KPBS: Howard Jarvis: Prop 13 History

Source:KPBS- a look at the tax revolt in California, from 1978. Not 2003.

"In 1978 disco was king, Jerry Brown was Governor, and the people ruled. They voted two to one in favor of Proposition 13, rolling back property taxes." 

From KPBS

If you look at what the Tea Party movement is today and what the Howard Jarvis anti-tax movement was back in the late 1970s, its very similar: government taxes and spends too much. There's where that term tax and spend came from: high tax rates were already unpopular by the mid 1970s. 

Both President Gerry Ford and presidential candidate Ron Reagan, made tax relief apart of their 1976 presidential campaigns. And Jimmy Carter becomes President in 1977, the economy tanks in 1978. Not because of President Carter, but by 1978 unemployment, inflation and interest rates were all going up and economic and job growth were going down. 

The opposite was happening in what you need for a strong healthy economy, the good numbers plummeting and bad numbers skyrocketing. And California felt this as bad as anyone similar to the economy there today. 

Howard Jarvis started an anti-tax association, took it to Sacramento as well as Washington, to campaign against high tax rates and campaign for tax cuts, that of course were put into place in 1981 when Ron Reagan became President, but President Reagan went a hell of a lot farther with their tax cuts. 

Prop 13 in 1978 was about limiting the growth of property taxes and cutting property taxes. But like a lot of things that get started in California, they tend to spread across the country. And fiscal Conservatives started organizing and this had an effect on the 1978 general elections in California. But also the mid- term elections in Washington, where Republicans picked up seats in both the House and Senate. 

Ron Reagan being the smart politician he was and someone who was pro-low taxes and anti-big government, saw this movement coming but about fifteen years later in 1964 when he worked for Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign, but it didn't become popular until 1978. 

1978 is when the economy dipped and people saw their taxes getting higher while their incomes fell, because state government's raised taxes to be able to finance their operations. With the sluggish economy and this is one of the things that started the Reagan Revolution in 1980. That brought him into the Presidency in a landslide over President Carter.

Euro News: 'Libya Ponders Sharia Law'

Source:Euro News- does the Libyan Transitional Council really want Sharia Law?

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed in many countries (but not in the USA) via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"The new Libya is considering how it will live by Islamic Sharia law, which includes some traditional practices which some countries consider inhumane.

 Many Westerners were among those horrified when this vision was voiced just days ago amid celebrations over the death of Colonel Gaddafi.

It was by no means the first time such a prospect was raised, when the chairman of the Libyan National Transitional Council, said: "We as a Muslim nation take Sharia as the basic source of law." 

From Euro News

With todays announcement by the Libyan Transitional National Council, that they are adopting Sharia Law and going to use Sharia Law to influence how they write Libya's National Constitution, looks bad from my perspective. And looks like they may be on the road to Islamic Theocracy where racial and ethnic minorities, as well as women are essentially treated like garbage (to be kind) with strict conditions on what they can do and how they live. And when it comes to women, on things like how they can dress. And can they even go to school and get educated or not and this is not the direction that Libya should be headed in. 

Thats what happened in Afghanistan pre-Afghan War that started in 2001, where people were literally murdered for things like adultery, under the Taliban Regime. And this not the direction Libya should be going in. They have so much more potential and can be so much better than that. And this is what exactly Iraq was able to avoid another country with a lot of potential when they formed their new government and Constitution.

What Libya should be looking at is a government thats evidence based that looks to do what's best for the entire country and to move it forward. Not things that could divide the country and potentially start new civil wars down the road. Which is what happened in Afghanistan and may happen in Iran as well.

FOX News: U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann- 'Separation of Church and State is a Myth: Fox News Debate'

Source:ZAPDOS- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) perhaps talking about a Constitution that she personally wrote, but not the U.S. Constitution.

"Michele Bachmann describes her explanation of the first amendment and freedom of religion using the founding fathers." 

From ZAPDOS

When Representative Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson or Senator Mike Lee, say and of course former President Ronald Reagan and former Senator Barry Goldwater (these are all Republicans, by the way) say they are anti-big government, I believe them and so should you. Because they know what individual liberty is all about: the liberty for free people to live their own individual lives, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their liberty. 

Every time I hear Representative Michele Bachmann or Senator Jim DiMint complain about the overreach of big government, or here them speak in favor of states rights, I gotta laugh. Because either they are lying, or they don't know what they are talking about, or don't completely understand what they are talking about. Which is pretty sad considering they are both members of Congress and pretty influential members of Congress, at least in the Republican Party. 

