Caffeinated Thoughts

The Liberal War on Moms
Iowa’s Business Property Taxes Highest in Nation
The Feds New Role: Human Resources Manager

Posted: 12 Apr 2012 06:00 PM PDT

The fact a liberal would disparage a stay-at-home mom isn't surprising. They have been doing it for years. Last night on Anderson Cooper 3 60 on CNN it came center stage when Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen commented on Ann Romney's ability to talk about the economy.

Here’s the transcript:

What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying, "Well, my wife tells me what women really care about are economic issues." And, "When I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing." Guess what? His wife has never actually worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing—in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and how do—why we worry about their future. … there's something much more fundamental about Mitt Romney—he just seems so old-fashioned when it comes to women, and I think that comes across, and I think that's going to hurt him over the long term. He just doesn't really see us as equal.

Old-fashioned… yeah, I know homemakers know nothing about the economy. She *obviously* doesn't read the news, shop, or pay for any services. Now I'll admit that her affluence does shelter her somewhat from the harsh realities of a bad economy, but it has nothing to do with her role as a homemaker and it certainly doesn't mean she's unqualified to speak on the topic. Those who are stay-at-home moms are the CEOs of the home, and in my opinion have one of the hardest (and most important) jobs one can have.

I'm reminded of Proverbs 31, listen to how the industrious woman (who is a "stay-at-home" mom) is described:

She seeks wool and flax,
and works with willing hands.
She is like the ships of the merchant;
she brings her food from afar.
She rises while it is yet night
and provides food for her household
and portions for her maidens.
She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
She dresses herself with strength
and makes her arms strong.
She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.
She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.
She opens her hand to the poor
and reaches out her hands to the needy.
She is not afraid of snow for her household,
for all her household are clothed in scarlet.
She makes bed coverings for herself;
her clothing is fine linen and purple, (Proverbs 31:13-22, ESV)

That sounds like somebody who has a pretty good handle on the economy, what do you think? I'd say stay-at-home moms (and working moms too!) help to drive the economy. Who do you think make up most of the consumers?

Rosen has since apologized:

Let’s put the faux “war against stay at home moms” to rest once and for all. As a mom I know that raising children is the hardest job there is. As a pundit, I know my words on CNN last night were poorly chosen. In response to Mitt Romney on the campaign trail referring to his wife as a better person to answer questions about women than he is, I was discussing his lack of a record on the plight of women’s financial struggles. Here is my more fulsome view of the issues. As a partner in a firm full of women who work outside of the home as well as stay at home mothers, all with plenty of children, gender equality is not a talking point for me. It is an issue I live every day. I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended. Let’s declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance.

Who started the "war on women" comments? Liberals. The simple fact is that the feminists and liberals have waged a rhetorical war on stay-at-home moms for quite some time. Rosen has "apologized," but her first inclination was to put them down. That speaks more to what she truly speaks for "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks," (Matthew 12:34, ESV).

Iowa’s Business Property Taxes Highest in Nation

Posted: 12 Apr 2012 02:30 PM PDT

Business property tax reform was a major topic and effort of the 2012 Iowa Legislative session. The House of Representatives passed a graduated reduction plan (HF2274) reducing commercial property taxes by 40 percent over eight years. The total tax reduction would be $1.2 billion. The rollback for small businesses, those with property valued at $400,000 or less, would be accelerated to five years. It would provide homeowners with over $400 million in property tax relief, and the state would provide about $1 billion in "backfill" money to county and city governments.[1] The Democrat-controlled Senate plan calls only for a "direct commercial property tax credit" for small businesses. This plan would provide $200-$250 million in tax reductions.[2]

Each year the Minnesota Taxpayers Association compares the property tax rates in all 50 states.[3] Their analysis tries to balance the individual systems to an "apples to apples" review. They review commercial, industrial, apartment, and homestead properties, at both the urban and rural levels. Iowa does not fare well in this report, as our business property taxes are among the highest in the nation – in all sub-categories (commercial, industrial, and apartment) and in both development categories (urban and rural).

Iowa ranks number one in the nation in both urban and rural apartment property taxes. The owner of an urban apartment complex, valued at $600,000 with about $30,000 in fixtures, will pay over $27,000 a year in property taxes. That is a 4.31 percent rate. The national average is only $11,417, at a 1.77 percent rate. A rural apartment complex owner will pay $21,753 on the same $600,000 valued building, a 3.45 percent rate. The national average rate is 1.51 percent, with taxes paid of $9,537.[4]

The national average apartment property tax rates are less than half of the amount Iowa apartment owners pay. These taxes are passed onto renters, whether families or students, some of those least able to afford to pay them. We rank third in both urban and rural commercial property taxes, at all building values ($100,000/$1,000,000/$25,000,000). The Iowa rates are 3.77 and 1.81 percent respectively – again significantly higher than the average national rates of 1.94 and 1.63 percent. Commercial property tax rates have a direct impact on business location and expansion decisions.[5]

In the area of urban and rural industrial property, Iowa business owners fare slightly better, as the national rankings fall to only 6th and 9th. The rural industrial rate is only 1.81 percent, versus 2.26 percent for urban areas. This is still in the top 10 highest taxed states in the country.[6]

Until and unless business property taxes are reduced, if one was building commercial, industrial, or apartment property in Iowa, it might behoove that person to build in areas classified and taxed at "rural" rates in order to reduce the tax burden. Rural areas of the state with declining populations might promote this aspect of tax codes to their advantage. This smart business decision, however, also has a variety of other public policy implications on roads, water, land, and transportation.

