Potato chips

I just read today that a British Court of Appeal ruled that Pringles' potato chips are indeed "potato chips" thus making the chips subject to the UK's 15% Value Added Tax (VAT).

In the UK most food is exempt from VAT but chips are not so clearly the government had a lot on the line here in terms of potential lost revenues!!

What an amazing world we live in when the court system has the added burden of determing what is and is not a taxable food item. A better world would be one in which all food, clothing, and shelter (yes - that means no more property taxes folks) are codified as tax exempt thus ensuring that Maslow's basic needs for human survival are not priced out of reach for our poorest citizens.

Reminder to readers -- I primarily blog here now: www.regularfolksunited.com

Todd

Minnesota Department of Economic Development

Tell me again why we even bother spending tax dollars on economic development in Minnesota?

Given this pending legislation the entrepreneurs who create new jobs will be inspired to move to South Dakota and Florida which do not punish achievers:

Editorial: The new 'sin tax'The New Ulm Journal had this view: Legislators love to raise "sin taxes," those extra charges on things you shouldn't be doing in the first place, like drinking or smoking. The Minnesota House DFL apparently thinks it is also a sin to have a high income. House Taxes Committee Chairwoman Ann Lenzcewski has proposed a tax increase plan that not only raises the cigarette tax by 54 cents and the alcohol tax by 3 to 5 cents per drink, it creates a 9 percent tax bracket for people who earn more than $169,700 a year ($300,000 for married couples).http://www.nujournal.com/page/content.detail/id/506405.html?nav=5011

Reminder - I primarily blog here now: www.regularfolksunited.com

Pension Funds

Reminder - I primarily blog here now: www.regularfolksunited.com -- so if you have a few extra dollars please consider an online contribution to keep the site going. Thanks!

Now for something completely different! In a recent edition of the Financial Times newsletter an article about a Canadian pension fund including this ranking of the "Top 10 North American pension funds, 2007":

1. California Public Employees
2. Federal Retirement Thrift
3. California State Teachers
4. New York State Common
5. Ontario Teachers
6. Florida State Board
7. General Motors
8. New York City Retirement
9. Canada Pension
10. AT&T

So does anything in this list catch your attention?

How about the fact that 8 out of these 10 pension funds are for government employees. Perhaps we can even say that "9 of these 10" are for government employees given the massive amounts of tax dollars poured into General Motors.

Instead of sticking their hands in the pockets of taxpayers for a bailout perhaps the General Motors pension fund should have simply given General Motors a loan since this fund clearly has resources -- US$133.8 billion -- which is a better option for everyone concerned.

Yours in tax slavery,

Todd

Unemployment Forecasts for 2009

Today's local newspapers in Minnesota reported the following unemployment forecasts for 2009:

Upper Peninsula of Michigan -- 11.4%
Minnesota -- 7%
Wisconsin - 5.6%
Montana - 4.3%
North Dakota - 4.1%
South Dakota - 3.4%

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

The 11.4% rate in the UP of Michigan doesn't surprise me for two reasons: 1.) Michigan's state government has taxed and regulated the state economy into a near-depression, and 2.) There is just not much "employment infrastructure" in the UP to start with especially when tourism spending is probably down due to the poor national economy.

But coming in at second place is my beloved Land of 10,000 Taxes - Minnesota at 7%. I really hope I am wrong but I fear our 2009 legislature will propose yet again the nation's highest personal income tax rate to "create jobs in Minnesota.........."

Instead of looking to St. Paul for answers Minnesotans should look west to our neighbor - South Dakota - who is at 3.4% unemployment which in economic terms is considered "full employment" since you always have some shifting in the labor market.

Perhaps one key difference between Minnesota and South Dakota is the fact that South Dakota has ZERO personal income tax which helps keep entrepreneurs in the start creating more jobs.

If there are other factors that readers want to note for me to study please let me know. We have tried the "tax and create jobs" model for too many years in Minnesota so let's use 2009 to implement the "South Dakota Model" by phasing out our personal income taxes.

