how much I had NOT wanted to do it!
I had been hoping it would fix itself, but unfortunately, those things rarely happen. I still had most of the yard left to mow, including taking a hard run at the mint patch which is always soft and muddy. I have gotten stuck therein several times. Unfortunately, when one hits a mudhole, the momentum of that mower dies like a miner in a Massey coal mine. It is like smacking a brick wall!
If one must purchase a riding lawn mower, do NOT trust turf tires. They are worthless. They were obviously designed by someone who has NEVER had to cut his own grass. Get the great big knobby tractor-style tires instead.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
MY ALTRUISM IS BIGGER THAN YOUR ALTRUISM
(c) 4/28/10
All rights reserved.
Altruism. It is a wonderful quality we hope to find in others that is usually so sorely lacking in ourselves, despite the contrary self-images we carefully nurture. It is frequently manifested in our disgust at professional athlete and entertainer compensation, union-worker benefits and business behaviors. Altruism is the Holy Grail of self-denial. We expect--NO! We DEMAND that the aforementioned groups forego their filthy lucre so that the imaginary society we envision will be better off. That is about as realistic as the likelihood we will refuse an offered raise at the workplace.
The most frequent complaint heard these days is about the predatory behavior in the marketplace of businesses gobbling profits and paying out huge salaries and bonuses. The public outrage against such notables as Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and others is stunning. The perennial complaint against union workers is also frequently aired, with their presumed featherbedding, shoddy workmanship and excessive retirement and healthcare benefits which are ruining otherwise-profitable businesses and contributing to the inflation that is surely eating us alive.
What nonsense!
FIRST of all, it is patently absurd to demand of others a self-denial that we would never employ for ourselves. It is ludicrous to expect athletes, entertainers, union workers and businesses to piously refuse the money and benefits spread before them. I know of no one who would be so stupid as to do such a thing.
The answer is GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Businesses are SUPPOSED to be profit-seeking. That is their sole reason for existence. Any business that operates otherwise is doomed to fail. Therefore, the only remedy for any overreaching is to REGULATE the marketplace in which those businesses operate. That is why antitrust laws were enacted. That is why Glass-Steagall (revoked in the late 1990's with the connivance of Pres. Bill Clinton) was originally adopted. An unregulated marketplace is NOT going to address the problems of overreaching if all players are allowed to overreach. It is patently stupid to think otherwise.
As for union benefits, it is well to remember that unions did not gain a thing not agreed to by management. If union benefits are excessive, then it is up to management to refuse. The threat of a strike does not provide an excuse to abandon shrewd negotiations, as self-pitying management types would have us believe. It reminds me of the slogan of a used-car dealer that used to operate in Richmond, Virginia: "I would GIVE 'em away, but my wife won't let me!" Or, perhaps more apt, the late comedian Flip Wilson's Geraldine Defense: "The DEVIL made me do it!"
We must abandon the expectation that others should manifest altruism "for the good of society" and start regulating excessive conduct. Corporate management must re-learn the meaning of "no." Businesses should be wrest from the control of MBA's and IT-types who are inflicted with tunnel vision, so that the big picture of how businesses truly operate can again become the dominant philosophy.
All rights reserved.
Altruism. It is a wonderful quality we hope to find in others that is usually so sorely lacking in ourselves, despite the contrary self-images we carefully nurture. It is frequently manifested in our disgust at professional athlete and entertainer compensation, union-worker benefits and business behaviors. Altruism is the Holy Grail of self-denial. We expect--NO! We DEMAND that the aforementioned groups forego their filthy lucre so that the imaginary society we envision will be better off. That is about as realistic as the likelihood we will refuse an offered raise at the workplace.
The most frequent complaint heard these days is about the predatory behavior in the marketplace of businesses gobbling profits and paying out huge salaries and bonuses. The public outrage against such notables as Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and others is stunning. The perennial complaint against union workers is also frequently aired, with their presumed featherbedding, shoddy workmanship and excessive retirement and healthcare benefits which are ruining otherwise-profitable businesses and contributing to the inflation that is surely eating us alive.
