Hide rules out referendum on 'super city' proposals

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide wants Aucklanders to have "maximum input" into the Government's super city proposals but he has ruled out holding a referendum.

NZPA | Friday April 24 2009 - 04:28pm

Labour leader Phil Goff today called for a referendum to give Aucklanders a voice rather than "ramming changes through by special legislation".

He said the Royal Commission consulted widely and undertook extensive analysis over 18 months before making its recommendations, but the Government had fundamentally changed them without any further consultation.

Mr Goff said the proposals looked like a "jack-up" between National, ACT, Auckland City Mayor John Banks and a "small but powerful business elite".

The Greens also want a referendum, and MP Sue Kedgley said Mr Hide had effectively thrown the Royal Commission's report into the bin.

"The Local Government Act stipulates very clearly that before any significant local body reorganisation can be made, an extensive public consultation process must take place," she said.

"This must include consultation with stakeholders, notification of the draft proposal, a public submission process and a poll of electors to determine by simple majority whether the proposal should proceed or not."

Mr Hide told NZPA he wanted Aucklanders to have a bigger say than just a `yes' or `no' to a super city.

"The difficulty with a referendum is it would cost a million dollars and it would just ask `yes' or `no'," he said.

"What I'm picking up, very clearly, is that a lot of people favour a super city but they've got particular views about how it should be structured and run -- it's not just a `yes' or `no' question, that's why I've been so actively engaged with the mayors."

Mr Hide said he was going to move fast with legislation, which would go to a select committee for public submissions.

That would allow Aucklanders to have their say, in detail, about the proposals.

Mr Hide met Auckland's mayors this morning and said good progress was made.

"Everyone has left their differences at the door and they're working in the best interests of Auckland," he said.

"We're continuing to meet with the mayors, we've set up a process for that."

Read more...

Minister responds to my letter

Rodney Hide, Minister for Local Government has responded to a recent letter I sent him about the new Auckland supercity.

Click here link text and the link will take you to our website where you can view the PDF file at the top of the list.

Read more...

Company Raisings

The NZ Post is the latest of a long list of New Zealand companies raising capital through a debt issue this year. Fonterra, Fletcher Building,

Bus Depot, FreightWays, .. and the list goes on. This underpins a disturbing theme: foreign banks are increasingly unwilling to roll over debt. A New Zealand starved of foreign investment and offshore money could shrink our money supply and cause the current economic contraction to become even worse even quicker. Your thoughts?

Read more...

How to post comments on blog

A simple 4 step process to publish your comments on the blog for all to see and comment on.

If you subscribe to the email facility you get all the posts from the blog emailed to you. If you want to comment on one you click on the title and it takes you to a web page on our blog. If you don't subscribe then you have to go directly to the blog and look at all the posts. Either way makes no difference.

Following is how to post a comment.

1. At the bottom of every POST there is a link to "Post a comment". Click on this link and it will take you to another page like this... https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=33150821&postID=209475383565740026 You can then type your comment.

2. Under the message there is a WORD VERIFICATION process. Enter the letters exactly as they are shown (this stops spam).

3. Under that there are 4 radio buttons. You can click on Anonymous or on the Name/URL radio button. Once you click on the Name/URL button a box comes up where you can put in your name and the other box is for a website address if you want to use it. Then click PUBLISH YOUR COMMENTS.

If you are already a registered Google blogger you may also use this username and password which is simpler each time. If not then don't worry about it, just do as explained up above.

Once you have done it a couple of times it's pretty simple. Your comments will not appear on the blog instantly because I moderate it so we don't get people being abusive etc. Also I may not be around to accept your comment post. Usually they appear the same day.

Please do comment on the blog. It makes for more interesting reading and debate.

Read more...

MPs poll the people

Manukau Courier article on three Labour MPs. I will post a comment about this on the blog.

A one–minute referendum will give Manukau locals the chance to "break the silence" on plans for an Auckland supercity.

The five-question referendum is an initiative by Manukau’s Labour MPs George Hawkins, Ross Robertson and Su’a William Sio.

Locals are being asked for their views on the proposed supercity and Mr Sio is urging them to voice their opinions.

"We are holding this referendum to get a sense of what people are feeling about the supercity," he says.

"I don’t think that a lot of our people fully understand how it is going to have a direct impact on their lives.

"This is one decision where local representatives are really depending on the views of the residents."

The referendum will be delivered to letterboxes and churches and distributed in town centres and markets throughout the city.

Mr Sio says he’s already received feedback from some members of the community who hold grave concerns for the city’s future.

There are a lot of questions surrounding the supercity and many in the community need to break their silence and voice an opinion, he says.

"There are issues such as what rating system will be used.

"What will happen to iconic events like the Polyfest and what will happen to our water rates?

"I can’t speak for the others but I am extremely passionate about Manukau and its people. I know how important this city is to our community here."

The referendum is postage free so when locals are finished they can pop the form into the post office or any postbox.

Mr Sio says residents can also drop their completed referendums into any of the Labour MPs’ electorate
offices.

"It’s not a compulsory thing, but I am hoping that people will take one minute to answer five questions about the future of their city."

Supercity meeting

Manukau City Council is to hold another public meeting to inform and update people on developments around plans for an Auckland supercity. The meeting is at Manukau’s Pacific Events Centre tomorrow at 6pm.

Read more...

Three strikes proposal: Good for our democracy?

I'd be interested to hear what you all have to say about the proposed three strikes law. Would it be good or bad for NZ? Are you for or against it and why? Should we have bring back the death penalty?
Read more...

Local government rates ballooning

An interesting NBR article about rate rises. Do we need some mechanism to stop there uncontolled spending? How could we do this?

Allan Swann | Monday March 16 2009 - 01:32pm

Local government rates are up 8% for the quarter on this time last year, well above the rate of inflation, to compensate for increased costs and reduced returns.

Proving that the public sector isn’t entirely immune from the effects of the global slowdown, figures released today by Statistics New Zealand show that councils have hiked rates to compensate.

Revenues were up $115.1 million when comparing the 2007 December quarter to 2008, a boost of 7.1% on the back of an added $72.3 million in rates (up 8.1%).

New local government minister Rodney Hide has made it clear he intends councils to focus on core activities and cull any luxuries, and has also pushed for the capping of rates at the rate of inflation – or less.

Auckland City Council, for example, has allowed for for “affordable progress” in its 10 year budget plan, using the council's rate of inflation as a marker, meaning the average ratepayer will see their rates climb at a compounded rate of 3.8% for the ten years.

However, Statistics New Zealand has pegged the central price index increase at 3.4% from December 2007 to 2008, meaning most councils are increasing their rates above this figure.

The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance has also been factoring rates in to its agenda.

Total local government expenditure in the December 2008 quarter increased by $125 million compared with the same quarter in 2007, which the report attributes to increases across all expenditure categories.

Employee costs were also up compared to the December 2007 quarter, growing by $38.3 million, or 10.9%.

Government grants and subsidies also added $55.1 million (up 28.5%, regulatory income and petrol tax was down $2.1 million (2%) and investment income was down $14.6 million, or 13.6%.

Cost cutting is expected to get more vicious as several larger councils face the double whammy of increased costs, combined with increased expenditure surrounding the Rugby World Cup.