Todd (please see my other commentaries at -- www.regularfolksunited.com )

Roe vs. Wade

Clearly it is election season here in the USA judging from all of the bumper stickers on automobiles I saw today. For example a car next to me had these three attached:

• Coexist -- with the "o" being a peace symbol
• Obama '08
• I vote for kids

Let me zero in on this last one by posing the obvious question -- "what office are the 'kids' running for and how can they serve if elected since they would be underage???" :-)

Seriously folks - this is classic big government/nanny state sloganeering, " I vote for kids" , indeed. I know what their message is -- we need to "invest" (aka take more of your money) in smaller class room sizes, before and after school day care, etc. etc.

Well my wife and I have two children so I can assure you every time I vote I vote for candidates that focus on cutting taxes and cutting programs so we can expand freedom. I do indeed "vote for kids" when I vote for candidates who support the expansion of school choice.

Which brings us to the key theme for this posting -- "choice" -- which is typically short hand for "free to choose whether or not to have an abortion which of course became the law of the land in the USA in the Roe vs. Wade US Supreme Court decision. What I always highlight for my big government friends is that Roe vs. Wade ruled that there was a "right to privacy" in the US Constitution.

So why is it that this "right" has ONLY been applied to abortion rights versus privacy issues such as our personal incomes? If a "right to privacy" truly exists within the US Constitution then the US Supreme Court should declare personal income taxes to be unconstitutional.

Now that my friends would truly be an "economic stimulus package" that would actually help our economy.

Freedom,

Todd

Absolutely No Change

During this year's presidential election Senator Obama/Democratic National Committee talking heads have consistently used the messaging that "electing Senator John McCain is the same as giving President George W. Bush a third term.............." to help reinforce Obama's "Change we can believe in" campaign theme.

Before I get to the heart of this posting I have to ask -- "why didn't Sen. Hillary Clinton simply campaign on the theme that we need to 'give President Bill Clinton a third term by electing me' since we are constantly told the "Clinton Years" were America's golden years? Personally I have to say that such a theme would have given me yet ANOTHER reason to vote against her to avoid more personal pain.

Speaking of pain I actually want to scream whenever I hear the "Change" phrase mentioned by Sen. Obama or party officials. Change what? Hell I want "change" myself such as a flat personal income tax of 15% paid on incomes over $500,000 but I doubt Sen. Obama agrees with my version of change. He has failed to give any specifics regarding how he would define change but I got a hint last week via a New York Times article that was republished in my local Minnesota newspaper. The headline read --

"Obama embraces faith-based programs"

Amazing "change" Senator Obama -- this is exactly the concept that President Bush gave us and I hated it then so I hate the idea even more today now that you are promoting the concept. If this is the "change" you are promoting then by all means the country should elect Sen. McCain since we are told that would create a "third Bush term" as noted earlier. The idea here is that the federal government takes our money from us then determines where best this money should be spent to deliver "social services" via the faith community.

So theoretically my taxes could be sent to Washington DC where the White House would then theoretically decide that my local church -- Grace Lutheran in Apple Valley, Minnesota -- should be the recipient of a "faith-based grant/program" of tax dollars so my church can expand its food shelf program to which my family already donates food and toilteries.

How is that for inefficiency for you? Why does anyone support such a system when inspired, motivated, and/or caring local citizens like me should simply be allowed to keep our tax dollars in our pockets so WE can decide where our donations go to benefit civil society - such decisions should not be made by Presidents Bush, Obama, or McCain.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto the Lord what is the Lord's as the Bible verse goes which makes me ask -- "if Jesus only wants 10% of our wealth (tithe) why should the federal government expect 28 or 31%?"

Praying for revolution not "change",

Todd

Stick it to the corporations!!

