We can argue about the relative benefit/harms of specific tariffs (taxes on American consumers for foreign goods), but we know from the Laws of Economics—repeatedly proven by history—that tariffs are generally bad for the consumer and bad for the county. Canada is now retaliating against our tariff on soft woods. CANADA!
Trump slaps first tariffs on Canadian lumber
We can argue about the relative benefit/harms of specific tariffs (taxes on American consumers for foreign goods), but we know from the Laws of Economics—repeatedly proven by history—that tariffs are generally bad for the consumer and bad for the county. Canada is now retaliating against our tariff on soft woods. CANADA! The more control one seizes, the more dictates one must issue. We see this in government all the time. In this case, the state (theoretically) pays the' salaries of teachers in the government schools. How do the Masterminds in Raleigh ensure that money isn't being "misused"? By dictating class size. However, this compounds the problem because it still funds based on the number of students in the county, not on the number of required teachers. For example, if the limit is 20 students per class but a school has 21, the state funds the county for one teacher but it must employ two. It must also find room for another classroom and that is not funded by the state.
We propose the state get out of the dictates business and leave such problems to county government to solve. Local control and local accountability. Story: Senator Pledges More Funding For Class-Size Reductions The merits of Trump’s Syria strike aside, we need to bring back Congress’ power over declaring war4/9/2017
After reading Daniel Horowitz's piece The merits of Trump’s Syria strike aside, we need to bring back Congress’ power over declaring war, do you have thoughts on the idea?
(Submitted by Rational Thinker) On Friday, I looked at HB 141 from the standpoint of individual liberty (Is the HB2 "Repeal" Bad Legislation?). Today, we're assessing Mark Creech's article What’s Been Lost in the Repeal of HB 2, As I See It. Dr. Creech's points and my comments on them:
Weak — The idea that transsexuals are not allowed in the other sex's facilities was precisely the claimed reason for Charlotte's ordinance. Not allowed by what? Laws. Local government is the best, most responsive and representative government. The NCGA should not attempt to legislate every conceivable, potential, perceived wrong. 2. HB 2 blocked local governments from requiring “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) policies for those who wanted to contract business with them. Roy Cooper contends cities and county governments are now free to apply such requirements. HB 2 had removed all doubt that these laws were invalidated. This is no longer the case. Reasonable — I'm not aware of such policies heretofore, but they are undoubtedly one of the arrows in the "social justice warriors'" quiver. 3. HB 2 blocked “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) provisions from being added to local nondiscrimination laws relating to private employment practices and regulation of public accommodations. The new law, HB 142 – Reset of SL 2017-4, prohibits any such ordinances from being passed until December of 2020; but after that date, any local governments would be free to enact provisions like those passed in Charlotte in February of 2016. Reasonable — You know this coming. North Carolina is "purple" state, meaning it's not solidly Republican and can potentially be swung to the left. These assaults are coming. 4. Because of their opposition to HB 2, the NCAA, business interests, and other groups have held our state’s economy hostage to its demands. Repealing HB 2 likely emboldens them, as well as possibly others, for additional acts of extortion, which may or may not be related to HB 2. No and Yes — NC's economy has been growing, not hostage, despite a few boycotts. However, Dr. Creech point is clearly true: The NCGA's move is a Chamberlain-like capitulation to the (truly) radical Left. The NCAA may shut up and hold games in NC, but "peace in our time" didn't materialize and the fascist conquering machine is gearing up. 5. By repealing HB 2, the state loses the moral high ground it established. Repeal introduces doubt as to HB 2’s intent and rightness from the beginning. As N.C. Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has said, “Such ambiguity undercuts the legitimacy of the law.” HB 2 was reasonable and common sense legislation. Absolutely! — Clear definitions are critical rule of law. "I'm a woman because I say I am on the inside" is asinine. 6. In repealing HB 2, North Carolina has forfeited its leadership in its stand against the redefinition of sex and gender. HB 2 has always been about much more than bathrooms. Its core issue is the way our culture will ultimately define sex and gender. Reasonable — It's unclear how critical this is, but other states DID begin to rally behind NC's lead.
