Unspeakable attack on Middle Class California

July 12th, 2011

For several years writers at the Los Angeles Times have been promoting the story line that the financial problems of California’s government can be traced to one thing – Proposition 13 and its limits on property taxes that California residents and business owners must pay. This despite the fact that property taxes collected by the state and county governments in California today are many times higher than the amount collected when Proposition 13 was passed. Unmentioned is the massive expansion of state government spending to benefit special interests and to pay excessive salaries to California government employees.

Most recently Steve Lopez ran a column praising Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa for his “bravery” in calling for a modification of Proposition 13 – see his column @ http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0710-lopez-mayoronprop13-20110710,0,3252606.column

I have sent an email to Steve Lopez on the subject, and I reprint here for public viewing:
Mr Lopez,

Last Sunday I saw once again you had a column blaming Proposition 13 for California’s financial problems. You referred to Mayor Villaraigosa as brave because he has called for modifying or ending Proposition 13.

I know that you, George Skelton, Michael Hitzik and other writers for the Los Angeles Times have written about how Proposition 13 deprives the state government of needed revenue. Why do you only write, when you can actually do something about it right now?

You can legally request that the Los Angeles County Assessor’s office re-appraise your house, so that you can pay more up to date taxes. You can hire a private appraisser to re-appraise your house, then you can voluntarily send the extra amount to the state and county governments.

If that is too much trouble, you can with a calculator figure out what 2% or 3% of the value of your home would be, and send that amount to the tax collector. You can do all this even as you continue to write in favor of forcing other Californians to pay more.

Are you going to do any of these? If not, why not? If you don’t volunarily send more money to the state of California, why should anyone believe you when you say that California needs more revenue from its property tax?

I am sure Mr Skelton and Mr Hitzik own their own homes. You can suggest to them that they send in a higher amount voluntarily when they pay their property tax.

Even better: the Los Angeles Times probably owns much more property than you, Mr Skelton and Mr Hitzik combined. You can suggest to Sam Zell that the Tribune Corporation ask to have the Times properties re-appraised so that your employer can pay higher property taxes. Of course Mr Zell will need permission from the bankruptcy Judge to undertake this effort, even as it is much needed by the state of California.

Of course, the question remains why anyone should consider a newspaper in bankruptcy a good source of advice on fiscal policy.

I do notice that you never talk to an ordinary California property owner who might rely on Proposition 13 to keep their house affordable. You never talk to a small business owner who might want to have a predictable cost of his property to plan his business operations. Maybe you don’t know a small business owner in such a situation.

I own my own book shop in Riverside, one of only two locally owned book shops in this city. I sell books to high school and college students that they need for their classes, and I sell to people who just want to learn things or be entertained. If Proposition 13 is modified, I will have to close my business. That will be your contribution to the decline of literacy Mr Lopez.

I used to admire your writing, when Bush was President and you opposed the Iraq War. I now have no respect for you or your lack of journalistic ethics, when you present a totally one-sided propaganda campaign in favor of taking – stealing – from the productive people of California, and giving the money to wasteful and dishonest politicians.

I have read the Los Angeles Times for many years, since about 1972. It was a great paper. It is clearly in decline now, and the poisonous pro-government propaganda from Mr Skelton, Mr Hitzik and you are a reflection of that decline. The one sign of life at the Times was the expose of the Bell City government, and you seem to have learned nothing from that.

Have you looked at the fact that the California state goverment takes in much more revenue from property taxes now than at the time Prop. 13 was passed? There have been many sales of homes and business properties in the state, leading to re-assessment and higher taxes on higher property values. The big run-up in real estate prices during the recent bubble not only has lead to significant increases in property taxes throughout California, but also gave the state much revenue from the 3% sales tax on sales of real estate. You have not ever made reference to these facts in your column.

If you would ever like to let your readers know there is another side to this, you can call me at Renaissance Book Shop – (951) 369-8843 between 12:00 noon and 7:30 PM Monday through Saturday. Or you can visit me at 3772 Elizabeth Street, in Riverside, and see what will be lost if you have your way and Prop 13 goes away.

I will candidly say that if the Los Angeles Times does not emerge from Bankruptcy, I will not miss your column.

Sincerely,

Gene Berkman

Update: Steve Lopez sent this very thoughtful response to my message:

“I’d remind you that we’re only talking about adjustments that would lead to a more equitable system of revenue stability, with service benefits to all, with no intention of putting anyone out of house or business. But why should I bother wasting time on a dialogue with someone who insults me, my colleagues and the paper, with generalized nonsensical blather about our pro-government missions?”

O.C. Register:”Liberty loses a friend: In memory of Alan Bock”

May 19th, 2011

Alan Bock has been my friend since 1969, and a committed promoter and defender of individual freedom.
I have been informed that he has passed away. The Orange County Register has published a tribute to Alan that expresses many of my own thoughts. Please go to: http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/bock-301133-alan-liberty.html

Alan Bock promoted freedom through a long career of writing the arguments for freedom, in obscure publications and small circulation pamphlets in the early years, and for many years as a columnist for the Orange County Register and a columnist in the last few years for www.antiwar.com

You can view an archive of his columns for antiwar.com @ http://original.antiwar.com/author/bock/

He and his voice for freedom will be missed.