Let me offer an easy wager -- $20 says that you can survey 10 people on the street and not be able to find that even 2 of them agree with me when I say --

Businesses don’t pay income taxes – the “ C.E.O.” pays these taxes –

No, not the Chief Executive Officer but instead the “Consumers” C (via higher prices), “Employees” E (via layoffs and salary freezes/cuts), and “Owners” O (shareholders via lower stock prices and unpaid/reduced dividends).

Here is a Minnesota-specific example to show you just how painful corporate income taxes are to the average working person. Let's say "Mary Svenjohnson" works at Target Corporation's Minneapolis, Minnesota headquarters office. Then let's say our legislature overrides Governor Tim Pawlenty's veto (since I am certain he would veto such bad policy) to raise Minnesota's corporate income tax from its current 9.8% up to a full 11% as a way to "create jobs in Minnesota through government investments............."

Hey, come on Todd that is only a 1.2% increase -- surely a greedy company like Target can afford to pay it right? Wrong -- in order to pay the state coffers the additional 1.2% they have to choose how to raise the cash. One option would be to raise the prices on the clothing Mary Svenjohnson likes to buy at Target or even bump up their grocery prices. Another option - perhaps in combination with the first option would be to simply lay off Mary Svenjohnson to help reduce corporate overhead, and then once Mary is sitting at home unemployed she will have plenty of free time to read her mail from Target's Investor Relations department telling her that Target will cut their dividend payment to shareholders this year so Mary's 401k account takes a hit when this third option is pursued by Target to raise the funds the mandarins in state government demand for their central planning.

Yes indeed -- just keep raising corporate income tax so we get to the workers' paradise even sooner.

Todd

Economic Waste NOT Stimulus

The US Congress recently approved an "economic stimulus" package whereby they borrow money to give checks to us today in the hope the economy will improve regardless of their mis-guided decision so they can be re-elected in November 2008 elections.

Now I think the economics of this "stimulus" package are completely bunk but in today's posting I will simply focus on the administrative elements involved in implementing this package:

First -- after the media reported that "checks from $300 to $1200 will be in the mail to taxpayers as a result of this economic stimulus package............" our home received a letter in early March from the Internal Revenue System (IRS) telling us to expect a check in May. Question -- why was this letter necessary and more importantly, why wasn't the "check" simply sent in early March instead of/or with this IRS letter to save both time and expense?

Second -- what is the cost of printing and mailing the millions of checks this package requires? I guess that is just an added "economic stimulus" right since someone must be paid to get this work completed?

Third -- while traveling this week I read a VERY tiny (this should have been front page news not buried in the newspaper) article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper stating that the IRS "will open 320 offices on Saturday (March 29) to help low income people , includes some retirees and veterans, get the checks they are eligible for............."

Question -- what am I missing here? These 320 offices are designed to help people that by description are already datapoints - via welfare payments/TANF, earned income tax credit (EITC), Social Security, and military records -- in the numerous government databases used to track our lives so shouldn't it be easy for the government to simply mail them a check? Yes perhaps some of them are homeless but how will they be informed as to where these 320 offices are located?

If Congress truly wants to help people like those listed above then let's see them vote to eliminate ALL taxes on Social Security benefits ( http://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html )clearly that would help senior citizens pay for their heating bills and prescription drugs.

Clearly more details and better journalism are needed regarding these office expenses since my initial gut instincts tell me this is a WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY!!

Prove me wrong,

Todd

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing

No doubt my younger readers out there are wondering what I am talking about when I say - "Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing" (MMM) but if I mention "3M" and "Post-It Notes" then I would connect with you. MMM was the original company name that evolved with societal and economic change to become the industrial giant known as 3M today.

But given today's front page news in my local newspaper -- "3M sends troubling signal to Minnesota: Unit HQ move opens front of uncertainty for the state's economy" -- perhaps they should change their name again to "1M" . The days of 3M being a mining operation in northern Minnesota are essentially gone with them evolving into a supplier of mining supplies (a good economic move by the way to get out of the commodity business of mining into a high-value service industry like mining supplies). Now with today's news that 3M plans to move the leadership team of its optical systems division from Maplewood, Minnesota to Hong Kong sends another clear clue that we have heard here in Minnesota before -- 3M will probably cease being based in Minnesota within a few years given the changes in the global market.