What nonsense!
FIRST of all, it is patently absurd to demand of others a self-denial that we would never employ for ourselves. It is ludicrous to expect athletes, entertainers, union workers and businesses to piously refuse the money and benefits spread before them. I know of no one who would be so stupid as to do such a thing.
The answer is GOVERNMENT REGULATION. Businesses are SUPPOSED to be profit-seeking. That is their sole reason for existence. Any business that operates otherwise is doomed to fail. Therefore, the only remedy for any overreaching is to REGULATE the marketplace in which those businesses operate. That is why antitrust laws were enacted. That is why Glass-Steagall (revoked in the late 1990's with the connivance of Pres. Bill Clinton) was originally adopted. An unregulated marketplace is NOT going to address the problems of overreaching if all players are allowed to overreach. It is patently stupid to think otherwise.
As for union benefits, it is well to remember that unions did not gain a thing not agreed to by management. If union benefits are excessive, then it is up to management to refuse. The threat of a strike does not provide an excuse to abandon shrewd negotiations, as self-pitying management types would have us believe. It reminds me of the slogan of a used-car dealer that used to operate in Richmond, Virginia: "I would GIVE 'em away, but my wife won't let me!" Or, perhaps more apt, the late comedian Flip Wilson's Geraldine Defense: "The DEVIL made me do it!"
We must abandon the expectation that others should manifest altruism "for the good of society" and start regulating excessive conduct. Corporate management must re-learn the meaning of "no." Businesses should be wrest from the control of MBA's and IT-types who are inflicted with tunnel vision, so that the big picture of how businesses truly operate can again become the dominant philosophy.
Monday, April 19, 2010
LEES vs. JACKSONS
{The following was published by the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch on April 16, 2010 in response to an earlier letter from L. H. Ginn, III criticizing the decision of his alma mater, St. Christopher's School of Richmond, Virginia, to change the names of the two school debating societies from "Lees" and "Jacksons" to "Reds" and "Grays," relating to the school's colors.)
L. H. Ginn, III, of the St. Christopher's School Class of 1951, expressed his indignation on April 7 that the School had dropped the names of Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson for its Literary Societies, changing them to the "Reds" and "Grays," of which I approve. There is simply no point any longer in attempting to commemorate loser Confederate generals these days and times. It is past time to "get over it."
Now, as one who thinks the Arthur Ashe statue is out of place on Monument Avenue (placed there as a cheap sop to "racial balance" and an offense to the memory of Arthur Ashe), I must also acknowledge that the decisions of Lee and Jackson to resign their US Army officer commissions are understandable, as neither wanted to take up arms against their native state, Virginia. BUT--their actions did not stop with mere resignation.
Both men, as US Army officers and graduates of West Point, apparently had sworn oaths numerous times to oppose all enemies of the United States, "foreign and domestic," but they each affirmatively chose to violate the last part of that oath by foolishly becoming Confederate combat generals. I simply do not understand how an honorable person can do such a thing, and I have not found in the writings of either an explanation of this seeming contradiction. Their respective questionable Civil-War records are irrelevant to this point, as are the "Vietnam [undeclared] War" and the "Gulf [undeclared] War" and so forth. Much ado about nothing.
I am well aware of the various local controversies about the Flood Wall images and Monument Avenue, but none of that should allow any assumption that the opinions of Mr. Ginn are shared by all graduates of St. Christopher's School.
****************************
The writer is a 1964 graduate of St. Christopher's School in Richmond and a 1973 graduate of the School of Law at Washington & Lee University.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
HIDE THE MONEY
© 2/28/10
All rights reserved.
[This was originally submitted to the Goochland (County, Va.) Gazette, which chose to ignore it.]
FOUR MILLION DOLLARS!