(Submitted by Rational Thinker)
Liberty. The practical meaning of the word is that you don't have to like me or what I choose to do with my property (which includes my body, thoughts, money, business, etc.), you just may not infringe on my rights; you may not dictate to me what I shall and shall not do with my property.* You may not dictate what I eat, what sex I think I am, my religious beliefs, and an almost endless list of other personal, adult decisions I make for and about myself. By extension, neither does the government that represents you. This newest iteration of the "Bathroom Bill" still protects private citizens from the dictates of local governments as to whom may use their restrooms, changing rooms and showers. This was always the fly in the soup. Charlotte's ordinance dictated to private citizens that they must open their facilities to anyone "identifying" as a particular "gender," regardless of the sex organs they actually have. Some believe the General Assembly should have left the matter to the courts, but as this was a clear, unmitigated violation of private property rights, I don't believe the citizens of Charlotte should be forced to "fight city hall" and incur the huge legal bills that would necessarily generate. Sparring citizens from that was an appropriate and good use of state legislative power. After all, the primary responsibility of elected officials is protect the rights of citizens. That is the standard, not whether you can afford to go to and win in court. This seems clear but if you disagree I urge you to explain your thinking in the "Comments" section. What are others saying on this issue?
*of course we're talking about competent, adult citizens and decisions that don't infringe the rights of others What are you thoughts? From the story: Depending on the specific needs of qualifying members, in most cases children, families are classified from Level 1 to Level 4. The lower end of the spectrum covers behavior concerns while families at Levels 3 and 4 require specific medical services. What do you think? This is unquestionably another consequence of the government running schools, but is this plan a proper way for the NCGA to deal with this particular problem? Read the story and decide for yourself.
Legislators Announce Bill to Reinstate NC Teaching Fellows Program This isn't a rhetorical question. This a real (non-theoretical) dilemma currently facing our Board of Commissioners that gives us the opportunity to have a philosophical discussion about the role the local government, then to act on our individual decisions by contacting the commissioners.
Read the story: Nonprofit Makes Case to County for Continued Assistance There is no question that Friend to Friend does truly great things in Moore Co. Many of us have donated to it, personally, but does that mean we can obligate our neighbors to (partially) fund it? Well, it may! They have to pay for law enforcement, roads, etc. Are the services offered by F2F those that are proper functions of government? Point: This expenditure is a rightful public safety role of the county and F2F is a more efficient way of providing it than county bureaucracy would be. Counter Point: I don't have the right to obligate my neighbors—who may have serious financial challenges (sick child, disability, caring for a parent, leaky roof, etc.) and can barely pay the property taxes on to the house they outright own—to pay for part of Friend to Friend's operating costs. What do you think? Tillis is not a friend of Americans seeking jobs. Tillis is not a friend of the U.S.A. trying to pay down its trillion dollar national debt
Please read the below Charlotte Observer article. "You will never satisfy the far extremes on the left and the right," Tillis, R-N.C., told Fox News. His aim, he said, is "to get something to the president's design that he will sign." Tillis acts as if enforcing the immigration laws, building barriers to illegal immigration, and a system to track visa overstays would be far right actions. Tillis acts as if President Trump would not sign a bill that doesn't include relief for illegal aliens. Hello, we no longer have Obama as President. According to the CH, he told The Wall Street Journal that "his plan would aim to tighten border security and toughen enforcement of immigration laws - goals often cited by Republicans - while providing some kind of protective legal status for the roughly 111 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally, a Democratic priority." Clearly, Reagan tried to do that. The relief for illegals was actually put into action. Now it is time to put border security into action. Peggy The NC General Assembly (NCGA) slipped in lots of things in it's two specials sessions. In the comments, tell the rest us if you disagree with something. Be polite, respectful and address/debate facts and logic. The link, below, is to an explanatory peice written by (state) Senator Phil Berger (R), that lists some of the things the legislature just passed in its special sessions. Note that this list is what Berger wants us to read, omits whatever he'd rather we didn't (or what he considers "unimportant"), and presents the view he wants to front (what he says is correcting the record the media are distorting). That said, is some or all of what they did wrong, dangerous or foolish? If you think so, share with the rest of us. The Facts Being Covered Up By The Press – by Sen. Phil Berger
|
Categories
All
|