I have no problem with 3M moving with the changing global marketplace knowing full well the state of Minnesota could be harmed in terms of jobs, prestige, etc. with such a loss. However, I do have a BIG problem with our current state corporate income tax which the Minnesota legislature has failed year after year to reduce -- better still, eliminate -- to make Minnesota a more competitive tax jurisdiction.

A perfect example is the article on the same front page today below the "3M Sends Troubling Signal........." which was entitled -- "State Budget Fixer Turns to Business Tax Reform." In this article we find that one of our state representatives has proposed a "business tax reform" that -- BIG SURPRISE HERE -- raises another $171 million for state government. This legislation would accomplish this theft by closing a tax loophole for "foreign operating companies" combined with a reduction in the state corporate tax rate from 9.8% to 8.8%. Wow, a full one percent, how generous the state can be with our tax money!!

Sadly most consumers would probably say the same old refrain of "yea, tax those corporate fat cats" without realizing -- due to the lack of school choice/competition in this country -- that CORPORATE INCOME TAXES ARE SIMPLY PASSED ON TO CONSUMERS AS HIGHER PRICES OR TO SHAREHOLDERS IN REDUCED DIVIDENDS.

The Minnesota Legislature could easily make national news simply by bringing our corporate income tax rate down from 9.8% to 0% with the net effect being increased economic growth in Minnesota. Yes -- 3M may still leave its original home in Minnesota to become a non-USA corporation but at least by eliminating this tax we will actually COMPETE to keep 3M here in the Land of 10,000 Lakes versus our current policy which encourages companies to leave our state borders.

Now this is a tax reform debate that should happen in St. Paul.

Time to dump more tea in the harbor,

Todd

Defend our Wallets First THEN our Borders

My thanks to the recent edition of Parade magazine (www.parade/intel) for their annual installment -- this one always comes before the April 15 income tax filing date it seems! -- entitled, "Government Watch -- Where Your Money Goes."

As reported the U.S. federal government spending levels for 2008 include:

Consumer and Occupational Health/Safety -- $3.1 billion
Federal Prisons -- $6.2 billion
Disaster Relief and Insurance -- $12 billion
International Development/Foreign Aid -- $14.3 billion
National Institutes of Health -- $28.6 billion
Food & Nutrition Assistance -- $60.2 billion
Homeland Security -- $64.9 billion
Medicare -- $396 billion
Military spending -- $583 billion
Social Security -- $615 billion


Hey, a million here and a million here in Washington DC and pretty soon you are talking about real money!! Let's take a moment to re-group these budget line items to match some categories up with each other. For instance --

1.) Homeland Security and Military Spending combined = $647.9 billion

2.) Medicare and Social Security combined = $1,011 trillion

So we spend LESS money keeping our nation safe then we spend in the forced taxation/Ponzi schemes known as Medicare/Social Security which are meant to provide Americans with a "safety net" that improves quality of life.

Yet Medicare/Social Security do not provide "care" or "security" given the waste and inefficiency of these systems. The anti-military crowd protests how much money our nation spends on military budgetshttp://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm ) but yet these same people never seem to join protest regarding our broken Social Security system . Essentially Social Security pays a very poor 1% return on our "investment" (forced taxation) yet who complains other than crack pots like me who blog constantly?

Now this is true injustice -- not excessive military spending whereby the federal government turns our nation into deaf and dumb robots paying taxes via auto-pilot (payroll deductions) to fund black holes like Social Security.

No nation even needs to invade the USA since our "social benefits"/forced taxation system has already destroyed most of our citizens by stripping away their desire to live free or die.