That's right: almost $4 Million is what was NOT collected in 2008 in Goochland County land taxes because of the Land-Use Tax deferral program that has been in place for about 30 years. The "nick" for 2009 is probably a bit higher.
BUT--those monies are not being forfeited into thin air by the County. The County gets its "pound of flesh" from other taxpayers: homeowners and business owners, for example. Because, what is NOT collected from one place MUST be collected from some other place, regardless of what the County is spending, because the County cannot print its own money. There is no "free lunch" in Goochland County.
Here are some interesting recent facts about the land-use tax "deferrals" in Goochland County:
The aggregate "deferred" land values are over $749 Million.
Almost $4 Million were the tax revenues not collected on those deferrals at 53¢/$100 assessed value.
The total "look-back" time for deferred recapture is limited to 5 prior years.
Any recapture of deferred tax revenues for lands discounted as "use valuation" assessments, is LIMITED to the amount of "deferred" tax revenues plus 10% simple (not compounded) interest per year, ONLY for the 5 prior years. Any deferral beyond 5 years is permanently lost.
As of December 31, 2009, there were at least 1977 parcels of varying sizes qualified for land-use tax deferrals. By those, there were 34,942 acres in the “Agricultural” deferral system, assessed at the lesser value of $220/acre, 67,677 acres in the "Forest" deferral system, assessed at the lesser value of $613/acre, and 67 acres in the "Horticultural" (e.g., vinyard) deferral system assessed at the lesser value of $400/acre. "Agricultural" and "Horticultural" uses must aggregate 5 acres minimum per application, and "Forest" use must aggregate 20 acres minimum. A single application can incorporate multiple adjacent otherwise-qualifying parcels owned by the same applicant.
Medians are much more statistically valid than "averages," and they are defined as the "midpoint" (half above and half below). The MEDIAN "Agricultural" acreage approved per application is 12.4 acres, the MEDIAN "Agricultural" value deferred was $140,380, and the MEDIAN deferred "Agricultural" tax revenues forgiven were $744. The MEDIAN "Forest" acreage per application is 20.74 acres, the MEDIAN "Forest" value deferred was $120,837, and the MEDIAN deferred "Agricultural" tax revenues forgiven were $640. The single "Horticultural" acreage approved in 2009 was 57 acres (added to 10 acres approved earlier), and its deferred value was $206,776, yielding deferred tax revenues forgiven of $1,096.
In all, there are currently in Goochland County 969 new and renewed deferral "accounts" each valued at or below $200,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $101,934,200. There are 338 accounts each valued between $200,001 and $300,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $82,742,300. There are 185 accounts each valued between $300,001 and $400,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $63,822,100. There are 103 accounts each valued between $400,001 and $500,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $46,392,100; and there are only 379 accounts each valued over $500,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $454,444,700. The midpoint of the total deferred values is $374,667,700, which means that more than half of the aggregate deferred valuation is the upper 82% of the accounts exceeding the $500,000 valuation each. The midpoint of the total number of separate accounts is 987, which includes all the accounts of the lowest-valued parcels (under $200,000) plus just 18 more accounts in the next-higher category of $201,000 to $300,000. This seems to establish that the primary tax-deferral benefit under the current program disproportionately favors the higher-valued accounts.
All of us other Goochland County taxpayers presumably paid the 53¢/$100 tax rate based upon the full fair-market assessed values of their properties, including those whose lands are used for conservation but not otherwise qualifying as "Agricultural," "Horticultural" or "Forest."
(FULL DISCLOSURE: this writer owns approximately 45 acres currently in conservation use and, therefore, not qualifying for any land-tax subsidies.)
Virginia law limits localities primarily to levying or collecting land taxes, personal-property taxes, business licenses and sales taxes. A local income tax would arguably make more sense these days instead of the land tax, but it is not allowed under the "Dillon Rule" and state law. The total land tax ($24.9 Million in FY 2009-10) accounts for almost 40% of Goochland County's total budget ($62.5 Million for FY 2009-10), approximately half of which is allocated to education, the real estate tax thus amounting to almost 80% of education expenses. To the extent that some large landowners are excused from paying land taxes on full valuations, it MUST be made up by nonqualifying taxpayers (such as homeowners, business owners and conservationists) whose land taxes are assessed on full values.