Auckland City Council has already committed to raising a further $6.9 million from rates, which would require additional rates increase of 0.4% for 2009/2010, 1.0% for 2010/2011, and 2.6% for 2011/12.

Read more...

Criminal Investigations Amendment Bill

The purpose of the bill is to allow Police wide powers to collect DNA from persons before being charged or convicted, such as

matching DNA profiles against samples from unsolved scenes of crime. Is this a threat to our democracy or a much needed tool to protect us all from criminals? Closing date for submissions to the Select Committee is 6th April 2009.

Read more...

Govt Should Not Be In The Business Of Business

ACT New Zealand Finance Spokesman Sir Roger Douglas today urged the National Government to first set out clear goals about what it hopes to achieve before considering a bailout of Fisher & Paykel or any other private company.

"So far, the only known advice that Prime Minister John Key has sought is that received from a phonecall to Fisher & Paykel's managing director," Sir Roger said.

"National is considering bailing out Fisher and Paykel without any financial data or independent advice on the implications - how will Fisher & Paykel raise the required finance now, when any rational investor will fear the company will be nationalised?<

"With its accounts already in deficit, the Government can't afford to prop up businesses. More spending means more borrowing and higher taxes. No one is willing to mortgage their children's future, so why can National do it through borrow and spend policies?"Talk about attaching conditions to a potential bailout, like requirements that jobs stay in New Zealand, is worrying. Government should not be in the business of business - we tried that before and it failed. Companies must be competitive and innovative; gove

"The approach to bailouts is similar to the Government's approach to the 'jobs summit' - the plan is ill thought-out and lacks logic, and the only goal seems to be how to retain the number of jobs we currently have. The real issue is about growing job opportunities.

"The only way to encourage job creation is by lowering the compliance costs associated with employing people. Those costs increased 60 percentage points under Labour, and National seems unwilling to get rid of these barriers to employment.

"We must look beyond the short term. While bailouts and jobs summits may reduce fears now, we will regret it when we start repaying the debt we are amassing. Only by lifting our sights, setting goals, and developing policies to achieve those goals can we lift

ENDS

Read more...

Is Social Credit dead and gone?

While we might be hearing a lot about economists John Maynard Keynes and Irving Fisher, what of C.H. Douglas of Social Credit fame?

A couple of posts here have touched on the subject of Social Credit but very few have bothered to make any comment. One comment that was made... "Maybe that is true about only being a provincial government (Albert, Canada) but the trouble with Social Credit theory is... "on one side of their A+B equation they count an item only once, on the other side they unknowingly count the same item several times over." To quote author Henry Hazlitt in his book 'Economics in one lesson'." but it failed to even a response.

I would have expected a comment like that to have been jumped upon by devout Social Credit supporters, but perhaps they have had their day and disappeared into the past? What of their past Leaders here in New Zealand? Matthews, Cracknell, O'Brien, Bruce Beetham and Neil Morrison have passed away, Gary Knapp, Grant Dillon, John Wright have disappeared never to be heard of again (Party high flyer Alasdair Thompson is now Chief Executive of the EMA.) The party is now led by little known Stephnie de Ruyter from Christchurch.

John Pemberton, Deputy Leader for the Party has written an interesting post on here in the past link text asking the question 'Is it possible to realise “Economic Democracy”?' but it would appear there is little support for such ideas in this modern era of economics turmoil given the lack of comments to his post.

So I guess that begs the question... is Social Credit dead and gone? Or is Social Credit philosophy and policies for monetary reform likely to rise again from the ashes like the Phoenix?

Read more...

Green Party conversations

Follwing are discussions with Green Party co-leaders Russel Norman and Jeanette Fitzsimons about Binding Referendums after I emailed

them a press release by Wanganui Mayor Michael Laws link text asking "Why just Wanganui?" and "Would you support Binding Referendums if the parliamentary term was longer (say 5yrs)and the agreement of 75% of MPs could veto a referendum?

Read more...

NZ comparisons with Ireland problems

I thought this was an interesting article about the problems facing Ireland at present. In many ways Ireland is similar to NZ. I think

the reality of the credit crunch and faulty monetary system still hasn't hit NZ yet. Although there has been large amounts of money lost through finance companies, unemployment hasn't been affected yet. But when it does happen and more people start losing their jobs we will likely see something similar to what is happening in Ireland and other parts of the world.
Read more...

Is it possible to realise “Economic Democracy”?

Do we have a financial system:
• that is purposely designed to work and serve people’s needs?

• that takes as the first consideration the preservation of our planet host and its resources for future generations?
• that enables us to produce all that is physically possible and desirable - limited only by available labour, technology, sustainable resources, environmental considerations and community approval?
• that has individual and co-operative enterprise, not corporate greed, as the basis of economic organisation?
• that considers the proper purpose of industry is the production of goods and not the provision of employment or solely to make profits?

The answer is, obviously, no we do not have such a financial system.

Many New Zealanders feel like pawns in somebody else’s Monopoly game - despite their best efforts in planning and working to achieve financial security and social well-being.

Generation by generation people have been getting further and further into debt. None of us can escape the burden of debt, no matter how financially literate we are. One way or another every New Zealander is servicing debt, whether it is our own debt or the debt loaded on the prices we pay for goods and services. And of course we pay tax to service the government's debt, and we pay rates or rent which helps service local government debt.

Unfortunately, under the current financial system, increasing debt is necessary just for our economy to stay still. An even greater growth in debt is required to make it grow. The barrage of advertisements in all forms of the media are designed to "Lead us into temptation" to buy, buy, borrow and buy.

Can you imagine the levels of unemployment, the closed shops and businesses if there were no sales fuelled by debt? This is happening right now. We openly abhor debt. We loathe the amount of interest we pay, and we feel fear when we get caught in the clutches of compounding interest. Under the current system we will be in debt until we die. The literal meaning of 'mortgage' is 'the grip of death'. Our futures are well and truly mortgaged!

The reason we are in this debt slavery is that we do not own and control our own money supply. Until we do, we will never have any sort of democracy, economic or otherwise.

It doesn’t have to be like this.


Read more...

Queensland Binding referenda Bill 1991

These are excerpts from a Bill calling for binding referenda , which was presented to the Queensland Parliament in 1991 , but not passed.

Other States have had similar Bills . However, it does show the issue is "live" & we should study these Australian campaigns & their weaknesses to build more strength into our New Zealand campaign for BCIR legislation . I think one thing we can learn is the importance of building cross party support before legislation is introduced. 3 years ago , we had received a promise by one party ( NZ First ) to to introduce a Bill , but it never happened . We need a backup & even get different parties competing with each other to introduce a Bill .