Surely our Founding Fathers would be disappointed in our management of our own affairs,

Todd

Keeping People in Poverty

Since a few of my European friends read my blog I wanted to share this information with them so we can compare personal income tax rates:

Single Person - 2007 USA Federal Income Tax Brackets

US$ 0 to $7,825 = 10% federal income tax rate
$7,826 to $31,850 = 15%
$31,851 to $77,100 = 25%
$77,101 to $160,850 = 28%
$160,851 to $349,700 = 33%
$349,701 and over = 35%

These income levels and tax brackets are of course called a "progressive" tax system because as you make more money the government takes even more of your earnings. However, let me highlight two of these income brackets which are taxed at the 10% and 15% levels.

Now since the US federal government declared that our "poverty level" in terms of income (in 2006) to be $10,400:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#The_official_measure_of_poverty

Let's take notice of the obvious -- we have American taxpayers currently in the 10% and 15% federal income tax brackets who are earning the federal poverty salary level YET our government still demands they pay a portion of their income to the Internal Revenue System.

Personally I want to completely eliminate our personal income tax since it is not only a form of theft it is an invasion of personal privacy! I thought the US Supreme Court declared in Roe vs. Wade that the Constitution protects personal privacy thus making abortions legal in the USA but for some reason this personal privacy protection does NOT extend to how and how much I earn my income?

Yet I know we don't have the votes in Congress to eliminate personal income taxes so my default position is the "flat income tax." Just to make up some numbers -- how about a 15% income tax for all taxpayers/households for earnings above and beyond $150,000? Now that would not only simplify our tax compliance system but it would also raise known/consistent revenues for the government (which I oppose but it is a compromise to get us away from our current plantation system known as the IRS) but most importantly it would bring TRANSPARENCY to our tax system and eliminate the class warfare that exists with today's progressive tax rate system.

Yours in tax slavery,

Todd

Tax Filing Time

American tax slaves (aka employed and even retired/non-working people since their income streams are taxed in the USA) have about one month before the infamous April 15 federal income tax deadline is here so we stay in compliance with the Internal Revenue System. The only option of course is not filing income taxes which might lead to serving time in jail living off the resources of those people who did pay their income taxes. Ah, the options we have in life!!

So as my readers scramble to file their income taxes I wanted to share some state income tax data with all of you (ok, both of you!!) to put your own situation into perspective:

STATES WITH NON PERSONAL INCOME TAX:

Alaska
Florida
Nevada
New Hampshire
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington State
Wyoming

Yes my state of Minnesota borders South Dakota so a move is very tempting but I enjoy being married so I stay here :-)

STATES WITH FLAT INCOMES TAXES:

Colorado - 4.63%
Illinois - 3%
Indiana - 3.4%
Massachusetts -- 5.3%
Michigan - 3.9%
Pennsylvania - 3.07%
Rhode Island - 5.5% (starting in 2010)

If we can't eliminate personal income taxes right away here in Minnesota then I say -- give us a flat tax. A flat tax is not only efficient and transparent but it actually "fairer" than pitting economic classes against each other via the class warfare the current system lives on and promotes today.

From the Land of 10,000 Taxes,

Todd

Census for 2010

In the year 2012 the US House of Representatives elections will be conducted within new congressional districts created by the various state governments based on the 2010 US Census data. This is a once every ten year process known as "reapportionment."

Based on a recent newspaper article I read here is a list of the states expected to gain and lose US House seats based on our shifting national population:

WINNERS:

Texas, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon

LOSERS:

New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Louisiana, and California

At first glance an obvious trend becomes very clear - America's population centers are moving away from cold, northern states to warm, southern states. Now if global warming is getting so bad that we are all going to die -- except for the celebrities flying in their private jets to global warming conferences apparently -- why are people moving to warm weather states? But more importantly I need to note that people are moving to states with NO personal income taxes -- Texas, Florida, and Nevada are in the "winners" list above in terms of state that will gain seats in the US House of Representatives.