The primary arguments heard by this writer in defense of the land-use tax deferrals are that "corn" and "cows" and "trees" don't send children to the public schools, that the reduced tax burden facilitates otherwise unprofitable farming, and that the potential recapture of the deferrals inhibits development of desirable open spaces arguably enjoyed by all.
Although some modest-income folks will surely be harshly squeezed by a moratorium on or repeal of the land-use-tax deferrals, and the few legitimate farmers will be forced to pay taxes on full land values thereby, this writer is mostly unimpressed by those arguments. Most developers will not be inhibited from paying the 5-year recapture costs as they are a "drop in the bucket" compared to development costs overall. They are simply not an effective deterrent to development if a parcel be otherwise desirable. Developers will seek to develop whatever acreage suits their purposes and those recapture costs are passed through to the lot purchasers.
This writer also believes that relatively little of the deferred acreage in Goochland is being operated at a profit anyway. Instead, most Goochland and central Virginia farms seem to be "hobby farms," defined here as farms and lands INTENTIONALLY operated at a loss to offset taxable income from other sources, such as dividends and capital gains. The US Internal Revenue Code requires farms to show a profit only any 2 out of every 7 years. According to Va. Employment Commission statistics, only 81 out of almost 11,000 workers in Goochland County are employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting combined. Though there are a lot of tax-subsidized Goochland acres in farming or woodlands, that is a miniscule portion of the total Goochland County workforce. Can it, therefore, be said that Goochland is REALLY an "agricultural" community?
While true that "corn," "cows" and "trees" do not, per se, burden the public schools, neither do business properties send kids to the public schools, yet they pay taxes on the full fair-market value of those properties. The imposition of a relatively higher tax burden on homeowners and business owners (many of whom do not have kids in the schools) nevertheless amounts to an unseemly "use fee" imposed on such taxpayers for their non-use of the public schools. A tax break or reduction for some is ALWAYS an additional tax burden for others.
No taxpayer should fail to take advantage of any tax break or reduction legally allowed; however, given the very difficult budgetary choices now being faced by Goochland County departments and officials (like police, fire and rescue services, currently cut to the bone), the question is begged as to whether it makes good economic sense AT THIS TIME to allow such arbitrary tax subsidies to relatively few, mostly well-off landowners in this current atmosphere of severe budget belt-tightening.
(FULL DISCLOSURE: this writer serves, without compensation, an organization that receives the benefit of County tax revenues for services rendered.)
The Board of Supervisors should immediately move to recapture the $4 Million+ "deferral" in the upcoming budget by revoking or suspending the land-use-tax deferrals and instead use those revenues to fully fund needed County services in FY 2010-11. Any taxpayer not eligible for the substantial subsidies of land-use-tax deferrals should demand it. Any Supervisor currently taking advantage of the land-use-tax deferrals should abstain from debating or voting thereon due to an obvious conflict of interest.
SOURCES: The Goochland Co. Commissioner of Revenue, the Va. Dept. of Taxation, the Goochland County Website, the Weldon Cooper Center Website, and the Va. Employment Commission Website.
The writer, a resident of Goochland County, Virginia since 1998, has been in the general practice of law for over 36 years and was a brief, skeptical member of the original land-use tax deferral "committee" in Orange County, Virginia many years ago. He is also a diplomate of the Va. Tech Planning Commission Certification Program and also the Va. Tech Board of Zoning Appeals Certification Program.
All rights reserved.
[This was originally submitted to the Goochland (County, Va.) Gazette, which chose to ignore it.]
FOUR MILLION DOLLARS!
That's right: almost $4 Million is what was NOT collected in 2008 in Goochland County land taxes because of the Land-Use Tax deferral program that has been in place for about 30 years. The "nick" for 2009 is probably a bit higher.