RENAISSANCE BOOKSHOP HAS MOVED!

May 12th, 2011

Since 1992 The Renaissance Bookshop has offered libertarian books along with books in many other subjects, from a storefront on Magnolia Ave in Riverside, California. Renaissance has an large selection of science fiction, supplemented by SF movies on DVD. Renaissance Bookshop also displays a significant selection of serious books on history, philosophy, science & nature, and economics.

The book shop has moved to a new, larger location, with ample parking available
Effective May 16, 2012, the new address is
Renaissance Bookshop
3772 Elizabeth Street (half block east of Magnolia)
Riverside, CA 92506

Phone # (951) 369-8843 renbook@earthlink.net

Suderman:”Blowback:America’s costly, counterproductive War on Terror”

May 6th, 2011

“It took nearly a decade after 9/11 to catch and kill Osama bin Laden. During that time, America launched two wars and a new cabinet-level security agency while funneling money into the defense budget at record levels. This was the United States government’s response to bin Laden, yet very little of it contributed to his capture. We know what bin Laden cost us: thousands of American lives, a sense of safety and security for millions more. But now, with bin Laden finally dead, America and its leaders must also come to grips with what we have chosen to spend reacting to his acts of terror—and the sad fact that most of it wasn’t worth the price.”

“In the decade since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has added roughly $950 billion in additional base spending to the defense budget. That’s not total spending; it’s merely the increase over the baseline versus if we’d held military spending constant starting in 2000. Nor does that number include the cost of two major wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—almost $1.3 trillion as of March 2011—or the $359 billion spent on the Department of Homeland Security, a sort of meta-agency created in 2002 to help coordinate the federal government’s tangled web of security initiatives.”

“It’s a massive commitment of time, money, and manpower, and it costs taxpayers dearly. Annual defense spending increased 84 percent between 2001 and 2011 in 2005-constant dollars. On an individualized basis, the United States spends vastly more than any other country on national security, with more than $2,000 in per capita spending. The United Kingdom, by contrast, spends less than $1,000 per capita.”

Peter Suderman @ Reason looks at how much the US government spent in the name of fighting “terrorism” and how little it protected us @ http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/06/blowback

Newman:”Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda: U.S. Govt. Creations”

May 6th, 2011

“The popular narrative surrounding the life of Osama bin Laden is filled with questions, intrigue, and misinformation. Though he ultimately became one of the most loathed figures in the American psyche, it’s important to remember that bin Laden was once a good friend of the U.S. government. In many ways, he can even be considered a creation of American officials and their allies. His Mujahedeen, or Islamic warriors, were even armed, trained, supplied and financed by America and some of its allies.”

“Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, writing in the U.K. Guardian, had some interesting observations. Noting that “throughout the 80s [bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan,” Cook called bin Laden “a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies.” And while not everybody agrees that it was an accidental miscalculation, the fact that he worked with the U.S. government and other Western powers is beyond dispute.”

“But how and why did bin Laden and the loose confederation of Muslim extremists known as the Mujahideen — supported by the U.S. government and its allies at various other times in recent decades, too — ultimately become so rabidly anti-American?”

Alex Newman has an interesting look at how a leader of the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan turned on his sponsors @ http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/world/7377-bin-laden-a-al-qaeda-us-govt-creations

Healy: “Time for the U.S. to Get Out of NATO”

April 26th, 2011

“Again and again, just when you think you’ve reached maximum possible cynicism about politics, you discover that, actually, you haven’t been cynical enough. It’s almost always worse than you think.”

“You’ve probably heard that what President Obama trumpeted as “the biggest annual spending cut in history” was nothing of the sort. The purported cuts — $38 billion from a federal budget $1.4 trillion in the red — were pathetic enough at face value.”

“But according to the Congressional Budget Office, the real total for this year is only $352 million — with an “m.” That, it turns out, wasn’t even enough to cover the first six days of bombing Libya, which cost roughly $400 million.”

“Two fruitless and expensive wars weren’t enough, apparently, so we’ve now added a third.”

“We got dragged into Libya by our NATO allies, who aren’t competent to run a proper airwar against a crumbling Third-World autocracy, and are now complaining that we’re not doing more to bail them out.”

Full commentary by Gene Healy of The Cato Institute @ http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13054

Taylor & van Doren:”Nuclear Power in the Dock”

April 6th, 2011

“The unfolding nuclear emergency in Japan has prompted a reconsideration of nuclear power here in the United States. Surprisingly, the political faith in nuclear power appears to be relatively unshaken at the moment, with opinion leaders on both the left and right cautioning against overreaction and politicians in both parties swearing continued fealty to the federal campaign to jump-start new construction orders.”