So even though my "home states" of Iowa and Minnesota will likely lose clout in the US House of Representatives the one positive is that states free of state income taxes will gain more votes thus putting their Congressman in potential leadership positions to push for federal income tax reform.

We have to wait nearly 5 years yet (January 2013 when the new Congress is sworn in) to see the impact of these demographic shifts but so far it is encouraging from a tax reform standpoint.

Todd

City Council

It has been a couple months since I could last attend my local city council meeting but this past Thursday night I finally attended. The major agenda item was a council vote on whether or not to allow a home builder to change the master plan of our housing development in order to build apartments for senior citizens and some "workforce housing" (aka "affordable" housing) units. Workforce housing? I could not help but have a mental picture of a southern plantation house surrounded by several cabins for the slaves.

Ultimately the city council voted down this proposed revision of the master development plan by a vote of 4 to 0 with 1 absent vote but the most interesting testimony I heard that evening was from the Community Development Agency (CDA) of our county government which was going to supply funding and staffing for these projects. The CDA representative testified that the "workforce housing is designed for employees at places like Target, local banks......where people are typically paid $10 to $12 per hour"

Yes I have a quirky sense of humor but I had to chuckle at this testimony because when I left the council chambers I glanced at the job postings in the doorway. One of the jobs posted was for the city owned liquor stores (we have two today and they are building yet another one -- this is not a necessary function of government!!!!!!!) with a hourly wage of $10.75.

So essentially one government entity -- the CDA -- is taking our tax dollars to build housing for the workers of the plantation (liquor stores) owned by yet another government entity -- our city council.

Call me crazy but why not just reduce government overall which will bring down the cost of housing for all of us?

I need a cabin,

Todd

Stillwater has troubled waters

Early this year I posted a commentary about the City of Stillwater, Minnesota raising the property tax on Loome Books in Stillwater by 50% thus forcing the store's owner to close one of his two stores since his budget did not plan for such a substantial - unjustified if you ask me - property tax increase. At the time I called this action the "worst form of government book burning" because tax policy forced a book store to close thus reducing the availability of books/knowledge.

So today's newspaper brings incredible news from Stillwater, Minnesota. I am amazed how government works (doesn't work in this case) as evidenced by the news that the Stillwater Library plans to "cut hours to save money" (www.twincities.com) .

So the city government-operated library which is funded by property taxes taken from businesses like Loome Books is now cutting its business hours to save money even though Loome Books was given a 50% property tax increase. So the vital question here is -- "where the hell did all the tax money go that the city raised?"

Mayor Ken Harycki of Stillwater is quoting saying, "We spent many millions of dollars building a first rate facility, and it seems a shame to close it." A shame indeed but who did the budget planning for this facility? Even worse from a local business impact perspective is news from the library's director, Lynne Bertalmio, is says they will pursue new rental revenues to meet their budget gap by renting out the library for "weddings, graduation parties, birthday parties.." in direct competition with local venues that offer such services I am certain.

Bottom line -- the residents of Stillwater have a local book store (not one of those hated "big box stores" but a main street business taxed out of business to raise more funding for the city government only to see their library's business hours reduced.

A double loss,

Todd

Fairness

"The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination"

Ronald Reagan

Last week I attended a conference of state legislators from around the USA (www.alec.org). One evening I had dinner with a group of legislators (the state will remain anonymous) so eventually the conversation turned to tax policy. In a rare moment of personal candor :-) I stated that I am , "tired of legislators just tinkering around the edges, I want to see a legislative debate over some fresh, revolutionary ideas such as scraping our state income tax system to be replaced by a sales tax system.