The New-Right in America (or Far-Right) loves Big Government, they're just not aware of it. Sure, corporate taxes and regulations, taxes on the wealthy would be down (if not eliminated) under their watch. It's just that Uncle Sam and his army of nephews and nieces would move in to people's home to try to force every single American to live what they could call a Christian, moral life.  

When it comes to individual liberty, as long as you're doing what the Christian-Right and approve of, you're OK. But when you don't, even if you're not hurting anyone with what you're doing, you got a major problem and could be found libel for a criminal offense. 

That's not Barry Goldwater's, Ron Reagan's, Ron Paul's, Gary Johnson's, Mike Lee's and others definition of individual liberty. When someone tells you they are against big government, why don't you see if they understand what they are talking about. Because you may be surprised in what you find out.

It would a dereliction of duty if I didn't comment on what Representative Bachmann said calling Separation of Church and State a myth. Again, we're talking about a lawyer here who doesn't understand the First Amendment. Perhaps it didn't exist when she was in law school and she's come back in another life. Or they didn't teach her about the First Amendment in law school. 

The U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts known as the establishment clause and free exercise clause. But at least she's qualified to run for President, even if she's not qualified for the job itself.

Channel 4 News: 'Alex Salmond Defiant on Scottish Army Question'

Source:Channel 4 News- Alex Salmond: Leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party in Britain.

"Channel 4 is a British free-to-air public-service television network with headquarters in London, a National HQ in Leeds and creative hubs in Glasgow and Bristol.[1] The channel was established to provide a fourth television service to the United Kingdom in addition to the licence-funded BBC One and BBC Two, and the single commercial broadcasting network ITV. It began transmission on 2 November 1982, the day after Welsh language broadcaster S4C's launch. Although largely commercially self-funded, it is ultimately publicly owned; originally a subsidiary of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA),[2] which was established in 1990 and came into operation in 1993. In 2010, Channel 4 extended service into Wales and became a UK-wide television channel." 

From Wikipedia 

"SNP leader Alex Salmond says an independent Scotland would not have sent troops to Iraq." 

From Channel 4 News

When you look at the United Kingdom of Britain you see four native people's living there, the English of course living in England, the Scottish living in Scotland, the Welch living in Wales and the Irish living in North Ireland. These people are spread out and of course Britain is a diverse country both racially and ethnically, but Britain is still about 80% english and around 10% Scottish.

But even with all of this diversity and the fact that Britain is basically made up of four different Nations. And those States believe they can all govern themselves. Britain has a very centralized government, not even a federal government, but one government that governs the whole country and controls most of the tax revenue. 

One of the reasons why Britain's taxes are so high even compared with the European Union because their national government controls so much of their tax revenue, unlike the European states where most of them have federal government's, as well as state or provincial government's, as well as local government's. 

And I believe this is a big reason why Scotland, Wales and North Ireland which are all basically provinces or states inside of Britain, have all been calling for more autonomy in how they govern themselves. 

 These States would like to raise their own tax revenue, tun their own schools, law enforcement, build their own infrastructure, run their own health care, etc. The things that most state or provincial government's get to do as a state or province. A lot of things that Canadian provinces get to do or American states get to do as well. 

Instead of all the power in Britain being centered in London at Westminster, that Britain goes to a to more of a federal system, where England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland have much more authority to govern themselves. And they all have their own state government's effectively with an executive and an assembly, and their own judicial system. 

What the UK Government could do is be there to do what most national government's do, but the states are able to govern themselves as well. With these states still being able to send their reps and lords to the UK Parliament. And have their representation there and work in partnership to some degree in how the country is governed. 

Instead of the UK Government trying to govern this big country of 62M people, small in land, but with a large population, by themselves and doing everything on their own. If the UK Government would give their states autonomy in how they run their affairs, then I believe there would be less call for independence for these States. Because they would feel that they would have more of a say in how they govern themselves and more freedom to live their own lives.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: U.S. Senator Charles Percy- 'A Foreign Policy For The GOP (1967)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Senator Charles Percy (Republican, Illinois)

"Guest: Charles Percy. For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution. 

For more information about the Firing Line broadcast records at the Hoover Institution Archives, see:OAC. 

"September 11, 1967: Senator Percy is a bit given to the stump-speech mode ("I truly believe that we will fight Communism just as effectively, if not more so, [by not] fighting it just in Havana and in Hanoi. We have to fight Communism in Watts; we have to fight it in Newark, and we have to fight it in Harlem; and we have to fight it by building a better America there, and not giving any chance for a Communist society to point to the hypocrisy of America and say that the American dream is only available to some people"), but we do come down to earth periodically, with concrete observations about, e.g., Yugoslavia, Poland, and Red China." 

