TPM, here. Judicial opinion, here.
Without studying, but by scan reading, it all seems moot under the Citizens United decision.
It involved charges DeLay ran a PAC that funneled corporate contributions to candidates while election statutory law designated such a channeling to be criminal. The opinion includes much detail beyond that. Election code provisions that "unduly" restrict corporations' speech rights, per Citizens United (like it or love it), has been stricken as unconstitutional so that now giving is permissible in ways that then had corporations using indirection in funding favored persons.
Now indirection is not needed. The middleman is superfluous. While the appellate court did not analyze things that way, it seems to be how things stand. Fictions, evasions and fig leaves apparently are not now required.
Give directly, or is there still a corporate wall of some kind distinguishing between hard and soft money? I do not claim expertise in such hairsplitting. Others may know and care more.
Any reader wishing to qualify or correct my analysis is invited to submit an on-point comment. The post is based on a cursory reading, at best.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
RAMSEY - As with most things the town does, cost and utilization statistics would be interesting to see.
Free bike rental. Exercise is good. Ben approves, despite his mobility problems.
However, this has the odor of Ramsey Town Center promotion [as well as Flaherty favors] fitting to the last "rebranding" council before this one [did I say, "Flaherty favors?" should I say "Darren Rebrand?"].
So, this page, who/how many use it, etc.
I realize the same thing can be said of the parks, and when the ball diamonds are in use at Alpine Park the parking lot is full and that's serving a public with one kind of park, while natural conservancy and habitat maintenance is another kind, and multiple uses of parks in a community is a good public benefit situation.
That said, is there much going for the bike usage?
Perhaps not enough people know of the program. In that case:
Here is the story. If of value to you, go for it, and enjoy.
Perhaps the city might provide pony rides for kids. Kids like ponies. Great idea, eh?
However, this has the odor of Ramsey Town Center promotion [as well as Flaherty favors] fitting to the last "rebranding" council before this one [did I say, "Flaherty favors?" should I say "Darren Rebrand?"].
So, this page, who/how many use it, etc.
I realize the same thing can be said of the parks, and when the ball diamonds are in use at Alpine Park the parking lot is full and that's serving a public with one kind of park, while natural conservancy and habitat maintenance is another kind, and multiple uses of parks in a community is a good public benefit situation.
That said, is there much going for the bike usage?
Perhaps not enough people know of the program. In that case:
Here is the story. If of value to you, go for it, and enjoy.
Perhaps the city might provide pony rides for kids. Kids like ponies. Great idea, eh?
RAMSEY - In the News - from the city homepage, a link, "167th Avenue and Saint Francis Boulevard (TH 47) Node: We Want Your Input"
They really want my input, eh?
Well, I think they should spend a bundle of public money coddling the whims of property owners there and the neighbors who want to walk to pleasant and cordial retail - with others further away to pony up needed cash.
I think they should pay for it via a "franchise fee." After all, the only other way to fund public expenditure is via a good old honest "tax," while by calling it a "fee," euphemism trumps reality.
Spend a bundle to aid a few local folks, spread the cost but don't tax - franchise fee it into existence, and it will not hurt as much, like a tax would. Sure. If they say so.
Putting that aside, the operative links for information, and a date/time for a meeting, here and here, with the latter item stating:
Wow. They could fund it from the EDA budget, since it's an EDA proposal. With several hats on the table, EDA, HRA, general funds [not yet any Port Authority], spending can be hidden under any one, hiding it from the others. I have always believed, fees and taxes should ALL go into one general fund, and it would be the spending pot, and then all disbursements would have to come from it, each with its relative merits open to debate and adjustment, without any earmark, liquor taxes going to buy politicians their liquor being one not yet proposed, but, wait and see ... Time passes. Things evolve. Bureaus proliferate. Simplicity, one general fund for everything, falls by the wayside.
____________UPDATE_____________
That "part of the process" rhetoric is a bit galling. Surely we all understand that we can participate and then not like the final outcome, but that 2030 thing was awful. The City hired a brick for a consultant, Phil whoever, and there was that parallel session thing with the temple chimes guy. Bottom line - Met Council proposes outrageously high growth quotas so that in giving it its demanded comprehensive plan the thing has so much capacity in view that developers can cherry pick. So, Ramsey being Ramsey, the administration/council authorized more, beyond the Met Council's outrageous quota, so that developers could cherry pick more, it being the goal to serve developers, or that seeming the case. It was distasteful. It was alienating. I may pass on "being part of the process" this go-round, since it is irrelevant when planners have their own minds set on - what else - doing their plans, their way, and so on, so forth.
Well, I think they should spend a bundle of public money coddling the whims of property owners there and the neighbors who want to walk to pleasant and cordial retail - with others further away to pony up needed cash.
I think they should pay for it via a "franchise fee." After all, the only other way to fund public expenditure is via a good old honest "tax," while by calling it a "fee," euphemism trumps reality.