“This is unfortunate — not necessarily because nuclear power plants are a catastrophic meltdown waiting to happen — but because nuclear power makes no sense from an economic perspective and the political campaign to ram these plants down the market’s throat threatens catastrophic harm to both taxpayers and ratepayers.”

“The fact that nuclear power can’t come within light-years of passing a market test is painfully obvious to all who wish to see. Consider the feds are presently telling banks that if they loan money to a utility company to build a nuclear power plant and the loan subsequently goes bad, the U.S. Treasury (that is, you) will compensate the bank for up to 90% of its losses. And yet the banks still refuse to loan. For principled supporters of a free market, that should be information enough about the merits of this commercial enterprise.”

Full Commentary by Jerry Taylor & Peter van Doren of The Cato Institute @ http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12947

Newman:”Rep. Paul Plans Hearing on Fed’s Foreign Bailouts”

April 4th, 2011

Wondering where your money went when the U.S. government bailed out the big banks?
Some of it went to bail out foreign banks, and you get the bill for it. Alex Newman reports @ The New American:

Constitutionalist Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy, is planning to hold hearings about the Federal Reserve’s bailouts of foreign-owned banks during the economic crisis.

The Fed was recently forced by the Supreme Court to hand over details and documents related to its “emergency” bailouts through the discount window, a facility which provides cash for banks that can’t find it on the open market. On March 31, following years of litigation and appeals, the central bank finally released the records.

“What I had suspected is now confirmed — the Fed gave money to foreign banks during and since the crisis of 2008,” Rep. Paul said in a statement released on April 2. “I was surprised and deeply disturbed, however, to learn the staggering amount of money that went to foreign banks.”

But there are still a lot of questions. And Rep. Paul wants answers.

Reuters reported over the weekend that his spokeswoman Rachel Mills confirmed that the Congressman would be holding a hearing into the Fed’s discount-window lending to foreign banks. Details are still being worked out, but the hearing should take place sometime in May.

Complete report by Alex Newman of The New American @ http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/economics-mainmenu-44/6976-rep-paul-plans-hearing-on-feds-foreign-bailouts

Newman: “Top UK Officials: UN-Inspired War on Drugs Failed”

March 24th, 2011

“On the 50th anniversary of the United Nations treaty that led to the global “War on Drugs,” a group of prominent officials and legislators from the United Kingdom declared the battle a failure and formed a commission calling for new policies to deal with problems associated with drugs.”

“Among the heavyweights promoting changes in national drug laws are the former heads of the U.K. internal security agency MI5, the Crown Prosecution Service, the government news service BBC, the British Medical Association and even the General Medical Council. Top British legislators from various parties in Parliament and the House of Lords are involved too.”

“The newly created “All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform” is calling for policies “based on scientific evidence.” Members said that despite governments pouring enormous sums of money into prohibition, availability and abuse of drugs have only increased. On top of that, the war has served to enrich terrorists and crime bosses while destabilizing entire countries like Mexico.”

“The chairwoman of the group, Baroness Meacher, has already come out with strong statements against the current prohibition model. “Criminalizing drug users has been an expensive catastrophe for individuals and communities,” Meacher told The Daily Telegraph in an interview. “In the U.K. the time has come for a review of our 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, [the law that criminalized drugs to comply with the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs treaty].” ”

Full Report by Alex Newman @ The New American http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/6827-top-uk-officials-un-inspired-war-on-drugs-failed

Nick Baumann: “GOP Bill Would Force IRS to Conduct Abortion Audits”

March 23rd, 2011

“Under a GOP-backed bill expected to sail through the House of Representatives, the Internal Revenue Service would be forced to police how Americans have paid for their abortions. To ensure that taxpayers complied with the law, IRS agents would have to investigate whether certain terminated pregnancies were the result of rape or incest. And one tax expert says that the measure could even lead to questions on tax forms: Have you had an abortion? Did you keep your receipt?”

“In testimony to a House taxation subcommittee on Wednesday, Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff of the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee, confirmed that one consequence of the Republicans’ “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” would be to turn IRS agents into abortion cops—that is, during an audit, they’d have to detemine, from evidence provided by the taxpayer, whether any tax benefit had been inappropriately used to pay for an abortion.”

“The proposed law, also known as H.R. 3, extends the reach of the Hyde Amendment—which bans federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake—into many parts of the federal tax code. In some cases, the law would forbid using tax benefits—like credits or deductions—to pay for abortions or health insurance that covers abortion. If an American who used such a benefit were to be audited, Barthold said, the burden of proof would lie with the taxpayer to provide documentation, for example, that her abortion fell under the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother exception, or that the health insurance she had purchased did not cover abortions.”

Nick Baumann at Mother Jones exposes Republican ploy to use the IRS to limit a woman’s right to use her own money to pay for an abortion @ http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/gop-bill-irs-abortion-audits#