Category: Legislation

Mount Vernon City Council Sneaks in a Tax Increase

March 27th, 2012 · · Illinois, Legislation, Mount Vernon, Politics 4 comments - Tags: , , , , , ,

Last night the Mount Vernon, IL city council passed a 0.50% tax increase. This increase puts our current tax rate on general merchandise at 8.0%. The only city within our region that compares reasonably to Mount Vernon is Effingham, and their tax rate is only 7.5% for general merchandise. There were other cities cited by proponents on the city council to compare Mount Vernon to that have higher tax rates. Sadly, each of those cities has other major economic considerations that support their tax rate!

  • Marion and Carbondale are both located along the Route 13 corridor.
  • Marion serves as a hub to the center of Route 13 and 57/24 interstates.
  • Marion grew by almost 10% from census to census.
  • Carbondale has a major university that helps support its income.
  • Carbondale has 50% more population than MtV – fair comparison?
  • Fairview Heights is in edge of the metropolitan area of Saint Louis.
  • Fairview Heights is home to many major shopping stores/centers.
  • Fairview Heights grew 11% census to census.

So, these three comparisons would be shot down by anyone who actually bothered to do some real comparison and fact-checking. Apparently our city council members are not fans of making realistic comparisons.

Here are a few other reasons I oppose this tax increase:

  • Mount Vernon has a 25.4 – 26.6% poverty rate as of latest census.
  • Is this going to pay for a pool that we will also have to pay to use?
  • Pool will only be open 3 months/year
  • Why is this tax not going to be sunset once planned items are completed?
  • An anonymous source says some of these funds being used to ‘help’ the new school.

Our poverty rate is a fact and cannot be disputed. At better than 25%, this means that our poorest citizens will now be paying closer to 10% of their income in taxes. Perhaps the goal of our city council is to alienate the poorest people in our community and force them to move elsewhere. There is strong belief that this new tax will fund a new pool that the city council is moving forward with building despite no funding in place to pay for it. This will be a nice pool with great fun to be had by everyone from the reports I have read – for 3 months of the year. The rest of the year this place will sit empty and unused by anyone except rats and mosquitoes.

The best part of possible uses for this new tax is a rumor that money will be given to the new high school to purchase property or otherwise assist with building. If that happens, I will come unglued. The last city council (Wood is still present) tried to screw city residents with a new tax to give the high school some money. This would have effectively made city residents (and shoppers) pay more toward the new, flashy high school than what their taxes were already going to be raised. District 201 is an independent taxing body. The city of Mount Vernon should not be financially supporting another taxing body. Granted, this is a rumor and should be taken as such, but they did try to screw us once before…

UPDATE:

I have received a reply from Councilman Wood that states they (council) passed the tax at the special meeting due to the unavailability of some to be at the last meeting and that they (council) wanted to pass the tax increase in a hurry because “The ordinance had to be in Springfield by about April 1.” I contend that it was rushed and should have been at a regular meeting considering it is a tax increase, but you may draw your own conclusions. Councilman Wood also states that the city has previously committed to provide infrastructure to the new school site and that other action beyond that would have to be discussed and approved at council meetings. This apparently quashes (I love that word) the rumor going about that the city will be donating or otherwise providing additional monies to District 201.

Also, the ‘they’ I refer to as trying to screw us before is a mostly replaced council. It was meant as a reference to the city council as a standing body and is not indicative of anyone in particular. It refers to action by the council with mostly different members – one of which almost admitted shady actions to me, but not quite.

In fairness, Councilman Wood was quite verbose in his reply and somewhat addressed my concerns. I still disagree with a tax being rushed and the new pool design. However, at least he (and Mayor Chesley in a separate email) replied to my concerns. Councilman Wood also took time to say I should come to council meetings and that I am misinformed regarding facts. He stated I should know better than to depend upon the newspaper for complete information. While this is true to a point, I contend that in my estimate 95% of residents never attend city council meetings and a we (the public) do depend on the newspaper, council releases, and the agendas/minutes on the city’s website to stay up to speed. If you are going to increase our taxes, then I would think that this information should be conducted at regular meetings – not special meetings that a majority are unaware of occurring.

He also said he can’t believe someone who ran for council blah blah blah… I ran against the shadiness that was going on at that time (and almost stated blatantly). Had I been elected I would have dove in headfirst and been equally as dedicated to the citizens of this city, if not more so. However I am on the outside and using all the information I can access to learn what is going on and draw conclusions. No, I didn’t call to ask if there was going to be a special meeting, but I shouldn’t have to call and ask. One would think that information would be on the city website or a distinct point made in a quote for the newspaper. Being an outsider I sent an email to communicate, aren’t we allowed to do that?

Oh yeah, the other city comparison facts stand.

Candidates 2012 – My opinion

March 19th, 2012 · · Legislation, Politics No comments - Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Since Obama is the default candidate the D side will run, let me address my opinions about the lackluster R team. Santorum is a loon-ball who believes what he says. Seriously. Go read several of his speeches and sound bites. He is pandering to the religious crowd (what the press calls ‘evangelical’), and they are eating it up. Pay no attention to the fact that the man is an idiot when it comes to finances and he wants to turn the USA into a christian political state. If that is your ideal, perhaps he is your candidate.

Newt Gingrich is a battle-hardened politician. What does that mean? He plays the games that we all know politicians play. You know, insider trading, $1,000-a-plate fundraisers, ‘vote for my bullshit project and I’ll vote for yours’, and all the other games rich white guys play with your money that makes them richer. I see no value to Gingrich other than he’s a dick and would probably not take bullshit from other countries. Oh yeah, and he comes off as an asshole.

Mitt Romney seems to be a light version of Bill Clinton from the R side. He’s fairly smooth talking, has decent old-guy looks, and doesn’t look quite as old as Newt. That pretty much guarantees him a nomination assuming Santorum doesn’t sweep it out from under him. Romney seems to be another status quo guy who has no plan to fix anything. Also, he comes off as a dick too.

Then there is paw-paw Ron Paul. Damn Ron Paul is old. He slid into the R party from the Libertarians to have a better chance at elections and to help his son Rand Paul’s chances in my opinion. Some say traitor, I say that I understand. Dr. Paul is the oldest candidate and has been a career politician (other than practicing medicine). I loathe career politicians, however I am a fan of Dr. Paul. Mostly because I like his still-present Libertarian leanings and that he doesn’t care when the other politicians say his ideas are in left field. At least the man has different ideas that might bring about change for this country. No one else has offered anything fruitful over the past two decades. Sadly, paw-paw Paul is too old to be electable and the dumb-ass electorate (you) disregard him as crazy because he doesn’t fall in line with D or R. Those guys are doing a great job – keep it up!

In short I hope you all go vote for an independent party. There are quite a few independent parties that are struggling for enough votes to get ‘ballot access’ and as a bonus – they believe in what their party states as its goal! That’s a crazy idea when the D and R camps only fight over who gets to distribute our money how they choose. These two do NOT represent the ideals they used to, but your mind tells you they do. D/R candidates say just enough to get you to reach the conclusion that they believe X or Y. They don’t, but your bias tells you they do.

Get out there and think for yourself. Vote independent so that we can get some real competition for our vote.

Home

HOME

Politics – FFS

March 19th, 2012 · · Legislation, Medical, Politics No comments - Tags: , , , ,

Lately there has been a rash of arguments about various political candidates, their policies, and some dumb shit said by an airhead. Unfortunately, people are forgetting the most important matter of all:

THESE RICH (MOSTLY) WHITE ASSHOLES DON’T CARE ABOUT YOU.

The president stirred up some bullshit by saying that Roman Catholic employers must offer birth control. Here’s the thing: they are a business and as such should be free to offer whatever benefits they choose to offer. If you don’t like it then leave. Whether BC is used for birth control, hormonal reasons, or because they taste like Pez is irrelevant to the argument. This is a weak president shifting focus from his non-activity to a hot-button issue. It worked.

Then Rush Limbaugh called some chick a slut and all hell broke loose. You know what you (pissed of women/men) are doing by discussing him? Giving him press. You know what boosts his ratings? Press. He is getting tons of new listeners from both the pro and con sides of this argument. Good job. If you really wanted to hurt him you would just ignore him and realize he’s an entertainer looking for free advertisement. Stop giving it to him if you really want to win.

You all need to pull your collective heads from your collective asses. First, we’re all people. Second, these guys are running spin to keep us in-fighting. If we polarize around X or Y issue, then we are divided and they win. Get over these minor issues and look at the big picture. We have overwhelming debt, no manufacturing, and are taxed to death. How stupid do you have to be to argue over birth control? Eliminate the national debt and you can hand out a lifetime supply of BC to every man, woman, and child until the end of time. Hell, you could probably do it with what we’re blowing on nation-building in the middle-east.

Kick back and realize what is important. This little issue is not the most important thing going on.

Keep voting for the D and R candidates. How’s that working out for you? How’s it working out for our future?

There is no such thing as ‘piracy’ Part 2

January 24th, 2012 · · Entertainment, Legislation, Politics One comment - Tags: , , , , , ,
This post became too long for one sitting, so it has been divided. Read the first part here.

Now we can move into the point of my original post – file sharing sites, BitTorrent, and other methods of distributing media are not piracy. They are methods of distribution. Piracy can be defined loosely as robbing or violence committed against someone or something (a corporation perhaps). When someone downloads a movie via Megaupload or a song via Frostwire they are not robbing anyone nor committing an act of violence. The RIAA and MPAA would have you believe that they are being robbed of income they would have received if the CD/DVD would have been sold in a store. That seems like a reasonable analogy, but they ignore the fact that research has been performed that shows one of three things:

  1. The person is a fan of the artist or movie and will purchase the work anyway.
  2. The person would never have purchased the music or movie.
  3. The person has purchased the item previously and is obtaining a digital copy.