The legislator sitting across from me at dinner responded to my comment with perhaps the most predictable response possible -- ".......but a sales tax is a very regressive tax so it will hurt the poor people............." My immediate response to counter this worn out record was that the state legislature should use a guide such as "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" whereby the basic human needs of - food, clothing, and shelter -- would be completely tax free. Yes property taxes and taxes on utilities (included in the definition of "shelter") would go away in my plan!! Consumption would be taxed (via a sales tax) so the rich would definitely pay their "fair share" (as the old saying goes -- not my phrase but I had to throw it in) because if they purchase a Hummer they would pay accordingly. At the same time lower income people would actually see tax relief since their basic needs would not be taxable events and they would never pay income tax so overall that is a pretty darn good deal.

However, let me address the question of "fairness" from another perspective. Is it "fair" for a state government to raise income taxes on the rich to the point that the rich choose to move to a state that does not have an income tax? Once a state chooses to "soak the rich" they tend to drive the "job creators" to leave the state. Is it any surprise that a Minnesota icon like 3M announced earlier this year that they are exploring options to relocate some jobs to low tax, overseas location as noted in this quote:

http://twincities.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2007/10/08/daily21.html?surround=lfn

A report in the Pioneer Press quoted Pat Campbell, the company's chief financial officer, as mentioning the United States, Western Europe and Japan in connection with possible areas the company would move its operations from. "All of our key operations are in high-tax areas," he said.

Eventually the only taxpayers left in a high tax wil be the poor people with very few employment options. So I ask the legislative decision makers -- "So once we are all living in poverty in Minnesota will life be 'fair enough' to meet your goals?"

Revolutions were never led by moderates,

Todd

Jobs

Our Minnesota state government announced last week that we have a budget deficit of about $374 million which led the majority party who controls both chambers of the legislature -- the "DFL", Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party -- to immediately call for a special legislative session to address this latest "crisis". Their plan included a key provision to employ currently unemployed people to paint, repair, and build state government buildings!!

Amazing - exactly what we don't need -- more government employees building even more government buildings.

Today "government" is the largest employer/industry in the State of Minnesota. Nearly 400,000 Minnesotans are employed by government entities which include -- local government, local schools, state colleges, other state workers (clerical etc.), non-postal federal workers, and the US Postal Service. This totals a full 1/6 (or 17% ) of Minnesota's current work force.

After "government" our second largest industry segment in Minnesota is "Health Care and Social Assistance" with another 368,000 workers. Given the high level of government regulation in the health care field we could easily consider these people to be government employees.

SOURCE: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Security, July 2007, www.deed.state.mn.us/lmi/tools/ces/display.asp?geog=2701000000

As the recent state job report noted our "growth" for the last quarter was a completely anemic 0.1 percent so we need MUCH bolder ideas coming from our legislative leaders versus the DFL's 1930's style President Roosevelt make work program painting and repairing government buildings. Minnesota should sell non-essential assets like the State Office Building then move all legislators and staff back into the state capitol where they belong. The proceeds from such sales should be used to phase out our personal income tax system.

Minnesotans deserve their personal wages not paint brushes,

Todd

Perceptions of Americans

While traveling to Madison, Wisconsin (the state's ancestry is about 90% German) this past Thanksgiving Day weekend I purchased a copy of the Middleton Times-Tribune (MTT) newspaper. Middleton is a suburb of Madison and my personal practice is to always buy the local newspaper in the communities I visit so I get a sense of what is going on beyond my world and those topics that USA Today chooses to be noteworthy for us to know.

An article in the MTT entitled, "Exchange Students Love America, not crazy about the bread", focused on the experiences of 25 German high school students who were the guests of Middleton residents from October 4 to 25 this year. The one comment that caught my eye was from one of these students who was asked this question by the MTT reporter:

Question: "What will you tell your friends about the USA and Middleton when you arrive back home?"

Response: "My prejudices were not confirmed: there were not as many fat people and not as many McDonald's."

Wow, clearly the media and schools in Germany are failing to educate people just like they are in the USA. From my perspective the best education is "experience" which was confirmed for me in 1986 when I was a college student touring the now defunct (thank God and Reagan!!) Soviet Union. While I traded on the black market I realized first hand that the USA intelligence community was wrong -- this was not a nation to fear anymore because it was rotting from the inside. This was confirmed for me in 1991 when Boris Yeltsin climbed that tank to declare the end of the Soviet Union (essentially -- my shorthand version of their history).