A BILL FOR
An Act to enable the people of Queensland to initiate and vote on legislative proposals
The Parliament of Queensland enacts—
PART 1—PRELIMINARY
1 Short title
This Act may be cited as the Community Consultation Act 2001.
2 Dictionary
The dictionary in schedule 4 defines particular words used in this Act.
3 Function of the commission
The commission has the continuing function of performing the duties
under this Act and of making appropriate administrative arrangements for
this Act.
PART 2—LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
Division 1—Gaining community support
4 Establishment of sponsoring committee
(1) Twelve electors proposing to present an initiating request may, by
unanimous resolution, agree to form themselves into the
sponsoring committee for the legislative proposal that is to be the
subject of the request.
(2) For this Act, a sponsoring committee comes into existence when
the commission accepts the lodgment, by or on behalf of a group of
electors referred to in subsection (1), of a notice in the approved
form (“establishment notice”) that contains the following—
(a) a statement that the persons named in the notice have
agreed to form themselves into a sponsoring committee for
this Act for the legislative proposal described in the notice;
(b) the names and addresses of the persons;
(c) their signatures;
(d) the name of the contact officer for the committee; and
(e) a description, in no more than 100 words, of the main
objects sought to be achieved by the legislative proposal;
and
(f) a short title indicative of the objects of the legislative proposal.
(3) Where the commission is satisfied that—
(a) a document submitted for the purposes of subsection (2)
complies with that subsection; and
(b) the objects sought to be achieved by the proposal are
capable of implementation by legislation of the Parliament;
it must accept the lodgment of the establishment notice by
publishing in the Gazette a notice of its acceptance.

13 Preparation of proposed laws
(1) If a notice in relation to a popular request has been published
under subsection 11(1), the sponsoring committee for the
registered legislative proposal may prepare a proposed law that
gives effect to the objects of the proposal.
(2) On written application made by a sponsoring committee through
its contact officer, the Parliamentary Counsel must make available
to the committee the services of a drafting officer to enable the
committee to prepare a proposed law.
(3) The proposed law must be prepared as soon as reasonably
practicable after publication of the notice under subsection 11(1),
and within sufficient time to enable its submission to referendum
on the first community consultation day that next occurs.
(4) A prepared proposed law must include the transitional, machinery
and ancillary provisions appropriate to give effect to its objects.
(5) A proposed law may, on the instructions of the sponsoring
committee through its contact officer, provide for the submission to
referendum of 1 or more provisions of a proposed law, separately
or in the alternative.
(6) The heading and questions to appear on the ballot paper must be
prepared by the drafting officer on the instructions of the
sponsoring committee through its contact officer.
(7) The drafting officer must consult with the parliamentary counsel
about compliance of the proposed law with the requirements of
this Act.
(8) If the sponsoring committee for the proposed law intends that the
proposed law or a provision of a proposed law be entrenched, the
entrenchment provision must be the subject of a separate question
when the proposed law is submitted to referendum.


Read more...

The fallacy of Keynesian theory explained

This video talks about government spending, stimulus packages and why they don't work.



Read more...

Poll puts support for monarchy at 45 percent

NZPA | Tuesday April 21 2009 - 03:31pm
New Zealanders still prefer the monarchy to becoming a republic but numbers are close, a new poll shows.

The poll, commissioned by the Republican Movement and published today coinciding with the Queen's 83rd birthday, found 43 percent wanted New Zealand to become a republic and did not want Prince Charles to become King.

Of the 1018 eligible voters polled 45 percent supported Prince Charles becoming King, 13 percent did not know or did not answer.

A Research New Zealand poll last December put support for a republic at 42 percent with 48 percent in favour of the monarchy.

The phone poll was conducted by Curia Research between March 25 and April 7 and had a margin of error of 3.1 percent.


Read more...

Ratepayers plan to withhold rates

NBR article about Dunedin stadium. This could be done more democratically if a referendum was held.

Opponents of the proposed $200 million Dunedin stadium are planning to withhold part of their rates as a protest against the project.

At a meeting recent at the Dunedin Town Hall, the Stop the Stadium group outlined its latest strategy - to withhold the average $66 a year the Dunedin City Council has told ratepayers they will have to pay for the stadium.

Former mayor Sukhi Turner told the meeting councillors were spending money that would drain the pockets of ratepayers for decades to come. "Dunedin does not need a $200 million temple to rugby to survive as a city."



Read more...

Don't understand the credit crisis?

Then have a look at this explanation by Jonathan Jarvis which is very easy to follow.


The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Read more...

Indepth TV discussion on supercity

The New Zealand Planning Institute® (NZPI®) sponsored the debate which aired on 22 April 2009. NZPI® is making the DVD available to groups that may be interested in

viewing the debate, especially as the issue may become relevant to other urban regions in New Zealand. The debate is available online for individuals to view at link text(Triangle TV’s website).

NZPI® believes this is an important issue that deserves public attention, and we also believes that the public deserves an opportunity to weigh in on the issue. To that end, NZPI® so developed a survey for debate viewers. We encourage anyone who has watched the debate to complete the survey located at http://www.nzplanning.co.nz.

Thank you for your support!

Keith Hall, CEO
New Zealand Planning Institute®

Read more...

The Guardian Political Review

My article that got published in the Guardian Political Review.

Better Democracy NZ progress

NZ Herald - “Government passes legislation for Binding Citizens Initiated Referendums”.

If only it were true, but at this point in time it is only a figment of my imagination, but a goal New Zealanders will eventually achieve. I'm forever hopeful it will be in my lifetime but it's not a matter of “if”, it's only a matter of “when”. How do I know that? Because there will come a time when New Zealanders say enough is enough, when we are no longer prepared to give our politicians unbridled power. We will demand more say than just once every three years at a general election. We will no longer stand for the continuation of elected dictatorships. Strong words you might say, but that is all we have in reality. Yes New Zealand is a wonderful place and far more democratic than many countries, but it can always become better.

So how are we progressing in our crusade? Slowly, but we are progressing. As an example, I was amazed by the number of local body candidates that knew about and supported Binding Referendums at the last election. The election before that, very few even knew what I was talking about when I contacted them. The progress in this area has been enormous thanks in large to Michael Laws the Mayor of Wanganui. His Council has used them extensively to give the public a much bigger say in how Wanganui is run.

But it didn't all start in Wanganui. The Swiss have led the way on Binding Referendums for over 130 years. The USA use it in 23 States. For example Arnold Schwarzenegger gained his Governors seat through a Referendum. Australia can only make changes to it's Constitution by referendum. In fact Binding Referendums are used by about 160 million people around the world – that is a reflection of a well adjusted population, a sign of education and freedom.... could we call it true democracy??

Our website www.betterdemocracy.co.nz has been a great success with many visitors each week. Many people use it for our “Email an MP” & “Email an Editor” functions. They are great tools that make life easier and anyone is welcome to use them for any reason. It doesn't just have to be about Binding Referendums. If you can bring yourself to make a donation while you are there it would be much appreciated.

We have also just launched our new blogsite as a focal point for Political & Economic Democracy. There are many great topics listed and many comments which stimulate debate. We invite you to join in the debate at www.betterdemocracynz.blogspot.com or from the link via our website.

I feel our focus must now be to put more pressure on the government to adopt Binding Referendums. But they aren't going to do anything about it unless people continue to press the issue. We have to keep it in their face at every opportunity, face to face and in writing. To those of you who have made the effort of talking to politicians I sincerely thank you. This is not a one man crusade, more and more people are coming on board and making an effort. Eventually momentum will build to a point where it will be unstoppable.

I also hope to publish a new book this year to build on the efforts of our first book “People Power” which Jon Eisen and myself produced. I now have a lot more information to include in the book so plan to make it far more comprehensive.

In the meantime I am adopting some advice given to me by my old friend Gary Knapp who said, “Do what you can do at a pace you can sustain”. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Read more...

Some recent publicity

Here's a few links to newspapers and other places where Better Democracy NZ has received some exposure.

