California Governor Jerry Brown said voters face a “moral choice” on his ballot measure to raise taxes to avoid deep cuts to schools.Reflections on "Moral Choice"
“What we’re facing here is a very stark moral choice,” Brown, a 74-year-old Democrat, said today at a conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, in San Mateo, near San Francisco. “Are we going to invest in our kids, in our schools, in our colleges, in our universities, or not?”
Brown’s measure, Proposition 30 on the Nov. 6 ballot, would temporarily boost the state sales tax to 7.5 percent from 7.25 percent and raise the levy on income starting at $250,000. A rejection by voters would trigger $5.5 billion in education cuts.
His plan is being challenged by a competing proposal offered by Los Angeles lawyer Molly Munger, whose father Charles Munger is vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A) Her initiative, Proposition 38, would increase tax rates for 12 years on income of more than $7,316 by 0.4 percentage point for the lowest earners to 2.2 percentage points for those making more than $2.5 million a year.
The moral choice was not to put ludicrous proposals in front of voters in the first place. Was there nothing else but schools for Brown to cut?
Even if there was nothing else but schools to cut, pray tell, why can't teachers make a "moral choice" of reduced benefits "for the sake of the kids"?
Why is it overburdened taxpayers have to pony up so teachers and other public unions get benefits most can only dream about?
The real "moral choice" is to tell Brown where to shove it and the same thing can be said to Molly Munger who wants to "temporarily" hike taxes.
Definition of "Temporary"
Molly's definition of "temporary" is a "mere" 12 years. You are out of your mind if you think that will be the end of it. As soon as taxes are hiked, public unions will be demanding massive pay hikes, "for the kids" of course.
My friend Hugo Salinas Price discusses the meaning of "temporary" in his excellent article Reflections on the effects of War as compared to the effects of Fiat Money.
At Bretton Woods in 1944 Henry Morgenthau and Harry Dexter White outmaneuvered John Maynard Keynes, the British Delegate to the Monetary Conference, and the Conference ended by accepting the American “diktat” for the post-war monetary structure of the world: the dollar was to be as good as gold for purposes of international payments, and the US promised to redeem for gold dollars held by other national central banks at the rate of one ounce of gold for each $35 dollars tendered for redemption. ...Cut the Money to Special Interests
Came the fateful day, August 15, 1971, and the US had to default on its promise to redeem dollars for gold – it was going to be only a “temporary” suspension, Nixon assured the American people.
Alas, in politics nothing is more permanent than a temporary measure. The dollar became the full-fledged fiat currency of the world.
Ed Ring, Director of Finance, Yes on Proposition 32 writes ...
Hello MishPlease make a donation, I just did, and I do not even live in California.
Special interests who oppose the YES on the Prop. 32 political spending reform initiative have raised nearly $70 million.
Virtually all of this money has come from public sector unions, who use forced dues and fees, taken from government worker paychecks, to fund the annihilation of any political rival who challenges them. How's that for your tax dollars at work?
And apart from government union organizations, how many actual individual donors from these alleged "middle class working families" are reported on the California Secretary of State's website as having voluntarily contributed to this massive warchest? Only 6 people. Seven, if you include the hedge fund billionaire who donated $500,000.
Please join millions of Californians next week to vote YES on Prop. 32, a campaign finance reform public sector unions have raised a massive war-chest to defeat.
Proposition 32 prohibits union political contributions from being automatically deducted from employee paychecks. This means that if public sector unions want their members to contribute a portion of their paycheck to a political campaign, first they have to ask permission. Is this so unreasonable?
Without passage of Prop. 32, California will never fix the public schools, reform the prison system, hold fair elections, balance government budgets, streamline government agencies, or reduce the crippling tithe demanded by the pension bankers. A YES vote on Prop. 32 is a vote for freedom.
The dismal results of unionizing our state and local governments should be clear to anyone, Republican or Democrat: Failing schools, bankrupt cities, and no money left for anything apart from more pay and more benefits for unionized public employees. And unlike private sector unions who must be reasonable or they bankrupt the company, public sector unions simply elect politicians who vote to raise taxes. No wonder California has the highest taxes in the nation.
Public sector unions have been the most powerful political players in California for decades. Prop. 32 doesn't break these unions, it merely requires them to ask their members' permission before using their dues to make political contributions. It is a necessary step towards restoring balance to California politics.
Vote YES on November 6th for real campaign finance reform: Prop. 32, the Stop Special Interest Money Act, is our best chance to take California back. Here's how it will change the rules in Sacramento:
1) Prohibits direct corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates,
2) Prohibits contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them,
3) Prohibits automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics.
Let's make our voice heard again. Vote YES on Prop 32 to Stop Special Interest Money.
Please help us - donate now.
And when time comes to vote ...
- Vote Yes on 32
- Note No on 30
- Vote No on 38
Remember, when it comes to politics and especially tax hikes in California, "nothing is more permanent than a temporary measure".
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment