We like libraries. As a matter of fact, despite being fiscally tight with tax dollars, public libraries are a good use of public money. But like all public expenditures, libraries are finding their funds being cut to share the sacrifice, as it were.
Libraries are being resourceful, however. New Jersey libraries have found $1.7 million available. That’s great!
Using stimulus money, the USDA Rural Development program has earmarked $100 million out of the Community Facilities fund to help public libraries cover certain costs, said Howard Henderson, rural development manager for the USDA in New Jersey. For the Garden State, that amounts to $1.7 million in loan money and $500,000 in grants.
What does the USDA have to do with libraries? Yeah, we haven’t figured that out yet either. A quick check of the Constitution reveals no delegation of powers to the federal government to prop up public libraries in times of economic hardship. So, how does USDA justify stepping in?
It is easy to look at this and feel empathy for libraries. They serve a useful purpose. They are relatively inexpensive. So even if the state shorts them, what’s $1.7 million from the federal coffers?
But that’s the thing. We are supposed to be reforming government. That means holding government responsible for what it is charged to do. The corollary to that is to ensure government does not dabble in what it is not charged to do. The federal government has no business in New Jersey’s public libraries. Even the most dramatic bastardization of the Commerce Clause cannot grant an entree to this issue.
Try as I might, I just can’t find a rationale for the government to collect taxes when someone dies.
Inherited money is not income. Why can’t a family pass on its money at death without penalty?
Some contend that folks can inherit up to a million (or whatever the current threshold is) without penalty. That doesn’t address the issue. There should be no threshold whatsoever. What goes on with a family (or friends or associates or whomever) is not the government’s business in this regard.
Example
It’s also not sound business. Suppose a set of parents and a single child. The parents have $5 million in the bank just sitting there. They invest the money. Let’s say they earn 5% on that money. At the end of the year, they will earn $250,000. That $250,000 will be taxed as income. Assuming 33%, that will net the IRS $82,500.
The parents die in a car accident. The $5,000,000 is passed to the child. He inherits $1 million taxfree, but is now responsible for 33% on $4,000,000 (perhaps the inheritance tax isn’t that high). That’s a $1,320,000 tax bill. The child now only has $3,680,000 of his parents’ money. Yes, that is still a pile of cash, but what justification does the government have for seizing the money? The boy did not earn anything. As a matter of fact, his station in life has dwindled because of this.
Even if the $3,680,000 could sit unused, the child will earn $184,000, instead of $250,000 as his parents did on the same pot of money. All because the government claimed a share because the parents died. His tax bill on that interest is but $60,720 compared to his parents’ $82,500.
I don’t get it.
Sure, if the parents die this year, it passes taxfree. But not 1 January 2011.
Tax Day just passed. We all heard the reports that 47% of all Americans do not pay any federal income tax. That is because the government keeps taking from the rich. This is wealth redistribution. Where is the federal government charged with that task in the Constitution?
Massachusetts is a blue state. Edward Kennedy has held a seat in the US Senate since 1962. This seat was held by his brother John prior to being elected president. Ben Smith held the seat for two years between the Kennedy brothers. The second Senate seat from Massachusetts has been Democratically held since Paul Tsongas won in 1979. He was preceded by John Kerry. All ran for POTUS, interestingly.
Martha Coakley is the Attorney General of Massachusetts. She’s a Democrat trying to fill the Senate seat vacated by Edward Kennedy who died last year. This should be a slam dunk win for her. Until recently, it was.
Why has the Brown v. Coakley race become so close?
She has had an embattled tenure as AG. She refuses to investigate the Mayor of Boston. She did not recommend to commute the sentence of a man thought to be innocent by most, and she did not reprimand District Attorneys who falsely testified about medical marijuana.
The other day Candidate Coakley stated during a debate with her opponent that there were no terrorists in Afghanistan.
Last evening Coakley was interviewed on a Boston radio station and stated that Curt Schilling, who has endorsed her opponent, was a Yankees fan.
For those who don’t know, Schilling is the pitcher who pitched famously for the Boston (Massachusetts) Red Sox in 2004 (remember the bloody sock?), who won the World Series for the first time since 1918 when Babe Ruth played for them.
Coakley is clearly flawed. So much so that President Obama is flying at taxpayer expense tomorrow to campaign for her. He has already released his endorsement on the ‘Net.
So, who’s her opponent? At this point, with the election just a few days away, it doesn’t much matter. Unfortunately, for those in Massachusetts, this election has escalated to a referendum on President Obama. It is no longer an election for representation of citizens. Barney Frank, also from Massachusetts, has even stated that is Coakley loses the race, Obama’s helathcare bill is sunk.
it’ll kill the health bill
This is how politics are fought these days. Representing constituencies is no longer the goal; rather, building national power within the federal government is the aim. Folks have conveniently forgotten that the federal government exists and has power solely because the states (and Commonwealths) ceded power in some specific areas. Healthcare wasn’t one of them.
I look forward to an ass-kicking a homerun on Tuesday to send a clear message (because folks have already forgotten the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia) that we are not going to accept the assault upon our rights that the Obama Administration is waging against the Constitution.
The New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) is going to take a lot of heat for coming out against the Race to the Top grant that the federal government is dangling. Today NJEA encouraged its affiliates to reject this.
At stake is $400 million from the federal government to spend in New Jersey. Ah, much needed money. New Jersey is applying for the grant with Gov.-elect Christie’s encouragement. The problem for NJEA is that the grant comes with some strings attached; namely, some of the money would link teacher salaries with performance. Obviously, NJEA will fight any such proposal.
For that, NJEA should rightly be criticized. That, however, does not mean we should embrace the Race to the Top grants. Once again, the federal government is imposing itself in education. The Constitution is clear that the federal government has no role in this issue. So why is it taking our tax dollars and giving it to the states?
Just think if that money was not taken from taxpayers by D.C., but rather went directly to Trenton. Immediately, one level of slippage would be removed. Secondly, the same $400 million would be available for education in New Jersey. The difference? No federal strings attached. Not only the performance pay (There’s plenty to say about the issue, but that will be another post. Suffice it to say that I am all for it in theory, but I have plenty of real world experience that provides me pause in how it would be enacted.) but also all the other federal regulation that comes with money from D.C. These are all non-education costs that take dollars away from the classroom.
We need to keep governments focused on their roles. The federal government’s role is not to grant $400 million to schools in New Jersey. Furthermore, its role is not to influence education funding policy. This is New Jersey’s policy and one it should establish without Potomac’s heavy hand.
It’s not that I disagree with Ms. McCorvey, it’s that the issue is not just the moral issue she speaks about here. The true issue for all Americans is that SCOTUS overstepped its purview in deciding the case. Morality notwithstanding, legally, abortion is an issue for the states. An activist Court found an implied right to privacy in Griswald. That is not what the Constitution stated. As such, the feds should not be involved.
It would be interesting to hear from Ms. McCorvey’s second child on this issue.