Spend a bundle to aid a few local folks, spread the cost but don't tax - franchise fee it into existence, and it will not hurt as much, like a tax would. Sure. If they say so.
Putting that aside, the operative links for information, and a date/time for a meeting, here and here, with the latter item stating:
The Planning Commission, in conjunction with the Economic Development Authority, will likely be reviewing potential amendments to the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan over the next several months. In order for that review to be effective, your feedback and assistance in developing a potential, new Future Land Use Map for the area is critical. We want you to be part of the process, not simply reacting to future proposals
Wow. They could fund it from the EDA budget, since it's an EDA proposal. With several hats on the table, EDA, HRA, general funds [not yet any Port Authority], spending can be hidden under any one, hiding it from the others. I have always believed, fees and taxes should ALL go into one general fund, and it would be the spending pot, and then all disbursements would have to come from it, each with its relative merits open to debate and adjustment, without any earmark, liquor taxes going to buy politicians their liquor being one not yet proposed, but, wait and see ... Time passes. Things evolve. Bureaus proliferate. Simplicity, one general fund for everything, falls by the wayside.
____________UPDATE_____________
That "part of the process" rhetoric is a bit galling. Surely we all understand that we can participate and then not like the final outcome, but that 2030 thing was awful. The City hired a brick for a consultant, Phil whoever, and there was that parallel session thing with the temple chimes guy. Bottom line - Met Council proposes outrageously high growth quotas so that in giving it its demanded comprehensive plan the thing has so much capacity in view that developers can cherry pick. So, Ramsey being Ramsey, the administration/council authorized more, beyond the Met Council's outrageous quota, so that developers could cherry pick more, it being the goal to serve developers, or that seeming the case. It was distasteful. It was alienating. I may pass on "being part of the process" this go-round, since it is irrelevant when planners have their own minds set on - what else - doing their plans, their way, and so on, so forth.
RAMSEY - The town has a strategic plan. Woo woo.
I cannot fathom why there needs to be a pair of links to the strategic plan, one from the homepage "in the news" to an intermediate page, which then serves to do absolutely nothing but link to a page with three subpages. Figure it out, then explain it to me. (Government efficiency being my guess.)
WebPage redundancy must be part of the strategy.
And that title, "A New Day Beginning ..."? It sounds like one of the 1950's Sunday radio program lead-ins.
A New Day Beginning. Where Will You Be ... When ...
In Ramsey, more likely than not, for most of us. There, paying franchise fees. Along with Ben.
WebPage redundancy must be part of the strategy.
And that title, "A New Day Beginning ..."? It sounds like one of the 1950's Sunday radio program lead-ins.
A New Day Beginning. Where Will You Be ... When ...
In Ramsey, more likely than not, for most of us. There, paying franchise fees. Along with Ben.
RAMSEY - Jason Tossey opposes the consensus among other council members to impose a "franchise fee" tax upon us, vs generating road-upkeep revenue by levy rate, as would be the more conventional approach of raising public revenues to fund public expenditure.
Tossey sent an email to an undisclosed list of recipients defining his belief about the regressiveness of "franchise fee" taxation.
I agree with Tossey that the idea is a bad one.
However, in fairness to Tossey and others, I will simply recommend that readers wanting to review Tossey's belief send him an email requesting that he forward his item to them also. It would burden him somewhat, but as a declared candidate for office he should welcome being approached by concerned citizens simply wanting to know more about the "franchise fee" taxation issue. His city email address is:
Jason Tossey:
jtossey@ci.ramsey.mn.us
Just copy and paste that address into an email, and request that he reply by forwarding his email:
"The proof of a regressive 'franchise fee' tax"
Clearly, one opinion might not prove definitive, and other council members may be contacted to provide their analysis of the "franchise fee" taxation issue.
I agree with Tossey that the idea is a bad one.
However, in fairness to Tossey and others, I will simply recommend that readers wanting to review Tossey's belief send him an email requesting that he forward his item to them also. It would burden him somewhat, but as a declared candidate for office he should welcome being approached by concerned citizens simply wanting to know more about the "franchise fee" taxation issue. His city email address is:
Jason Tossey:
jtossey@ci.ramsey.mn.us
Just copy and paste that address into an email, and request that he reply by forwarding his email:
"The proof of a regressive 'franchise fee' tax"
Clearly, one opinion might not prove definitive, and other council members may be contacted to provide their analysis of the "franchise fee" taxation issue.
With a current focus on NSA excess; there is this: "An FBI job announcement for the DCAC that had an application deadline of May 2 provides additional details. It asks applicants to list their experience with "electronic surveillance standards" including PacketCable (used in cable modems); QChat (used in push-to-talk mobile phones); and T1.678 (VoIP communications). One required skill for the position, which pays up to $136,771 a year, is evaluating "electronic surveillance solutions" for "emerging" technologies. "We would expect that capabilities like CIPAV would be an example" of what the DCAC will create, says Steve Bock, president of Colorado-based Subsentio, referring to the FBI's remotely-installed spyware that it has used to identify extortionists, database-deleting hackers, child molesters, and hitmen."
Oh, yes, we only want to use it against bad guys. Chester Molester, beware, but Joe Citizen, don't worry, be happy.
The headline quote is from here.
NSA is not alone, nor unique. FISA and the FISA court deal with J. Edgar's progeny too.
The date of that bellweather warning: May 22, 2012
Be thankful for Snowden. Without him the sleeping beast of public outrage would not have awakened. That in part is why government lackeys have so much hate for him. He prodded awareness. To them, an unneeded complication to what they do.
The headline quote is from here.
NSA is not alone, nor unique. FISA and the FISA court deal with J. Edgar's progeny too.
The date of that bellweather warning: May 22, 2012
Be thankful for Snowden. Without him the sleeping beast of public outrage would not have awakened. That in part is why government lackeys have so much hate for him. He prodded awareness. To them, an unneeded complication to what they do.
“markets work, morals matter, America must be strong in the world”
A Residual Forces retrospective post, with the headline in quotes within Andy's post.
Whatever happened to "God, Gays, and Guns?" Times change?
That was a 2007 post from Andy live-blogging a presentation gala by the propaganda mill now handing out today's present Scott Honour candidacy. McFadden likely agrees.
But is the headline's simplistic motto somewhat out of tune with the Ron/Rand Paul faction's
markets work, you deserve Liberty, America has no manifest destiny to police the world
SO - What will have traction in the 2014 primary election among our Republican friends? We wait to see.
____________UPDATE_____________
To be clear, markets don't work. Laissez-faire economics, when tried, has been a failure. A cyclical disaster, because market forces, undamped, run amok and cause havoc. Behavioral economics is a discipline that has grown because the classical capital asset pricing model - the random walk - rational investor public with perfect knowledge - model has proven inadequate, there being herd effects, overreaction, insider profit taking or dumping, and, the yin-yang between bull-and-bear collective market mental states is real. Momentum and latency are contributing forces making cyclic boom/bust worse than if we apply damping (countercyclical) forces against irrational exuberance or irrational despair. Contrarians are a good thing. The "markets work" is the unifying fictional thread our Republican friends want to sell you, while manipulating as best they can for profit, the markets they are selling and touting. Having "us" believe markets work is a most important thread tying together the entire "big tent," it is the big lie of the whole big tent.
___________FURTHER UPDATE____________
More on the "markets work" myth, some directions of those asking how/why do markets work as they do; this link, which links over to "scholarly" work where you can access the two featured "studies" going beyond the rational choice theory of market perfection in pricing that which is available in a market; here and here. It seems many have a vested interest in promoting a general belief that markets work, while intent on themselves working the markets. They want to do what they do, they do not want "transparency," or sunshine on what they are doing, and they surely do not want angry mobs with torches and pitchforks in pursuit over what they've been doing [Tea Party bleating is different, okay, so long as they vote right when told to - sheep bleat, but do not effectively resist shearing].
Whatever happened to "God, Gays, and Guns?" Times change?
That was a 2007 post from Andy live-blogging a presentation gala by the propaganda mill now handing out today's present Scott Honour candidacy. McFadden likely agrees.
But is the headline's simplistic motto somewhat out of tune with the Ron/Rand Paul faction's
markets work, you deserve Liberty, America has no manifest destiny to police the world
SO - What will have traction in the 2014 primary election among our Republican friends? We wait to see.
____________UPDATE_____________
To be clear, markets don't work. Laissez-faire economics, when tried, has been a failure. A cyclical disaster, because market forces, undamped, run amok and cause havoc. Behavioral economics is a discipline that has grown because the classical capital asset pricing model - the random walk - rational investor public with perfect knowledge - model has proven inadequate, there being herd effects, overreaction, insider profit taking or dumping, and, the yin-yang between bull-and-bear collective market mental states is real. Momentum and latency are contributing forces making cyclic boom/bust worse than if we apply damping (countercyclical) forces against irrational exuberance or irrational despair. Contrarians are a good thing. The "markets work" is the unifying fictional thread our Republican friends want to sell you, while manipulating as best they can for profit, the markets they are selling and touting. Having "us" believe markets work is a most important thread tying together the entire "big tent," it is the big lie of the whole big tent.
___________FURTHER UPDATE____________
More on the "markets work" myth, some directions of those asking how/why do markets work as they do; this link, which links over to "scholarly" work where you can access the two featured "studies" going beyond the rational choice theory of market perfection in pricing that which is available in a market; here and here. It seems many have a vested interest in promoting a general belief that markets work, while intent on themselves working the markets. They want to do what they do, they do not want "transparency," or sunshine on what they are doing, and they surely do not want angry mobs with torches and pitchforks in pursuit over what they've been doing [Tea Party bleating is different, okay, so long as they vote right when told to - sheep bleat, but do not effectively resist shearing].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)