Tyranny of the minority: Southland Times 16th March 2009
Link to the story is link text

Real Democracy: Waikato Times 6th March 2009
link text

Protecting Democracy: Waikato Times 1st January 2009
link text

Colin James - Ways of sharing power with the people: NZ Herald 24th October 2008
link text

Secret Agendas: Waikato Times 11th Augst 2008
link text

Binding Referendum: Waikato Times 10th October 2008
link text

Tougher Sentences: Waikato Times 16th September 2008
link text

Electoral Finance: Listener 8th December 2007
link text

Bob Harvey - Time to listen to the voice of the people: NZ Herald 28th June 2006
link text

People Power: NZ Centre for Political Research 11th November 2005
link text

Better Democracy NZ: Wikipedia:
link text

2005 elections - ACT Party website: 12th December 2005
link text

Read more...

Letter to Editor & MPs

We now have the Government and Auckland Mayors bitterly arguing over what they consider to be the democratic way to run

the new Auckland supercity. This argument is nothing more than two packs of hyena arguing over the carcass of democracy. Democracy can mean many things to different people. The word conjures up a feel good factor whenever it is used. Because of that it runs the risk of meaning nothing at all. For some, simply voting once every three years and having no say in what happens inbetween, is considered democracy. Unless the people of Auckland demand more control over their politicians, through the use of Binding Referendums, it makes no difference how the carcass is devoured. The ultimate insult to democracy is that the people of Auckland do not get to make the final decision via referendum on this constitutional type change. Our elected representatives should be ashamed of themselves for calling this democracy. This process of centralising power will not stop in Auckland. Wellington is also on the agenda and where will it spread to next? Wanganui & Palmerston North amalgamating, or perhaps Napier & Hastings, Hamilton & Waipa or Invercargill & Dunedin?

Read more...

Will NZ Govt start printing money?

Westpac have put out a recent bulletin about quantitative easing (printing money)like other countries are doing.

See the full article link text

Read more...

Better Democracy bank account

Here is a copy of our bank statement for those interested.

Transactions for your Better Democracy NZ 03 1568 0261451 000 account from 1 Jan 2009 to 15 Apr 2009.


Date Description Money out Money in Balance
14 Apr 2009 C C Baron
$10.00

14 Apr 2009 Balance at close of day $778.80 CR

3 Apr 2009 C C Baron
$10.00

3 Apr 2009 Balance at close of day $768.80 CR

31 Mar 2009 Clearance Fee
$0.35 $0.35

31 Mar 2009 Balance at close of day $758.80 CR

30 Mar 2009 Paypal, Inc
27638796647 $73.55

30 Mar 2009 D Baron
D P Baron $10.00

30 Mar 2009 Balance at close of day $759.15 CR

27 Mar 2009 C C Baron
$10.00

27 Mar 2009 Balance at close of day $675.60 CR

26 Mar 2009
$40.00

26 Mar 2009 Balance at close of day $665.60 CR

23 Mar 2009
$400.00

23 Mar 2009 P G Taylor
21-03-2009 $50.00

23 Mar 2009 Balance at close of day $625.60 CR

20 Mar 2009 Howe E L & J I
Donation $25.00

20 Mar 2009 C C Baron
$10.00

20 Mar 2009 Balance at close of day $175.60 CR

19 Mar 2009 NEWCOMBE, Bob
$15.00

19 Mar 2009 Balance at close of day $140.60 CR

17 Mar 2009 Transaction charge
$2.80

17 Mar 2009 Balance at close of day $125.60 CR

13 Mar 2009 C C Baron
$10.00

13 Mar 2009 Balance at close of day $128.40 CR

11 Mar 2009
Papakura $20.00

11 Mar 2009 Mr R V Van Ryn and
$20.00

11 Mar 2009 Balance at close of day $118.40 CR

6 Mar 2009 C C Baron
$10.00

6 Mar 2009 Balance at close of day $78.40 CR

2 Mar 2009 D Baron
D P Baron $10.00

2 Mar 2009 Balance at close of day $68.40 CR

27 Feb 2009 C C Baron
$10.00

27 Feb 2009 Balance at close of day $58.40 CR

20 Feb 2009 C C Baron
$10.00

20 Feb 2009 Balance at close of day $48.40 CR

17 Feb 2009 Transaction charge
$1.60

17 Feb 2009 Balance at close of day $38.40 CR

13 Feb 2009 C C Baron
$10.00

13 Feb 2009 Balance at close of day $40.00 CR

9 Feb 2009 C C Baron
$10.00

9 Feb 2009 Balance at close of day $30.00 CR

30 Jan 2009 C C Baron
$10.00

30 Jan 2009 Balance at close of day $20.00 CR

29 Jan 2009 D Baron
D P Baron $10.00

29 Jan 2009 Balance at close of day $10.00 CR

12 Jan 2009 Opening balance for these transactions $0.00 DR

Read more...

Does Grassroots Lobbying Work?:

A Field Experiment Measuring the Effects of an e-Mail Lobbying Campaign on Legislative Behavior by Daniel E. Bergan from Michigan State University.

...I will post the full study on the website link text The study didn't say how to motivate more people to do it though!

Study conclusion:
Numerous grassroots campaigns are conducted by interest groups at the
state and national level each year. This article has described a simple
research design to estimate the effects of these efforts on public policy. The
results here suggest that the effect of e-mail campaigns on legislators is
substantial. This confirms the effect on policy of a fairly common form of
participation; 28% of the public claims to have contacted an election official
in the previous 5 years (General Social Survey 1972-2002), and many
of these contacts result from the mobilizing efforts of citizen groups
(Kollman, 1998).
Other methods of contacting legislators, such as phone campaigns, may
be more effective. This is suggested by polls that show that legislators pay
more attention to phone calls and personal visits than e-mails (e.g.,
Cornfield, 1999-2000). Such a result would also be consistent with research
on vote drives (e.g., Green & Gerber, 2004) that has shown that more
personal contacts with individuals, such as face-to-face contact, is far more
effective than less personal contacts, such as e-mail.

Read more...

Donations

Thanks to those of you who continue to make donations. For those who haven't and are in a position to do so, a donation towards future Binding Referendum promotions would be much appreciated. In an effort to maintain transparency I plan to post a bank

statement online every once in a while for all to see. We have considered setting up a Trust or an Incorporated Society but to be honest the costs and bureaucracy that are involved would far outweigh the benefits. If anyone has other suggestions I am happy to listen.

Read more...

NZ Herald against rates cap

David Farrar from Kiwiblog puts his argument for the rates cap arguing against the Herald's editorial and pushing for referendums on extra increases. What does everyone else think? Are Poll taxes another option?

Herald against rates cap
The NZ Herald is against capping rates:

...Nobody enjoys paying rates, any more than they do taxes, and the rates bills come to households in visible instalments. If local bodies were allowed to raise their revenue insidiously, as the state does through employers and GST returns, rates would hardly be noticed. They amount to just 4 per cent of the average household income, against 40 per cent that goes to the Government in various taxes.

...The visibility of rates is a thoroughly good thing. It makes councils agonise over their annual demand and any increase above the inflation rate is bound to bring an outcry. When it happens too often the ratepayers wreak their revenge at the triennial elections. Mayors and councils often lose office on resentment of rises and gain it on promises to better control spending.

"I disagree with the Herald on this issue, as there are major differences to how taxes and rates are down." says David Farrar.

"First of all, the way local Government operates is upside down. They draw up a list of everything they want to do, and them set the rates level to fund it. So income changes to meet expenditure.

In central Government (and in 99% of the private sector), you adjust your expenditure to fit within your income. You have a much higher degree of fiscal restraint.

Yes the Government can put up tax rates, but doing so is a very public, very high profile event. Not even Labour put taxes up every year, like rates go up.

The second key different is transparency. Almost all taxpayers know when their taxes have gone up. Ratepayers often have no idea as to how much a Council has increased rates by - because changes in relative house values affect an individual’s rates as much as the overall change on the level of rates. If your rates bill goes up 10%, you don’t know how much of that is increased relative house value, and increased Council spending unless you go out and research it.

So I back there being a population and inflation based cap on rates, with a referendum needed to increase rates beyond that level."

Read more...

Swiss Tax Treaties

"Geneva Wonders Who Moved Cheese Amid Looming Secrecy Referendum"

By Warren Giles and Dylan Griffiths

April 14 (Bloomberg) -- Geneva’s butchers and bakers don’t like being lectured about the evils of bank secrecy any more than being asked to give up their traditional cervelat pork-and- beef sausages or Matterhorn-shaped chocolate bars.

“We have our cervelat, our Toblerone and our bank secrecy, and I’m for keeping it,” said Jacky Bula, 60, who has a butcher’s stall at the roofed Halle de Rive market. “Just because we’re a small country, there’s no reason for others to tell us what to do.”

That stubborn streak may threaten Switzerland’s efforts to negotiate new tax treaties, triggering sanctions that may cut exports of Cartier watches, Lindt chocolate and Emmentaler cheese. A 700-year tradition of direct democracy means voters will have the right to demand a referendum on any agreement, and the Swiss don’t like to be intimidated, said Stephane Garelli, a professor at the IMD business school in Lausanne.

“This is a country of mountains and valleys in which farmers depend on a small community to protect themselves,” said Garelli, who is also director of the World Competitiveness Center. “They don’t like to be bullied.”

Geneva’s citizens find themselves in a predicament not unlike the characters in the bestselling “Who Moved My Cheese?” (Penguin, 1998) by Dr. Spencer Johnson, whose cheese is a metaphor for what people want in life. Unlike Johnson’s characters who must learn to embrace change to keep their cheese, the Swiss aren’t so easily persuaded.

Blacklist Threat

Opponents to changing bank secrecy rules need 50,000 signatures in a country of 7.6 million to call a referendum. There is a “great” risk voters will reject a treaty, even if it means ignoring the government’s advice, Garelli said.

Swiss voters approved a five-year ban on genetically modified crops in November 2005. Almost two years earlier, they thumbed their noses at officialdom by voting to imprison some sex offenders and violent criminals for life.

“Blacklists are a threat for politicians and diplomats, not for people on the street,” said Michel Dérobert, secretary general of the Swiss Private Bankers Association in Geneva. “You can put pressure on a government or a diplomat, but you can’t put pressure on a baker or candlestick maker.”

European leaders threatened in February to impose unspecified penalties against uncooperative tax havens. Switzerland is among eight countries that have since agreed to adopt the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s standards for sharing tax information.

‘Protectionist War’

Sanctions may mean foreign governments would pressure their companies not to do business with Swiss trading partners, said Alfred Mettler, an adviser to the Swiss government on bank secrecy and an associate professor at the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University in Atlanta.

Swiss exports of goods and services are equal to 65 percent of last year’s gross domestic product, said Claude Maurer, an economist at Credit Suisse Group AG in Zurich. By comparison, banking accounts for 8.8 percent of Switzerland’s economy

Germany, France and the U.S, among the fiercest critics of banking secrecy, are, along with Italy, the biggest markets for Swiss exports and the largest consumers of the 61,191 metric tons of Emmentaler, Gruyere, Appenzeller and other cheeses shipped overseas last year.

Food made up 3.6 percent of Swiss exports last year. Chemicals and pharmaceuticals, mechanical engineering and watchmaking, the three biggest categories, together accounted for 58.1 percent.

“We earn every second Swiss franc abroad,” said Maurer, who expects the global financial crisis to squeeze exports by the most since records began in the 1970s. “It would be extremely dangerous to go into another protectionist war.”

Independent Streak

Resistance to foreign powers dates back to the formation of the Swiss confederacy in 1291 and the exploits of William Tell, who according to legend was forced to shoot an apple off his son’s head after showing disrespect to a Habsburg tax collector.

That desire for independence means Switzerland has shunned European Union membership and only joined the United Nations in 2002, even though Geneva is home to UN institutions.

Last month, Defense Minister Ueli Maurer returned his Mercedes S-Class, made by Stuttgart-based Daimler AG, to protest German pressure over the tax regime. Five days earlier, lawmaker Thomas Mueller said German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck’s criticism reminded him of the Germans “who walked the streets in leather coats, boots and arm bands 60 years ago.”

The Alpine nation enacted secrecy legislation in the 1934 to protect clients from Adolf Hitler, who threatened to execute Germans holding money abroad. Swiss law was amended in 1998 to stop banks from shielding the identities of those suspected of money laundering or tax fraud.

UBS Case

Switzerland has offered to cooperate with overseas governments in cases where there is evidence of tax evasion. The concession came after UBS AG, the country’s biggest bank, handed over the names of about 300 clients to U.S. authorities, admitting that it helped American clients hide money.

While the government has promised to maintain secrecy for Swiss, it shouldn’t hand over information about foreigners’ accounts, said Heidi, while serving “pain au chocolat” and baguettes at the “Pain Paillasse” bakery in Geneva’s old town.

“I don’t see why they should be treated differently,” said Heidi, who declined to give her second name. “There certainly shouldn’t be anything automatic about exchanging information given that Switzerland’s attraction is as a pretty safe place to be.”

A survey by the Swiss Bankers Association showed last month that banking secrecy was supported by almost 80 percent of the population. Still, “pragmatism and common sense will prevail,” according to Mettler, the Swiss adviser.

‘Level Playing Field’

“If it doesn’t change the situation for the Swiss in Switzerland and is based on a level playing field, then there is a very good chance that it would pass,” Mettler said.

Even the Swiss Private Bankers Association approved “in principle” the government’s decision to implement OECD tax standards, while expressing concern that there must be a level playing field among financial centers.

Politicians have been slow to wake up to the spread of international regulations, said Josef Garcia, 55, a taxi driver who was waiting at a rank in Geneva’s Eaux Vives district.

“Banking secrecy is already not as secret as it used to be,” he said. “It’s not normal that a company boss should be able to hide money. What’s punishable elsewhere should be punishable here.”

After last week’s Group of 20 summit in London, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Switzerland had been placed on a “gray list” of financial centers, including Luxembourg and Singapore, that have yet to comply with OECD standards.

Swiss Surprise

If France and Germany exert more pressure, voters may spring a surprise.

Eric Richard, Bula’s partner, said banking secrecy, like the Longeoles sausages he sells on his stall, are part of what maintains Switzerland.

“Clients wouldn’t come to us if we didn’t have special products and it’s the same for private banking in Switzerland,” Richard said. And the recipe for his pork and fennel seed sausages? “That’s a secret,” he added with a smile.