BUT--those monies are not being forfeited into thin air by the County. The County gets its "pound of flesh" from other taxpayers: homeowners and business owners, for example. Because, what is NOT collected from one place MUST be collected from some other place, regardless of what the County is spending, because the County cannot print its own money. There is no "free lunch" in Goochland County.
Here are some interesting recent facts about the land-use tax "deferrals" in Goochland County:
The aggregate "deferred" land values are over $749 Million.
Almost $4 Million were the tax revenues not collected on those deferrals at 53¢/$100 assessed value.
The total "look-back" time for deferred recapture is limited to 5 prior years.
Any recapture of deferred tax revenues for lands discounted as "use valuation" assessments, is LIMITED to the amount of "deferred" tax revenues plus 10% simple (not compounded) interest per year, ONLY for the 5 prior years. Any deferral beyond 5 years is permanently lost.
As of December 31, 2009, there were at least 1977 parcels of varying sizes qualified for land-use tax deferrals. By those, there were 34,942 acres in the “Agricultural” deferral system, assessed at the lesser value of $220/acre, 67,677 acres in the "Forest" deferral system, assessed at the lesser value of $613/acre, and 67 acres in the "Horticultural" (e.g., vinyard) deferral system assessed at the lesser value of $400/acre. "Agricultural" and "Horticultural" uses must aggregate 5 acres minimum per application, and "Forest" use must aggregate 20 acres minimum. A single application can incorporate multiple adjacent otherwise-qualifying parcels owned by the same applicant.
Medians are much more statistically valid than "averages," and they are defined as the "midpoint" (half above and half below). The MEDIAN "Agricultural" acreage approved per application is 12.4 acres, the MEDIAN "Agricultural" value deferred was $140,380, and the MEDIAN deferred "Agricultural" tax revenues forgiven were $744. The MEDIAN "Forest" acreage per application is 20.74 acres, the MEDIAN "Forest" value deferred was $120,837, and the MEDIAN deferred "Agricultural" tax revenues forgiven were $640. The single "Horticultural" acreage approved in 2009 was 57 acres (added to 10 acres approved earlier), and its deferred value was $206,776, yielding deferred tax revenues forgiven of $1,096.
In all, there are currently in Goochland County 969 new and renewed deferral "accounts" each valued at or below $200,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $101,934,200. There are 338 accounts each valued between $200,001 and $300,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $82,742,300. There are 185 accounts each valued between $300,001 and $400,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $63,822,100. There are 103 accounts each valued between $400,001 and $500,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $46,392,100; and there are only 379 accounts each valued over $500,000, aggregating DEFERRED values of $454,444,700. The midpoint of the total deferred values is $374,667,700, which means that more than half of the aggregate deferred valuation is the upper 82% of the accounts exceeding the $500,000 valuation each. The midpoint of the total number of separate accounts is 987, which includes all the accounts of the lowest-valued parcels (under $200,000) plus just 18 more accounts in the next-higher category of $201,000 to $300,000. This seems to establish that the primary tax-deferral benefit under the current program disproportionately favors the higher-valued accounts.
All of us other Goochland County taxpayers presumably paid the 53¢/$100 tax rate based upon the full fair-market assessed values of their properties, including those whose lands are used for conservation but not otherwise qualifying as "Agricultural," "Horticultural" or "Forest."
(FULL DISCLOSURE: this writer owns approximately 45 acres currently in conservation use and, therefore, not qualifying for any land-tax subsidies.)
Virginia law limits localities primarily to levying or collecting land taxes, personal-property taxes, business licenses and sales taxes. A local income tax would arguably make more sense these days instead of the land tax, but it is not allowed under the "Dillon Rule" and state law. The total land tax ($24.9 Million in FY 2009-10) accounts for almost 40% of Goochland County's total budget ($62.5 Million for FY 2009-10), approximately half of which is allocated to education, the real estate tax thus amounting to almost 80% of education expenses. To the extent that some large landowners are excused from paying land taxes on full valuations, it MUST be made up by nonqualifying taxpayers (such as homeowners, business owners and conservationists) whose land taxes are assessed on full values.