So if my "Big Government is Great" friends out there want to save the world then they should support my campaign to eliminate all personal income taxes in the USA. This would then give Americans more money to pay for foreign travel so the citizens of the world can better understand each other.

Travel not Taxes,

Todd

Sermons

I must admit that I often enjoy sitting through the sermons at my church in a state of half-listening and half-reflecting which combine to give me an overall sense of relaxation, perhaps even serving as an oasis from the hectic weekly family and work routine.

However, this last Sunday's sermon by our senior pastor really made me focus on his message since he made an impassioned pitch for every member to double our annual donations to the church so they could meet their budget and missionary commitments. While I hesitate to remind my own pastor of scripture it is worth mentioning that Jesus Christ himself told us via the Bible that we should -- "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto the Lord what is the Lord's..............." to which Father Robert Sirico, President of the Acton Institute (www.acton.org) told me years ago, "right there, Jesus tells us there is a limit to government.............."

Yes indeed Father Sirico -- Jesus only expects us to give 10% via the "tithe" yet the secular government expects nearly 50% of our personal incomes (once you add -- income taxes, Social Security taxes, sales tax, gas tax, etc................together" -- so I agree with your worldview not my local church which is an advocate of things like "fair trade" that merely create a trading regime that keeps poor farmers poor with just a few more coins in their pocket. If you don't believe me just review Paul Collier's book, "The Bottom Billion", since he is a supporter of World Bank development programs yet opposes fair trade.

Essentially I want my church (and any others who see the light) to call government greed exactly what it is -- immoral and sinful!! -- because requiring us to give 50% of the fruits of our labor to the Church of Big Government is a form of hell on Earth. Once government is cut dramatically I would gladly give a portion of what is returned to me to entities like my church although the Acton Institute would receive a check first.

Forgive me Father for I have earned,

Todd

Tyranny of the Majority

"Eat the Rich"

by

P.J. O'Rourke

Not only is Eat the Rich a very funny book by P.J. O'Rourke it is also a British comedy, a song by Motorhead (not on my iPod!!), and apparently the mindset of the vast majority of my fellow Minnesotans based on this recent newspaper headline -- "Poll: Majority Backs Tax Hike for Wealthy".

This poll which was conducted by Minnesota Public (tax dollars involved so are they biased at all??!!) Radio yielded the following results:

• 72% of likely voters favor taxing the wealthy at a higher rate to lower property taxes, and
• 69% favor the same approach to pay for education

Now this is exactly why our Founding Fathers created a government filled with checks and balances that create "institutional gridlock" so that a tyrannical majority can not oppress a minority -- whether that minority is a group of rich people or an ethnic group all should be protected under the Constitution from the whims of a majority driven by a mob rule mentality.

Beyond these Political Science 101 arguments I need to highlight several concerns we should have with these polling numbers:

• If we "eat the rich" by driving them to retire in income tax free states like Florida (such as retired TCF Bank CEO Bill Cooper) who will be around to pay these higher taxes?
• Why does a majority of "likely voters" want to stick it to rich people? Don't they share my motivation to create wealth for my family versus advocating more taxes? I don't envy the rich people do you?
• Instead of increasing personal income taxes why doesn't this "majority of likely voters" call for budget cuts and/or competitive bidding/privatization of government services at the local government level?
• Education spending already consumers 55% of the State of Minnesota budget so how much should we give the education complex -- 80 or 90% of the state budget? Why don't we attach a dollar amount per student for them to use as consumers so they can select how they want to spend their education budget by choosing which school to attend?

Simply increasing taxes without demanding changes and better performance from government agencies is a formula for totalitarian government as evidenced by the old Soviet joke -- "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

You have been warned ;-)

Todd