To contact the reporter on this story: Warren Giles in Geneva at wgiles@bloomberg.netDylan Griffiths in Geneva at dgriffiths1@bloomberg.net

Read more...

Hide: Referendum will decide four-year council terms

NBR: Local government Minister Rodney Hide has raised the possibility of four-year terms in local and central government.

Answering a question at an EMA Northern breakfast seminar on the super city for Auckland, he said the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance recommended a four-year term for councils.

But this would not be practical unless the central government term was also extended to avoid clashes of election times. Such a change would not occur without a referendum, Mr Hide said.

Neither Act nor National has a policy of extending the parliamentary term.

Most of Mr Hide’s presentation was spent answering questions on transitional arrangements for the move to a single Auckland council by the 2010 local government elections.

Details of a transition agency will be in a bill to be introduced under urgency in Parliament this week. It will be followed by another bill on the new structure of a single council and up to 30 community boards.

He has revealed these boards will be bulk-funded from the single council, which will have powers to raise "targetted" rates for local projects, as recommended by the commission.

He says the council ward and community board boundaries, yet to be established, will be based on common interests rather than population size to reflect differences. But he is also keen to ensure income disparities among various communities are not entrenched.

“This is no easy transition,” Mr Hide says, adding that the transition agency would have the power to prevent a “spend up” by the outgoing councils, as happened in the previous local body amalgamation.

Mr Hide says he would prefer a more arms-length company such as Christchurch City Holdings to own the merged commercial assets of the new Auckland council, but that was an issue “you must keep working on Mr [Prime Minister John] Key.”

Under present proposals, the council will directly own and manage these assets, which amount to nearly $30 billion, as council-controlled trading enterprises.

By contrast, Christchurch City Holdings, which holds stakes in Lyttelton Port Co, Orion Group and Christchurch International Airport, operates as more of an independent commercial subsidiary of the council.

Read more...

Town Prints Own Currency to Support Local Business

DemocracyNow takes a look at how one North Carolina town is trying to become more self-sufficient by moving toward being able

to feed, fuel and finance itself. The town of Pittsboro houses the nation’s largest biodiesel cooperative, a food co-op, a farmers’ market and, most recently, its own currency, the Pittsboro Plenty. Pittsboro is one of a number of communities across the country printing their own money in an attempt to support local business.
Link link text

Read more...

I.O.U.S.A. the movie

By now, you may have heard about our acclaimed documentary I.O.U.S.A., a film that boldly examines the rapidly growing national debt and its consequences for the United States and its citizens. The film has been a huge hit, getting rave reviews from Roger Ebert and others.

Click here to watch it link text

Now, we proudly release a 30-minute condensed version of I.O.U.S.A. designed specifically for watching and sharing on the web - for free.

So if you haven't had a chance to see the movie yet, watch the condensed I.O.U.S.A. today. If you've already seen it in a theater, check out the abbreviated version for a refresher. Then, tell your friends, your family, your Facebook friends and your Twitter followers about the staggering amount of money - $53 trillion - in financial obligations owed by the federal government to foreign investors and to every single American in the form of pensions, health benefits, Social Security and Medicare.

Read more...

Money for nothing

Banks should be repositories for our wealth – and not be free to create money at will. We should take monetary reform seriously.

Mark Braund guardian.co.uk

Ann Pettifor is right: nothing in that lengthy communique suggests the G20 is prepared to engage with the underlying causes of the financial crisis, nor the chronic instability and injustice that characterise the current economic system. Chief among these is the deeply flawed mechanism by which money is created.

Mainstream economists like Joseph Stiglitz are calling for a new financial architecture, but none acknowledge that the monetary system, and in particular the way money is created – as debt by commercial banks – dictates the way that architecture functions. Cif contributor Chris Colvin recently described the idea of monetary reform as a "wacky fix" and an "extravagant idea that involves removing the ability of private banks to create money and forcing them to adopt 100% reserve banking". Yet the respected alternative economist Herman Daly wrote recently: "I would certainly advocate 100% reserve requirements for banks (approached gradually). All banks should be financial intermediaries that lend depositors' money, not engines for creating money out of nothing and lending it at interest."

Daly's argument for movement towards a just and sustainable steady-state economy offers a comprehensive solution to the current crisis. Colvin, by contrast, follows a long tradition of economists for whom the parameters of the discipline are set by academic orthodoxy.

Colvin's principal complaint – that unless banks are able to create money through traditional means there would be insufficient cash in circulation – misses the point completely. Cash comprises just 3% of the money supply. The rest exists only as entries in banks' electronic ledgers. If banks can create electronic money at will through the process of fractional reserve banking, why shouldn't a democratically accountable central authority do the same. In this paper for the New Economics Foundation, James Robertson and Joseph Huber argue that central banks should determine the quantity of new non-cash money. Under their scheme, the central bank would credit new money to the government as public revenue which would then be spent into circulation.

Bryan Gould is among the few public figures prepared to speak out in support of monetary reform. As he wrote here recently, "privately owned banks have been allowed to develop a virtual monopoly of credit creation for more than 200 years". Gould got a hard time in the thread for his suggestion that "only governments have the capability and the duty to act in the wider interest" in respect of money issue. In a properly functioning democracy, governments would represent the interests of the majority of citizens. As things stand, they don't. This helps explain why bankers are given a licence to create money, and are then bailed out when their actions bring the economy crashing down, while the rest of us face a pay freeze or redundancy.

There is a direct link between the way money is created and the enormous debt bubble that preceded the credit crunch. The objective of monetary policy should be to ensure that the money supply accurately reflects the quantity of real wealth being created in the economy, and is sufficient to provide funds for new investment in real businesses to keep the economy ticking over. This is a difficult calculation to make, but under current arrangements nobody even attempts to make it. Central banks would be better placed than profit-motivated commercial banks to make that assessment.

Chris Colvin is free to mock the Money Reform party for its candidate's poor performance in a 2006 byelection. But anyone wanting to better understand the impact of debt money could do worse than consult the party's website which includes a compelling explanation of the mechanics of money creation and its impact on society. If you like what you read, you might consider petitioning the prime minister to take monetary reform seriously by adding your name here.

Read more...

Dunedin stadium

Should there be a referendum to decide the fate of the Dunedin stadium?

Click here link text to vote online.

Read more...

Referendum to cap rates

California did it many years ago and now Anchorage is considering rates caps. Could we/should we be ding this in every NZ city?

Proposition 9 tackles issue of tax cap

PROPERTY: Initiative would return city to former formula.

By DON HUNTER
Anchorage Daily News
dhunter@adn.com

Here's the deal about the most complicated thing on the April 7 city ballot.

It all started 25 years ago.

It's really important, because it will affect how much in property taxes the city can collect each year.

Supporters say it will cause property taxes to go down.

Opponents say it might cause property taxes to go up.

Understanding it takes you through a couple of wacky acronyms that sound like they fell out of a Walt Disney television show in 1959: MUSA. MESA.

WHAT IS IT?

Proposition 9 is a voter initiative about property taxes in Anchorage. The goal is to lower property taxes. The initiative aims to strengthen a tax cap originally passed by voters in 1983 and changed in 2003.

The tax cap limits how much the city can increase overall property taxes each year. Taxes can only increase from the amount collected the preceding year by a percentage that includes inflation and a five-year average of population change.

