Elections have Consequences

Although the degree is debatable, voters on November 6 chose control over freedom, central planning over free markets, security over liberty, equalitarianism over growth and the collective over the individual. Exit polls showed a double digit margin of voters preferring less rather than more government. Nevertheless decades of culture and communication control by the left prevented the political expression of limited government, a core traditional American value.

Assuming the political trend is obstinately entrenched it seems prudent to not only extrapolate but to envision probable solutions to ongoing problems within the context of the times.

Change is never easy. It is particularly more difficult as one acquires years. But change we must. As I discarded my stash of shoe polish in the basement after finding pre-scuffed new shoes for sale at a fashionable store, I will adapt.

Given the inescapable trends and their logical outcomes I will over time, within the constraints of the ‘statist’ viewpoint, speculate about logical solutions on a variety of issues. Here I wish to examine population movement.

Voters in Illinois, in addition to California among some other states, chose to double down on the status quo. With Illinois in more dire financial straits two years after a 67% income tax increase, the voters not only approved, but increased the majority’s margins in the legislature. The solution is obvious-more taxes.

The reality of the “law of diminishing returns” renders the revenue generated by a tax increase considerably less than the product of economic activity times the tax increase. A simple example is the cigarette tax. If an entity increases the tax one dollar per pack on an expected volume of one million packs, the tax does not generate one million dollars. Some people will chose to purchase their cigarettes elsewhere and others will quit smoking. In the case of the cigarette tax at least it will encourage some people to adapt a healthier lifestyle. While other tax increases will discourage beneficial behavior, i.e. sales tax increases discourage spending and income tax increases discourage productivity, each hampering growth.

In a society where local cultural differences have declined, technology allows a choice of location and mobility is the norm, businesses and people migrating from high-tax, low-opportunity states to more friendly environments is the ultimate quandary states such as Illinois face.

Giving tax breaks to large, government connected and politically invested companies to keep them in the state has limits. Some businesses and individuals must pay accordingly more. If a small business or individual leaves the state, the loss does not generate alarming publicity and political fallout, but the effects are cumulative.

The crux of the dilemma is: how does a state pay for politically demanded services plus large numbers of highly paid government employees when businesses and people have the freedom to flee? With productive tax-paying people fleeing who ultimately will pay the bill?

President Obama won the election. In remarks at a campaign event he said, “You didn’t build that” referring to business owners. While the remark may have been taken out of the context of the sentence or paragraph, it was certainly within the context of his remarks. Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren, the ideological source of his-you didn’t build that remark- recently won a straw poll of progressives as their choice for President in 2016. This is the new direction of the country?

WARNING—BE PREPARED, YOU WILL LIKELY HEAR THIS ARGUMENT

Businesses and individuals have benefited by using state services including fire, police and environmental protections. Can one enter a clothing store, pillage and steal the merchandise without paying? Most businesses have prospered as a direct result of state investment in the education of their employees. They have an obligation to the state. How does this obligation differ from the lien a bank has on the business for providing capital? Can you avoid mortgage payments by moving? It only differs because the state has failed to legally secure its investment. This must change.

Right or not, the outdated constitution has implied guarantees of the right to relocate within the country. But that needn’t eliminate the responsibility to compensate a state for its investment.

Therefore, as both a practical matter of enhancing revenue and because of basic fairness issues, the state should implement an exit tax on businesses and individuals choosing to duck and leave their obligations behind. The former host’s state income tax should remain in effect for a period of five years after a business or individual leaves the state. The state should also consider a punitive 50% surcharge on businesses and individuals moving to a state without a state income tax.

Without such practical policies the state will continue to lose its revenue base and unfairly place more burdens upon those who recognize their community responsibilities.

We are all in this together. We succeed when we all pull together for the common good.

Have a fulfilling and profitable day—–SCRATCH THAT CLOSING

To the State from which all wealth and human advancement flow,

W C (Bill) Augustine, www.atlasrising.tateauthor.com

The letter below is from a group of grassroots conservatives who got together to pen their frustrations with the GOP. While these individuals do not wish to share their names, their sentiments are ones many of us share, including myself.

Dear Republican Establishment:

We hear you. We hear you blaming us for Mitt Romney’s recent defeat in the Presidential election. Now hear us.

Over a year ago, we told you that Mitt Romney would not be able to energize the base. You responded that anger at Obama would provide all the energy we needed. You were told that affection FOR a candidate is always a better model than depending on anger AT another candidate. You disagreed. And now, the votes are in. You were wrong.

We also told you the 2012 election would be centered on turning out the GOP base. You insisted the election would hinge on winning independents. We now know that Romney did, in fact, win independents. Congratulations. He won those who showed up. Unfortunately, 10 million 2008 voters failed to get up off the sofa to vote for Romney. Nice job picking candidates!