The primary arguments heard by this writer in defense of the land-use tax deferrals are that "corn" and "cows" and "trees" don't send children to the public schools, that the reduced tax burden facilitates otherwise unprofitable farming, and that the potential recapture of the deferrals inhibits development of desirable open spaces arguably enjoyed by all.
Although some modest-income folks will surely be harshly squeezed by a moratorium on or repeal of the land-use-tax deferrals, and the few legitimate farmers will be forced to pay taxes on full land values thereby, this writer is mostly unimpressed by those arguments. Most developers will not be inhibited from paying the 5-year recapture costs as they are a "drop in the bucket" compared to development costs overall. They are simply not an effective deterrent to development if a parcel be otherwise desirable. Developers will seek to develop whatever acreage suits their purposes and those recapture costs are passed through to the lot purchasers.
This writer also believes that relatively little of the deferred acreage in Goochland is being operated at a profit anyway. Instead, most Goochland and central Virginia farms seem to be "hobby farms," defined here as farms and lands INTENTIONALLY operated at a loss to offset taxable income from other sources, such as dividends and capital gains. The US Internal Revenue Code requires farms to show a profit only any 2 out of every 7 years. According to Va. Employment Commission statistics, only 81 out of almost 11,000 workers in Goochland County are employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting combined. Though there are a lot of tax-subsidized Goochland acres in farming or woodlands, that is a miniscule portion of the total Goochland County workforce. Can it, therefore, be said that Goochland is REALLY an "agricultural" community?
While true that "corn," "cows" and "trees" do not, per se, burden the public schools, neither do business properties send kids to the public schools, yet they pay taxes on the full fair-market value of those properties. The imposition of a relatively higher tax burden on homeowners and business owners (many of whom do not have kids in the schools) nevertheless amounts to an unseemly "use fee" imposed on such taxpayers for their non-use of the public schools. A tax break or reduction for some is ALWAYS an additional tax burden for others.
No taxpayer should fail to take advantage of any tax break or reduction legally allowed; however, given the very difficult budgetary choices now being faced by Goochland County departments and officials (like police, fire and rescue services, currently cut to the bone), the question is begged as to whether it makes good economic sense AT THIS TIME to allow such arbitrary tax subsidies to relatively few, mostly well-off landowners in this current atmosphere of severe budget belt-tightening.
(FULL DISCLOSURE: this writer serves, without compensation, an organization that receives the benefit of County tax revenues for services rendered.)
The Board of Supervisors should immediately move to recapture the $4 Million+ "deferral" in the upcoming budget by revoking or suspending the land-use-tax deferrals and instead use those revenues to fully fund needed County services in FY 2010-11. Any taxpayer not eligible for the substantial subsidies of land-use-tax deferrals should demand it. Any Supervisor currently taking advantage of the land-use-tax deferrals should abstain from debating or voting thereon due to an obvious conflict of interest.
SOURCES: The Goochland Co. Commissioner of Revenue, the Va. Dept. of Taxation, the Goochland County Website, the Weldon Cooper Center Website, and the Va. Employment Commission Website.
The writer, a resident of Goochland County, Virginia since 1998, has been in the general practice of law for over 36 years and was a brief, skeptical member of the original land-use tax deferral "committee" in Orange County, Virginia many years ago. He is also a diplomate of the Va. Tech Planning Commission Certification Program and also the Va. Tech Board of Zoning Appeals Certification Program.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
IMPOLITELY INCORRECT
Lately there has been a lot of news about a favored saying, "I am not a racist, but...." Whenever the "but" follows such a declaration, one may fairly conclude that rock-solid evidence of obvious racism is about to be delivered. I am always stunned by the utter cluelessness of such declarants.