Proposition 9's supporters say the initiative would reduce the amount that property taxes could increase in the future. They say it would do that by adding to the mix payments to city government from city-owned utilities and city-owned businesses. Moving that money -- currently about $16.5 million a year -- under the tax cap would reduce the amount charged to home and business property owners, supporters say.


WHAT are UTILITY AND ENTERPRISE PAYMENTS?

City, state and federal governments don't pay property taxes.

But the state and federal governments do make what are called "payments in lieu of taxes" on government property inside the city.

City-owned utilities like the Anchorage Water & Wastewater Utility and Municipal Light & Power own "plant" -- utility equipment, lines, pipes and so on -- and the city collects "payments in lieu of taxes" on that.

The city also owns entities that do business, like the Port of Anchorage and Merrill Field. The city collects payments in lieu of taxes from them too.

The utility payments are called MUSA, which stands for Municipal Utility Service Assessments. The enterprise payments are called MESA -- Municipal Enterprise Service Assessments.


WHO SUPPORTS IT AND WHY?

The initiative is on the ballot because a group called the Municipal Taxpayers' League collected 13,000 signatures on petitions in little more than three weeks -- a very short time for such a drive. They needed about 7,000 signatures.

The Chamber of Commerce supports Proposition 9 too. The business group says having the utility payments as part of the tax cap would make the cap more effective and would stabilize changes in property taxes.

Five of the six leading mayoral candidates support Proposition 9. They are Eric Croft, Paul Honeman, Walt Monegan, Sheila Selkregg and Dan Sullivan.

Former Mayor Rick Mystrom is a strong backer too. In a newspaper column, Mystrom said taxpayers are paying about $17 million more each year than they would have if the cap had stayed unchanged.

The Taxpayers' League likens putting the MUSA and MESA payments back under the tax cap to dropping a brick into a bucket of water. The brick displaces a certain volume of water. The utility and enterprise payments would similarly displace a certain amount of property taxes, they say.


WHO OPPOSES IT AND WHY?

Former Assemblyman Charles Wohlforth was hired by the mayor's office to analyze Proposition 9. Wohlforth says the way the initiative is written could cause property taxes to go up instead of down.

He says that could happen because the initiative's wording would add the extra utility and enterprise payments to the tax-cap formula before the new tax-cap level is set. That means the utility payments would not offset any property taxes, according to Wohlforth.

Further, he argues, approval of the proposition could cause higher property taxes. That could happen if the city's MUSA and MESA payments shrink for some reason. One possible reason: The city could lose a water-rate case now before the Alaska Supreme Court and be ordered to reimburse its customers up to $40 million for charging them too much.

Acting Mayor Matt Claman opposes the initiative, citing Wohlforth's analysis.

An appointed citizens' commission that advises the mayor and the Assembly on budget issues listened to both Wohlforth and the Municipal Taxpayers' League.

The commission then recommended that the initiative's supporters withdraw it from the ballot and rewrite it to eliminate any confusion.

But it's too late to do that, and supporters don't want to, anyway.

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

The original cap on Anchorage property taxes was approved and added to the municipal charter by about 58 percent of the voters in October 1983.

That charter amendment did not mention utility payments.

But the Assembly passed its own ordinance the next year and added the MUSA payments to the amount of collections under the cap.

Several years later, the Assembly added MESA payments.

In 2003, Mark Begich was elected mayor. Oil prices were lower than today and the state government cut the amount of money it was sharing with cities and boroughs.

Begich and his new city executives said they were about $30 million short of having enough money to pay for city services.

Begich asked the Assembly to remove utility payments from the tax cap and collect them separately. The Assembly voted 9-0 in December to do so, with two members absent. At the same time, the amount the city collected from most of the utilities also went up.

Without the MUSA/MESA payments, the tax cap initially fell. But the cap has since risen to help pay for growing city and School District budgets.

In response to questions, the city's chief fiscal officer, Sharon Weddleton, said the increases in allowable property taxes for city services are the result of new voter-approved bonds, taxes on new construction, and population growth. The increases were not caused by the 2003 MUSA/MESA decision, she said.

Weddleton did a comparison of how much property taxes went up after the 2003 changes, and what would have happened had nothing changed. Her conclusion? A difference of only one-third of one percent.

But a lot of home and business owners started to get fried when their tax bills went up more than they had expected.

And tax bills have indeed risen. For example, a single-family home in an East Anchorage neighborhood assessed at $240,000 in 2003 paid about $4,000 that year in property taxes. By last year, the house was assessed at $340,000, with a tax bill of about $5,000.

That kind of track record is reason enough for voters to reimpose "a hard limit" on City Hall, initiative backer Neil Nichols said when the petition drive was launched in January.

Concerns about the initiative's wording are misguided, he said more recently.

"This is nothing new here," Nichols said. "They're trying to frighten the voters away from tax relief with smoke and mirrors."

But doubts remain.

"It's poorly written and I don't think everybody that votes is going to understand what they're voting for," the advisory commission's chair, Jason Bergerson, said when the group's "buyer beware" warning was issued last month.

Read more...

New York/Auckland supercity problem?

Editorial in the Buffalo News about New York political system that could easily be talking about the proposed Auckland supercity.

...I would disagree with the comment about referendums causing significant problems in California. Professor John Matsusaka from the University of Southern California highlighted in his article 'Have Voter Initiatives Paralyzed the California Budget?' that this simply is not the case. Steve

EDITORIALS:

Disdain for taxpayers

Corrupted system, aloof Legislature mean harder times for New Yorkers

For once, New Yorkers are mad—furious, it would seem, over the corruption of a Legislature that confronts the deepest state budget deficit ever by spending more than ever, refusing to take long-term actions to control expenses and reaching ever deeper into the pockets of New Yorkers.

Legislators can do this because they have no fear of voters. They have gerrymandered districts and imposed ethics and fundraising standards that benefit themselves instead of their constituents. Their electoral advantage is so great, it’s a rarity that serious challengers ever try to remove an incumbent. That’s why New Yorkers need a new mechanism that allows them to circumvent this subverted organization.

No one doubted this would be a difficult budget year. Twenty percent of Albany’s revenue comes from the financial sector, mainly meaning Wall Street. When it tanks, a crater opens in the state budget. But a responsible government would have at least sought to restrain spending during the worst recession in generations. This isn’t a responsible government. It’s a government that doesn’t know how to make hard decisions.

The depth of Albany’s dysfunction was made clear last week in comments by State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and, even more startlingly, by Gov. David A. Paterson, who approved this rotten budget deal. DiNapoli, whose job includes reviewing the budget, questioned whether it is balanced, even with its massive $8.3 billion tax hike package. Paterson, whose fingerprints are all over this budget, echoed those concerns, citing the continuing decline in revenues as the recession claims ever more jobs.

What they’re not saying is that Albany is spending so much—much more than last year—that even an $8.3 billion tax hike can’t cover costs. Remember that legislative leaders, meeting behind closed doors with Paterson, added $10.7 billion to his January budget proposal. Why not? They have favors to do and voters don’t matter.

So voters need to make themselves matter. Albany’s approval of this budget is a marker—an emblem of the disdain with which elected officials hold everyday New Yorkers who pay the bills, who are losing their jobs, who have been moving out of this state for years.