The results of this study make one thing very clear – Iowa business property taxes must be reformed, and the sooner the better. Businesses that consider tax burdens when making relocation and expansion plans may not chose Iowa. If we are to capture new businesses and encourage those already here, the Legislature must reach a consensus and pass business property tax legislation that the Governor can sign.

The following chart provides further details.

Republished by permission from INSTITUTE BRIEF, a publication of Public Interest Institute.

The Feds New Role: Human Resources Manager

Posted: 12 Apr 2012 01:45 PM PDT

When it comes to light that corporations such as Google, Apple, and Microsoft are collecting personal data, Americans rightly raise Cain. But who notices when government does the same thing?

The federal government is in the process of linking various databases of very personal information from a wide range of state and federal agencies. It wants to track individuals from kindergarten through death. It's stated purposes include the ability to conduct more effective research and better evaluate education and workforce training programs. But dig a little deeper, and it's clear that what's at stake is whether government should be able to shape the lives and character of citizens.

The federal Department of Labor is funding states to develop comprehensive databases of citizens' personal information. Labor offers an example of how the database system should track a Jane Doe. It will follow her as she drops out of school, accesses government programs, and accepts a job in another state. Along the way, says Labor, it should access educational, workforce, mental health, public assistance, and prisoner-reintegration records. It lists the state workforce councils – federally funded entities managed by select private interests – as key stakeholders in the project.

Labor is now awarding grants to twelve states to develop such tracking systems, called the Workforce Data Quality Initiative. This follows an earlier round of similar grants to thirteen other states. Labor's stated purpose is to link its data operation with a massive data-collection effort underway at the Department of Education.

Education launched its database project in 2009. To receive money from the Stimulus bill, a state had to agree to construct massive databases of private student and family data, blandly called Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDs). All fifty states took the stimulus money, and promised to build the databases.

The Department of Education also claims that the data-sharing is only for purposes of research and evaluating programs. But it wants much more than reading, writing, and arithmetic scores (not that those are any of its business). It wants information on health history, religious affiliation, voter registration, extracurricular activities, assessments of mental and social well-being, and safety education. All told, it wants over 400 data categories collected. This is the data that Labor looks forward to accessing.

The implication of this Education-Labor joint venture is clear: To the federal government, the education system should be a training ground for employers. Under that view, government social service agencies and public-private partnerships become stakeholders in the education of children. It is a radical departure from principle that a child's upbringing is the realm of parents and the parent-child relationship.

Beyond the ever-present danger of unauthorized use or negligent release of information, the federal government has arrogated a right to collect information and share it with other agencies and individuals without the consent of the individual. Where have the people, or of more importance, the individual, consented to government's tracking their lives across states lines, from job to job, in sickness and in health?

The grave danger here is that government will use the data to conjure "studies" showing that particular behaviors and mindsets make poor students, poor employees, or poor citizens. Sound far-fetched? In the Florida legislature, a subcommittee recently approved a bill under which schools will grade parents on criteria set by the school board. The "evaluation data" will become a part of the student's permanent record and, under 2012 regulatory changes pushed through by the Obama Administration, could be shared with any government or private entity.

There's a free-market problem as well. Government cannot anticipate the power of entrepreneurship and the creativity of the free market. Attempts to use data to craft the workforce invariably favor the status quo. The state workforce boards, for instance, are federally funded but controlled by private-sector members who bring their own biases to the table.

Call it what you want. These efforts diminish liberty, and they build the structure for engineering society and the economy. They upend the idea that the people, not the state, are the ultimate sovereign. It is another giant step, along with Obamacare and the Common Core Standards, toward transforming government into a human resources manager along the lines of education reformer Marc Tucker's 1992 proposal to Hillary Clinton.

In contrast to what private corporations face, why is there no public outrage on this? The answer, perhaps, is that the executive branch is so massive, and operates so secretly, that it is out of control. There is no effective check on its power. Maybe if people begin to realize what is happening, they will reassert their right to be treated as free-born citizens, not as lab rats in the grand government experiment.

Originally posted at American Principles Project

Horoscop

vineri, 13 aprilie 2012

Caffeinated Thoughts

Caffeinated Thoughts

Un comentariu: