|
If I could be one person in the Whole Wide World...I would be me!!!
One of the God given greatest conservative minds of our time...
Rick Rydell...
NEW!!! RICK'S TAKE ON THE TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS OF PPT!!!
The “Taint” of corruption.
The special session called “to remove the taint of corruption” is over. The taxes have been raised substantially. The taint of corruption has been removed and Alaskans “fair share” has now been got. Or has it?
Since the rationalization to call the special session was to remove the taint of corruption, then its not a reach to see the changes from this address of the severance tax, called PPT or ACES, and the last address.
Last session, or sessions, addressing the tax may have been tainted, said the callers of this special session. “Lets have another one! And lets get Alaskans their fair share.” The cried.
30 days of parliamentary procedure later, we have an increased tax. Too the tune of an additional 1.5 billion dollars, at least.
So then the question begs, what changed to get us to this end? The votes by our Legislators are the vehicle, which bring us the changes. So who vote was different when the so called “influence of corruption” was no longer present?
Was it Pete Kott? Tom Anderson? Vic Kohrings vote? No, they were not there. Was it the Governors vote? No, she does not vote on legislative matters.
Okay, we have had three convictions of federal bribery and such which was circumstantially attached to the tax rate. That’s true. But if we remove those votes and replace them with the votes of the representatives now holding those seats formerly tainted by corruption, the votes of Anna Fairclough, who now occupies Pete Kotts seat, Bob Roses, who now occupies Tom Andersons seat, and Wes Keller, who occupies Vic Kohrings seat, two out of those three still supported the lower tax rate.
So who else’s vote was changed after the taint of corruption was supposedly removed? That’s easy to check, just call up the votes in the House and the Senate, Who supported the 22.5% base rate and the lower progressivity while the possibility of “corruption” was there to influence, and check which of those names now support a higher rate and higher progressivity not theta the “taint is no longer there to influence.
Those who changed their vote after the corruption influence was removed are , in Alphabetical order, Reps’ Coghill, Gatto, Harris, Joule, Kelly, LeDoux, Lynn, Neuman, Salmon, Seaton, Stoltz, and Thomas. IN the Senate, the changed votes were, Sens’ Davis, Dyson, Kookesh, McGuire, Olson, Wagoner, and Wilken.
So now we have 19, still sitting, legislators who changed their vote after the bad influence has been removed. There have been 4 indicted and or prosecuted for corruption.
Now I am certain they can all tell you a rational reason why they changed their votes and the excuses probably wont be that originally they were influenced by corruption, but it certainly will still be taken this way by many.
Oh, by the way, Alaskans fair share? Even with an additional couple billion dollars going to the State of Alaska, the percentage designated to be deposited into the Permanent Fund has not increased one single penny in this whole shift from the tax rate 5 years ago to today. Zero. Our fair share?
Rick Rydell
AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL LEGISLATIVE BODIES,
You are elected to office to be the legislative branch of Government. As a legislator, your job is defined “persons who make or amend or repeal laws.” All of your actions in this body are to craft laws to govern our actions collectively as a people. Your job is to make decisions for us in matters of law in strict accordance with the Constitution of the United States and any subsequent governing document. These include, depending on your level of jurisdiction, the Constitution of the State of Alaska and Municipal Charters, for these documents are the Law of the Land.
I work for my property, I was born with my liberty, you can give me neither. Laws are to protect my property and protect my liberty. If someone takes my property then there needs to be laws that say that is wrong. If someone infringes on my liberties then law must protect against that as well. Both examples are injustices. Law is needed to head off injustice. I phrase the last sentence specifically to point out that law does not give justice. The lack of injustice IS the state of justice.
Therefore, law can only protect against injustice, nothing more.
Injustice against my property includes all that I own. Real Estate, money, vehicles, and personal property are all my property. Your laws should protect my property. When my property in taken from me, against my will, it is theft. Frederick Bastiat, 17th century economist and legislator, referred to this as “plunder.” Using my property taxes for anything other than public safety needs to be questioned with extreme prejudice. Using the tax collected of my income for anything other than public safety needs to be questioned with extreme prejudice and using the royalties from the sale on the natural resources of the State which are to be held in trust for me for anything other than public safety needs to be questioned with extreme prejudice. Because to give any of those monies away for anything other than protecting my property is still “plunder.” Only in this case, since it was the law who took my property against my will, it is called “legal plunder.”
Legal or illegal, plunder is still plunder. It is still taking one persons property and giving it to someone else. Theft is theft and to carry it out by law contradicts the purpose of law directly. Again, law was created to protect my property and my liberty. But, we find here, that law creates the injustice. Liberty is the unalienable right to make your own way in life doing what you see fit as long as it doesn’t infringe another’s liberty. If some else’s liberties are allowed to infringe my liberties then injustice is created. Again, law was created to protect my property and my liberty. But we find here, that law creates the injustice. Often times it is seen as acceptable to vote against someone’s liberties because of the moral standing of the legislator. This could be the most dangerous assault on liberties because it allows the tyranny of the majority to inflict its morals on the individual even if the actions of the individual are morally acceptable to only him. Again, if it does not infringe on anyone else’s liberty, then to legislate against it is injustice. The extreme case of this in America would be if a group of Hindus were elected to the majority of a legislative body, it could easily pass a law prohibiting cattle to be eaten or even harmed right here in the America. This is a plea from we the people, root out legal theft and attacks on our liberties wherever you find them. It is time to repeal more laws than you write. It is time to respect the law for its intent, to protect my property and to protect my liberty. The United States of America is great because the individuals are enabled to be great. Protect individual freedoms against the tyranny of those who feel morally superior. Protect my property, including my money from those who practice the legal loophole of taking my property against my will just because they can get a 51% vote. The property, I worked to gain, the liberty I was born with. You can give me neither, you can only protect them or give them away. In EVERY law, you must choose! Rick Rydell |
© 2008