What New Yorkers need is a system of initiative and referendum to allow them to supersede a government they cannot trust. We come to that conclusion with some reluctance, because initiative and referendum has caused significant problems in some states, including California. But Albany has left voters here with no other choice.

Getting from here to there is the problem, since instituting that system requires a constitutional amendment, and that lengthy process begins with approval by, yes, the State Legislature. The Senate, then under Republican control, passed an initiative and referendum amendment six years ago, but it died in the Assembly, where Speaker Sheldon Silver— the godfather of state spending—opposed it.

Change won’t happen unless lawmakers have some reason to fear their constituents. Constituents today are angry, and anger can be a fine motivator.

Read more...

"Women shouldn’t vote"

An interesting Freakonomics article with the author of The 'Tyranny of Dead Ideas', Matt Miller.

It isn’t hard to think of ideas that were once considered conventional wisdom — “Women shouldn’t vote,” “People should be segregated by race” — but were eventually laid to rest.

In his book The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old Ways of Thinking to Unleash A New Prosperity, Matt Miller writes that the country’s biggest problem right now isn’t the suffering economy, but a few outdated ideas that “prevent us from responding forcefully in this new situation to improve people’s lives.”

He identifies some of the most damaging of these “dead ideas” and predicts which ideas might eventually replace them.

Miller is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a contributing editor at Fortune, and the host of public radio’s Left, Right & Center program. He is a senior adviser to global management and consulting firm McKinsey & Company, and he served at the Clinton White House from 1993 to 1995 as a senior adviser in the Office of Management and Budget.

He has agreed to answer a few of our questions about the book and talk about the three dead ideas he thinks did the most to get us into the economic and financial crisis we’re in now.

What are dead ideas and why does society keep them around?

Dead ideas are eternal, universal phenomena that plague all of us. They’re the result of an essential vulnerability in human psychology: our slowness in updating the way we think about the world even when the world itself radically changes.

So the book is about the trouble we get into because of the things we think we know. Think of dead ideas as conventional wisdoms that retain their power long after it makes any sense to hold onto them — or beliefs that, while comforting, are so at odds with reality that they amount to delusions that hold us back.

By the way, dead ideas don’t just apply to our economic lives, though that’s the focus of the book. They’re prevalent in businesses and nonprofit organizations, which often get stuck in old ways of doing things long after these habits become a threat to their success, or even survival. And anyone who’s been married for any length of time knows that dead ideas can take hold in relationships as well.

Why do we keep these dead ideas around? In part because we’re human, which means it takes a huge shock — like today’s economic crisis or a spouse’s threat of divorce — to force us to wake up to the fact that we’re not seeing things right, and in part because powerful constituencies form around the status quo and make it hard to change.

So what dead idea is most responsible for the recent A.I.G. bonuses?

It is the idea that “Money follows merit” — by which I mean that market capitalism is a meritocracy in which people basically end up, in economic terms, where they deserve to. As we can see by how fiercely Wall Street resists change, financiers cling to the idea that their outsized rewards reflect something superior about their performance in the “free market” — as opposed to being the result of rigged compensation systems that reward failure or mediocrity as often as success.

Do you find yourself clinging to any ideas that you already know are dead?

Absolutely! Truth is, most of us probably couldn’t get through the day without a few dead ideas. In my professional life, the deadest idea I cling to is that “Rational analysis can lead to constructive change” — which, if you’ve read any history, may never have been that “alive” an idea in the first place. The biggest dead idea I’m in the grip of at home is that my daughter (who turns 12 this month) is still a little girl.

Can you name the three dead ideas you think did the most to bring about the current recession/ financial crisis and whether they’ve since died, are currently on their way out, or may stick around longer?

“Financial markets can regulate themselves.”

This dead idea was a major culprit in today’s mess. Modest, common-sense rules — like adequate capital requirements or scrutiny of credit default swaps — could have avoided much of the pain we’re going through. This idea has plainly been exposed as a relic (even Alan Greenspan, its chief champion, now says so). But we won’t know it’s dead for sure until we see how the battle over financial regulatory reform plays out.

“Your company should take care of you.”

This dead idea is making the recession far worse than it needs to be. I refer to our employer-based system of health care benefits. Each day in this recession, 14,000 people have lost their health coverage; that’s 100,000 every week. And it’s all because we have a system that inanely links your health coverage to your job.

Unfortunately, Washington doesn’t seem ready to move past employer-based health care yet, even though this dead idea hurts both worker security and business competitiveness. Politically, it seems too big a departure from what people are used to. But I’m hopeful that any big health reform will, for the first time, include ways for people to access group coverage outside the employment setting, which could let a parallel system evolve that in time kills this dead idea for good.

“Taxes hurt the economy (and they’re always too high).”

Most people will get a tax cut as we muscle through this recession; but once the downturn has passed, taxes will rise more broadly over the next decade no matter who is in power, because we’re retiring the baby boom, which means doubling the number of people on Social Security and Medicare. The good news is that when this happens, the economy will be fine. But for political reasons, this is an undiscussable fact. Worse, this dead idea stops us from reforming our tax system to better promote prosperity, even as we raise more revenue. In my view, this means cutting taxes on payrolls and corporations and raising taxes on dirty energy.

What two new ideas is the current economic climate most likely to bring about?

One of my “destined ideas” in the book is that “Only government can save business” — not just in the sense of plugging the hole in the banking system or rescuing Detroit, but in playing a bigger role in assuring basic health care and pension security (and thus relieving corporate America of this burden). It may take the next decade to play out, but the idea that government now needs to play a more active (and smarter) role has been set in motion.

Another is the idea that “Only the (lower) upper class can save us from inequality.” The revolt of the professional class (which I dub the Lower Uppers) against the undeserving ultrarich is underway.

It’s epitomized by the revulsion against bankers who’ve walked away with millions after gambling with junk securities that wrecked the economy. The Obama team and Congress are led by Lower Uppers, and they’re poised to reign in excesses at the top — partly through taxes, and partly through reforms in executive compensation. This may take the edge off the inequality that’s grown so extreme in recent years.

Read more...

Chinese quake activist arrested

BBC News: Chinese police have arrested a man who was investigating whether poor construction caused schools to collapse during last year's massive earthquake.

Email President Hu Jintao at china@un.int and tell him what you think.

The detention of Tan Zuoren is part of a crackdown in Sichuan province just weeks ahead of the first anniversary of the quake, a human rights group said.

The magnitude-8.0 earthquake left about 88,000 people dead or missing, and five million homeless.

Officials have never released a figure for the number of children who died.

Shoddy construction

Tan Zuoren had asked internet users and people who lost their children in the quake to help to compile a detailed database of the victims.

He also asked volunteers to detail any evidence of poor construction at the schools.

Mr Tan was detained on 28 March on charges of subversion of state policies, according to the Centre for Human Rights and Democracy.

Several thousand school buildings collapsed during the earthquake, fuelling angry allegations by parents that corruption had led to shoddy construction standards.

In many of the affected towns, schools collapsed but other nearby buildings withstood the earthquake.

Government officials promised an investigation while, at the same time, pressurising parents to keep their grief - and their anger - to themselves.

Mr Tan was the latest of several government critics to be detained or summoned for questioning in recent weeks, the Centre for Human Rights and Democracy said.

Read more...