The grassroots predicted Obama’s victory model: to pivot hard left and drive up turnout of his base, to make independents terrified to vote for Romney, and to dispirit the GOP base. We noted that Romney was the candidate who best fit the Obama victory model, the only candidate who could deliver the one thing a billion Democrat dollars couldn’t buy – a dispirited GOP base. You rejected that idea outright. Well, we have the results. Obama successfully delivered his own base to the polls….while doing such a good job of destroying Romney that 10 million 2008 voters failed to show up at the polls….while a dispirited GOP base complained about the lackluster Romney campaign which failed to attack, failed to defend, etc.

So now you blame the grassroots for all that? We would remind you that State & National GOP leadership leaned heavily on the grassroots this election cycle NOT to repeat the tactics which delivered victory in the 2010 mid-term elections. We played along, and quietly did the hard, grassroots work of walking streets and pounding phones for Romney. And look what happened. We did what you asked, the way you wanted it. Rest assured, the grassroots will not repeat this mistake again. Until you figure out how to listen to us as equal partners, we will not play with you. We will attack as we see fit.

We also warned you that the nomination of Mitt Romney would totally remove Obamacare from the election. It most certainly did. The single greatest policy vulnerability Obama had was totally neutered by virtue of Romney being the ideological godfather of the policy in question. Thanks.

Oh. Stop hanging Akin & Mourdock around our neck. We didn’t know they didn’t understand how conception works. You didn’t know that the word “macaca” was part of George Allen’s vocabulary, either. And you didn’t blame him for the loss of the House and Senate in 2006. Interestingly, you put him up again this time around. We might make mistakes, but we don’t make them twice. So stop the scapegoating, please.

A word about demography: Women aren’t the problem, although we need to (and can) do better with them. Hispanics aren’t the problem, although we need to (and can) do better with them. The biggest nut of the problem is this: our campaign inspired 10 million… 10 MILLION… voters from 2008 who decided not to vote for Obama to stay home rather than come out and vote for Mitt Romney. We lost because we did not present bold colors, big ideas that could inspire a nation to join us.

We lost because Mitt Romney, a man we immensely admire and respect, was the wrong candidate on just about every level. Mitt’s failure to do the obvious and select Marco Rubio as VP makes it much, much harder to win the future Hispanic vote. It’s not impossible. It can be done. Don’t worry. The grassroots will fix this for you. Please stay out of our way. And don’t do anything stupid like granting citizenship to 15m illegals. We have to persuade Hispanics they are conservatives who belong in the GOP, just like that County GOP Chairman in New Mexico did with Susanna Martinez. We win Hispanics by persuading them that conservatism, that free enterprise rather than entitlement, is the path to the American Dream of individual liberty and prosperity.

Let it be known that we were good soldiers. We got on board and worked as hard and cheerfully as anyone else on the team. But please let the most important lesson of 2012 sink in: If we don’t nominate candidates who can inspire the grassroots of this country, we are not going to win, no matter how excited we think the independents are going be about them. If you cannot fire up your base, you are not going to fire up independents.

You cannot win without your base.

You cannot win by attacking your base.

Ok. Enough. We will not harp on it any more. You can poke us all you want. From here on, we’re working on 2014. And 2016.

We hope you will join us. And LISTEN.

Sincerely,

The Conservative Grassroots,
AKA Tea Party, 912, Liberty, precinct Republicans, silent majority Americans

 

Chicagoans will face two questions on their ballots tomorrow in addition to the selection of candidates; they should vote “No” on both.

First, there is the Illinois Constitutional Amendment, which would require a greater majority to approve increases in benefits to teachers. However, this appears to be a ploy to aggregate and centralize more power in the hands of Springfield. For more information, ChicagoBluesGirl writes on Rebel Pundit:

What do Madigan and his buddies stand to gain by this amendment? “Power” comes to mind–more power over taxpayer money to steer toward his list of cronies.

According to Ballotpedia.org, there’s another reason:

 The proposed amendment creates new definitions for the terms “benefit increase,” “emolument increase,” and “beneficial determination,” which are not defined in other statutes or in existing case law. These definitions could generate litigation, resulting in additional costs. There may also be disagreement amongst the governing body on whether a bill, resolution or other action constitutes a “benefit increase,” “emolument increase,” or “beneficial determination.

There is also a city-specific ballot question that Chicagoans will see about electricity aggregation. Chicago would be the largest city to attempt such a thing, and on the face of it, like the first, it appears fine. We might even pay less money but we’d be sacrificing something else, which the libs over at Chicagoist are salivating about: green energy. Read Chicagoist for their take:

 The City and clean energy advocates also see the aggregation effort as an opportunity to give wind, solar and other renewable technologies a shot in the arm in Illinois…. If folks in the state capitol took Roberts’ advice, aggregation might offer Springfield an important opportunity to help keep the wind industry moving here. The Mayor and an array of heavy hitters have lined up behind the effort and its potential clean energy outcomes, so we hope City Hall will keep engaged in discussions around opportunities to boost rooftop solar with the new program to ensure a similar impact on clean energy production in Chicago.

So, as you see, it is a backdoor way to implement more of the “green energy” policies the left can’t wait to tack onto their myriad protected bike lanes, etc. etc. etc. We can thank Chicagoist for showing us exactly why we should vote no on this.