Most of us are racists. I certainly am. So are many, if not most black people. I am always bemused by those white people who respond to accusations of their own racism with a declaration that black people are racists, too, as if the two "wrongs" just might make a "right" in such a case. One surely must offset the other in such addled minds.
Now, the thing about racism is that it is not always intentional or malicious. Many of us are perhaps "accidental" racists. We don't intend to be racists nor malicious, but our backgrounds and personal history just make it so. Just as importantly, merely because one does not burn crosses in other people's yards nor have ancestors who owned slaves, that person is not absolved from the curse of racism. Racism is pervasive and subtle. It can corrupt our thinking without us realizing it.
I find that I have to confront my own racism almost every day, and I must admit its existence if I have any hope of overcoming its pervasive effects. Denial is not the river in Egypt. Like people in prison who deny their guilt, or people in asylums who deny their insanity, we must also so regard our denials of racism. We cannot begin to fix the problem if we deny its existence.
For example, one of the most insidious instances of racism on my part is the effort that I consciously make to avoid referencing someone's racial characteristics if it is not relevant to whatever we may be discussing. I am conscious of avoiding racial references or description specifically for black people, as opposed to just ignoring it. The FACT that I actually think about doing that is racist, in and of itself. It may not be harmful nor malicious, but it is racist. I am also leery of groups of young black males on sidewalks at night. That may be wise self-preservation, but it is also racist.
I once told a race relations group with which I was meeting that I was a "recovering bigot." That produced some amusement among those who heard it, but it is indicative of what I believe I must do every day, which is to confront my own presumptions and stereotyping and try to avoid them. One might even observe that effort is also racist. But, it is what I have to do.
Another clarifying example of "innocent" racism involved one of the founders of the above-mentioned race relations group. Now dead, he was a retired government economist, very intelligent, soundly liberal and committed as no one else I ever knew to "normalizing" relations between blacks and whites. He was also rather elderly, and as far as he was concerned, most people being much younger might well qualify as mere "boys" and "girls" to him.
Well, one day he was discussing some sort of earlier conversation he'd had with an adult black female, to whom he referred as "girl." He was innocently considering only the age differential. A black woman co-founder of the group, also now dead, attempted to gently correct his untoward use of "girl" with reference to the adult black woman. She readily understood his naive lack of malice. Again, "Bill" referred to her as a "girl," witlessly failing to "get" the point that so many blacks understandably resent being addressed as "girl" or "boy." After a second unsuccessful attempt at correction, she and I just looked at each other and laughed out loud! It was very funny! Thankfully, I got the point, even if poor "Bill" never did.
Some would resent any objection to "Bill's" malapropism, sneeringly labeling such objection as "political correctness." Perhaps so, but in my view, it was simply to bring about some insight for "Bill" and to interdict possible future impolite utterance. It costs nothing to be kind and considerate, and the accusation of "political correctness" is often used to justify willful racism. Some jerks go out of their way to be offensive, then declare they are merely unwilling to be "politically correct."
I was born and reared in the rural South, and I am definitely a product of my origins. I attended all-white schools in the South until my junior year in college. I don't feel any particular guilt or shame for any of that, but I recognize how those limitations may have deprived me of valuable experiences. I try to keep both my eyes and my mind open. Some days ARE better than others.
I am also unwilling to cut any minority person an undue amount of "slack" merely because of his or her minority status. To do so would also be racist. A black person or a Hispanic person can be a jerk, too. (Fortunately, I never suffer from such shortcomings!) To the extent any of us can just ignore the racial characteristics of others, regardless of whatever group they are in, the better off each of us is. I believe we should be free to make whatever judgments and conclusions we might so long as we can do so without reference to racial or ethnic identity.
Each of us, regardless of origin, can liberate himself or herself from the worst effects of racism if we try every day. We are likely never really "cured," but that is only in fairy tales anyway. Just doing better is worthy of our efforts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