Think about those items. If #1 is true, then the RIAA/MPAA has not lost any money. The person who got their copy of the work through an illegal distribution channel is going to give money to pay for the work, they merely used a different path to get the work at one point. If we consider #2, then the RIAA/MPAA still have not lost any money because the person has no intention of purchasing a DVD/CD or going to the theater. #2 is what the big corporations point out and hope you don’t think about too much. #2 has always existed, however this person can now download and have the music easily instead of making a tape copy or ripping a CD to their computer. #2 would never have purchased the work even if file sharing sites did not exist.

I am most likely to be in the #3 category should I ever download a work. I have purchased only a few CDs in the past few years for myself. Generally, I attribute this to getting older and not caring for much pop music. Still, I have purchased several hundred CDs and DVDs over my lifetime. If my ‘Alice in Chains:Unplugged’ CD gets scratched, I would easily consider downloading a copy from a torrent. Does this make me a criminal? No, it means that I used an illegal distribution channel to obtain another copy of a work that I paid for previously. The big corporations do not like this because it does not use hard media channels they control like DVD or CD purchases.

None of these acts constitutes piracy. What these acts do amount to is using illegal distribution channels to get a copy of a work. People obtained an illegal copy without using the proper distribution channel. There was no violence. There was no robbing since 1 and 3 will pay or have paid for the work downloaded, and 2 has no intention of ever paying for the work. Unfortunately piracy is an emotional word that people can relate to, and the news outlets can use this word to scare you or sound interesting.

That is my explanation of why there is no such thing as piracy. Yes, a copy may have been made illegally, but that means copyright law was broken. This does not mean someone or something (company) was robbed or violently attacked. People sold illegal copies of cassettes and CDs at flea markets however they were just called criminals. The same can be said for those using file-sharing websites, but it sounds much more evil to call them PIRATES. While these vicious pirates keep making illegal copies, the industries keep making record profits.

There is no such thing as ‘piracy’ Part 1

January 24th, 2012 · · Entertainment, Legislation, Technology One comment - Tags: , , , , , , , ,
This post became so long that I divided it between two separate posts. This first post attempts to explain that the MPAA/RIAA are good at hiding money, do make money, and have always controlled distribution channels.

So, people have been saying for the past decade how movie/film/TV piracy is destroying the livelihoods of everyone from the janitor at NBC Studios to the radio DJ to the kid selling CDs at your local music shop. Websites which allow the easy transfer of media between people have been described as nothing short of abominations and safe harbors for criminals. We (collective) thieves and criminals only use these networks to steal material from the good and hard-working people who create the blockbuster movies we watch while munching popcorn every Friday night. We thieves rob the MPAA mebers of the ability to make more movies by stealing their hard work. We take food from the mouths of camera men and their children. Musical acts such as Jay-Z and Taylor Swift can not keep putting out albums if piracy continues unabated. Every song we thieves download from file-sharing sites takes away money that could be used to sign and develop the next Metallica or Ozzy Osbourne. File-sharing sites have no legitimate purpose other than to steal. This has been and is the mantra from the RIAA and MPAA.

Well, there are some major fallacies and discrepancies between what the MPAA and RIAA would have you believe and the truth. To begin with, the MPAA and RIAA members have been reporting record profits despite the horrific piracy that threatens their existence. So, that shuts down the argument that these organizations are unable to keep the lights on in the office. It would seem to me that this means they should be expanding, and are not struggling to survive as they would have us believe.

Secondly, the movie and record industries use some very creative accounting to keep any movie or record from ever making a profit. Would you believe that Star Wars has never made a penny? It’s true. The guy who played Darth Vader (under the suit) has not received a penny of the over 1/2 BILLION dollars which Star Wars has actually netted. The RIAA is pretty good at this type of accounting too. Put simply, these corporations are broke as can be if you subscribe to their accounting methods. Fortunately, we live in the real world and can see that they are merely cheating the United States tax system. So, piracy isn’t breaking the bank, then why are these trade groups saying that it is destroying them?

We should look at the business models of the RIAA and MPAA to begin to explain their arguments/lies. Until the past few years music and movies had always been bought and sold as hard copies. This holds true for VHS, DVD, BD, record, tape, CD and if you reach way back – 8-track. Members of the RIAA and MPAA have always been the primary controllers of these media. Sure, independent shops existed, but big companies have a close relationship with radio stations and other ways to promote their hard copy productions. Movie studios do a great job of using fast food toys to advertise to kids. These facts show that until very recently media distribution was performed via hard copy by large corporations. There were no mass distribution channels without one of the studios behind you.

Recently, this has changed with the advent of iTunes, Spotify, BitTorrent, and other file-sharing sites.

 Part 2 will be released later and explains why piracy is nothing more than illegal distribution, and seems to not harm the industries in actuality.