From the Hoover Institution" 

From Firing Line With William B. Buckley 

This photo is also from the Firing Line With William F. Buckley interview of U.S. Senator Charles Percy (Republican, Illinois) from 1967. But the video from which the photo is from is not currently available online right now.

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Senator Charles Percy (Republican, Illinois)

When this show aired, this was before even President Richard Nixon was President. In 1967 Progressive Democrat Lyndon was still President. Had Senator Barry Goldwater defeated President Johnson in 1964, the Republican Party probably would've had a consistent message when it came to foreign policy. 

But pre-1969, the Republican Party was completely out-of-power in the Federal Government and had fairly small minorities in Congress (House and Senate) so what Bill Buckley was trying to do here with this interview with Senator Chuck Percy (Republican, Illinois) was to try to get an idea where the Republican Party at that point stood when it came to foreign affairs and national security. Which is a tough task for anyone, especially a junior senator which is what Senator Percy was at this point, even a junior senator an U.S. Military veteran like Senator Percy.  

What Senator Percy seems to be arguing here is that for America to have credibility abroad and be taken seriously abroad and be a true beacon of freedom (that Conservatives seem to want us to be) that we need to be strong as home as well. That the best way to fight communism and Communists at home, is to have to strongest society and freedom for as many Americans as possible at home. Which is why he was talking about poverty in Los Angeles and other places in America.

Senator was arguing that the best argument for Communists, is all the poverty and lack of individual freedom for so many Americans at home. Which I believe is a very solid Progressive Republican argument. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Americans For Tax Reform: Follow The Money With Eric Bolling- 'John Kartch Explains How Harry Reid's Tax Hikes Hurt Small Businesses'

Source:Americans For Tax Reform- Vice President Joseph R. Biden (Democrat, Delaware)

"ATR's John Kartch Explains How Harry Reid's Tax Hikes Hurt Small Businesses" 

From Americans For Tax Reform

President Obama and Senate Leader Reid have come out in favor and have proposed what's called a millionaires tax, which would raise taxes on anyone making a million$ a year or more. To pay for the American Jobs Act which has now been broken into several different bills, after the Senate GOP Leadership blocked the whole Legislation last week. 

The millionaires tax proposal would also pay for long-term debt and deficit reduction by raising taxes on individuals making a million$ a year or more. An additional 5% increase in tax burden that these people would be required to pay. To help pay for the AJA and to help finance debt and deficit reduction and people who quite frankly can afford to pay this tax.  

And now there's a growing bipartisan consensus that there's not only a need for tax reform that would eliminate most if not all tax loopholes and even raise the top tax rate at least in the short-term. But then lower all tax rates in the long-term to help pay for debt and deficit reduction. 

This is something that Senator Tom Coburn one of the most fiscally conservative members of Congress Has already acknowledged, as well as the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Debt Commission, as well as the Rivlin-Domenichi Commission.

There's only so much revenue that can be cut in the non-Medicare and Social Security social insurance programs. That by the way only represent about 15% of a 3.7T$ Federal Budget with a 14T$ National Debt and a 1.8T$ National Deficit. Defense, Social Security and Medicare represent around 2T$ in the 3.7T$ Federal budget and about 60% of the Federal budget. 

I hope I haven't put you asleep with all of these numbers. (By the way) We are always going to have those programs, Congress will never allow for those programs to disappear. But since they all represent a solid majority of the Federal budget. We have to find a way to make savings in those programs without hurting them. 

We also need tax reform that eliminates tax loopholes in the short and long-term, as well as raises taxes on the wealthy (people making a Million$ a year or more) not for new spending (other than the AJA) but to help pay down the national debt and get our debt and deficit under control. So we can have a strong growing economy in the future. 

A millionaires tax is exactly that: a tax hike on people who can afford to pay more in taxes. At a time when we have large debt and deficit's. There's not the votes in Congress right now to pass a millionaires tax and the President and Congressional Democrats understand this. But something they want to have and use as well as take to the people when they finally get around to reaching a debt and deficit reduction agreement with Congressional Republicans. 

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Ann Scott and Phyllis Schlafly- The Equal Rights Amendment (1973)

Source:Hoover Institution- Firing Line With William F. Buckley, debating the Equal Rights Amendment, in 1973.

“In this episode, conservative activist and attorney Phyllis Schlafly (1924–⁠2016) and feminist activist and professor Ann Scott (1929–⁠1975) go head-to-head as they discuss the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), a constitutional amendment that would have guaranteed equal rights regardless of sex. The amendment was first proposed in 1923, although support ebbed and flowed throughout the 20th century. At the time of this episode in 1973, it was unclear whether or not the ERA would be ratified. Schlafly and Scott discuss what they believe would be the consequences of the amendment if it were ratified, touching on topics such as a military draft for women, divorce and family dynamics, and economic ramifications. Schlafly campaigned vigorously against the ERA, arguing that the amendment would eliminate privileges enjoyed by women in a society that upholds traditional gender roles. Scott, meanwhile, ardently maintained that the ERA would benefit both men and women by mandating equal treatment under the law. The ERA ultimately was not ratified, and the debate continues today.”

From the Hoover Institution

"Taped on March 30, 1973 The Equal Rights Amendment was on its way to ratification, when a funny thing happened: one of the states (to be followed by others) that had ratified it rescinded its ratification. The rescission had been mobilized, as Buckley puts it, not "by sexist males but by women, many of whom on second blush are discovering in the amendment implications they regard as inimical to the best interests of American women." Like what? Like, replies Mrs. Schlafly, the draft. Wait a minute, says Ms. Scott: "if women are to be citizens and citizens are to be subject to the draft, then women should take the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship." Swords flash as we move from the draft to employment opportunities to child support. Whether or not our two guests will ever agree on anything, we do learn where the battle lines are drawn."  

Source:Amazon- Firing Line With William F. Buckley Jr.

From Amazon 

"Guests Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Scott debate the Equal Rights Amendment. Schlafly insists the ERA will subject women to the draft and impact custody cases. Scott asserts such criticisms are misleading.

In this Battle of the Feminists episode, conservative Phyllis Schlafly and liberal Ann London Scott debate the consequences of passing the Equal Rights Amendment. Schlafly was the National Chairman of the STOP ERA campaign, while Scott was Vice President for Legislation for the National Organization for Women. Schlafly insists the ERA will subject women to the draft and impact custody cases. Scott asserts such criticisms are misleading. Scott died of breast cancer two years after this episode." 

Source:IMDB- Firing Line With William F. Buckley.

From IMDB 

This photo is from a video of the Firing Line With William F. Buckley episode about the Equal Rights Amendment in 1973, with Ann Scott and Phyllis Schlafly. But that video is not currently available online right now.

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Debating the Equal Rights Amendment in 1973.

I believe all good Americans across the political spectrum believe in equal rights for all people. That there’s now a consensus that’s still growing as we get younger and more liberal as a country that we shouldn’t be allowed especially the public sector, to be able to discriminate against anyone based on their race, ethnicity, gender, color, creed, nationality, religion and now even sexuality. That in a liberal democracy like America, free people meaning free people not a particular type of people, have the constitutional right to live freely and not be harassed by government.

No American under the U.S. Constitution can be discriminated for the reasons I just laid out by the public or private sectors. That it says in the U.S. Constitution that all men meaning people, not just men, have the constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That these are constitutional rights.

And if you’re a Constitutional Constructionist like U.S. Justice Antonin Scalia, you take those words to mean exactly that. Even though our Founding Fathers when they wrote the U.S. Constitution didn’t mean those constitutional rights to apply to everyone. And things like laws attempting to block people from eating, voting, working, going to school, just because of their race, just to use as examples, are unconstitutional on their face. Because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The question is how best to enforce these constitutional rights. How best for government to enforce them. To me those enforcements are already there in the U.S. Constitution. And thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Fair Housing Law of 1968, Federal, state and local government’s, can no longer get way without enforcing these constitutional rights for everyone.

The problem during the civil rights debates of the 1950s and 60s wasn’t our Constitution. The problem was that not everyone and several states weren’t enforcing our constitutional rights equally. But those laws cleared that up and now if people are unfairly discriminated against, they can take legal and civil action against that.

People are unjustly discriminated, now have recourse with either the executive or judicial branches, they can file a complaint with either or take the people who they believed unfairly discriminated against them to civil court and get their case heard. And if they win be rewarded at the expense of the defendant, for the discrimination they suffered.

The reason why I’m not in favor of an Equal Rights Amendment, even though I’m a Liberal Democrat, because it’s not needed. It would simply be an addition to what’s already there under the U.S. Constitution. All men and women have to be treated equally under law. The law can’t discriminate based on gender or race as well as the other distinctions.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)