Pelosi's stupidity puts her firmly in the ranks of lefty moonbats...

Damn Karl, get a new Thesaurus.

 

OH MY GOD! He just called President Bush a lefty liberal moonbat! YOU BASTARD!

 

Hmmm...liberals talking about respect for federal judges, and respect for God?

I thought liberals were the ones trying to strap explosive belts around all 10 commandment displays, and sell america's children into satanic slavery?

I get so confused sometimes.

 

*Shrug*

Compared to some of th sh!t I've seen out of the likes of Hastert, DeLay and Santorum (not to mention Dubya), she's a freaking Rhodes Scholar.

 

I don't get it. What's so hard to understand about what she said?

She was asked whether or not she supported Congressional legislation to overturn a Supreme Court decision. She said she did not.

I don't like the eminent domain decision either, but there's nothing that can be done about it at the Congressional level to overturn that decision that would not viaolate the doctrine of the Seperation of Powers of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of gov't.

 

That snippet is certain rife with weenie words and evasions. But then most of what any politician says is rife with weenie words and evasions. I hate it.

 

I think KK is harping on the fact that she misspoke and mentioned church/state, which really had nothing to do with eminent domain.

I had to re-read her stuff 2 or 3 times to catch it - evidently my brain quickly replaced her illogical words with the words I thought she was trying to say.

 

You attack a political figure and it makes you insightful. Someone else attacks a political figure using standards set forth by you and you feel that makes them a lefty moonbat? Right?

 

Please don't utter those particular words on this board ever again; that's just plain disgusting, immoral, and sickening all at the same time on so many levels!

 

Actually, Mike, I think this is the 2nd time today Karl is right.

As I read the question she was asked (the 2nd one makes it clearer) and as I understand the pending legislation, the idea is to prevent federal funds from being used to buy the land. For example, if in the Kelo case, the city is using a federal grant to buy the land, that won't be allowed under the pending legislation. It's like how the Feds can't mandate a drinking age of 21, but they can prohibit highway funds for any state with a lower drinking age.

A city could still use eminent domain this way, but couldn't use any federal money. As I understand it, it's a good law.

 

From very recent action close to my home here, I believe your point is correct.

This local deal is VERY scary. By way of background, California has a property tax law which limits the increase in property evaluation for the purpose of taxing the property to a very low percentage, rather than market-value adjustments annually. This law was put in place to protect seniors living on a fixed income, who live in areas that have seen increasing property values and hence would be literally taxed out of the home in which the planned to spend their retirement if the taxes were allowed to float to market rates. The value can, however, be changed to market value upon sale.

Now a developer, with the support of the county, has proposed a substantial redevelopment of some low-to-moderate value properties to include upscale housing with significant increase in tax revenue for the county. A local report this morning cites the CT ED decision as precedent to allow the county to approve the development, with partial use of available county and state funds, including a park and green belt (hence the govt funds) to finance the project. The major selling point of the project has been the increased property tax revenues. This is just exactly what many have feared from the moment it was announced the SC would hear the case. In fact, Tom Sullivan predicted this action the very day the SC decision was announced

I fear this SC decision may turn out to be one of, if not the very worst, decision ever made. If Nancy Pelosi, and all the rest of the pols, do not have the stones to stand up to the court and correct the decision with legislation, or withhold funds when it is clear there is harm to private citizens and their property, then we have truly moved a long way towards the serious restriction of property rights for individuals. However, given her long and deep support for the Progressive Party, her statements, call them "hedges" if you will, do not surprise me. Scare me? Yes. You bet. Surprise me? No.

 

Ah yes, Proposition 13. This was a ballot initiative voted directly into law by the people of California. It has also gutted what used to be the best public school system in America. There are many other ways to provide property tax relief to seniors, including senior exemptions and freezes that do not have the devastating effects that Prop 13 have had. It has basically worked like rent control where incredibly wealthy people who stay put for decades are profiting wildly, while the people who were supposed to be protected may just as easily fall through the cracks.

It is interesting that this issue comes up in the context of takings and returning these properties to the profitable side of the ledger for the state.

 

Wow, I hadn't thought of the collision course between Prop 13 and Kelo.

BTW, I'll let you slide on your rather, um, one-sided interpretation of Prop 13. There may have been one or two mildly negative or non-altruistic motives behind it.

 

Yeah, Dred Scott's got NOTHIN' on Kelo, man!

 

Well duh - the Dred Scott decision protected the property rights of owners...

(ducks inevitable firestorm..)

 

I think she's great. What do you think about Dr. Frist following the balloon despite being totally blind?

 

Better than saying I want to fuvk your mother.

 

Why is is that every time ANYTHING that will benefit a great many people, but also help a tiny fraction of people who happen to fall into the "very wealthy" class, we get scared to death and run away from it as if it were the devil himself?

Prop 13 protects EVERYONE from skyrocketing taxes. A person that owns a $200,000 home will benefit proportionatley the same as someone whose home is worth 10x that. But education needs are based on population, not property values. Hence the underlying premise for relying on property taxes as the primary funding source is incorrect in the first place.

For the record, Prop 13 did NOT gut the schools. I'll make a very haughty statement here before I start: Don't start on school funding and related issues unless you want to sort through a lot a data with me. I am VERY involved in that and can cite "chapter and verse" of how state-level programs, written by politician/lawyers who have no background in education, have placed enormous burdens on schools that have resulted in so much waste and outright fraud that we could double the property tax rate across the board and still not have enough money to satisfy their "programs." I can go on all day long about education funding and how to stabilize it. I'm not an expert, just a very involved lay person.

So just for a starter, Nevada is currently deeply in the throes of this property tax issue. A typical homeowner in Douglas county (Reno) who owns a house they paid $200,000 in 1980 but is now worth double that, would see a $4,000/year tax increase under the current system. That would devastate anyone on a fixed/retirement income. However, the state did recently set a limit at 3% on residential, and 6% of commercial properties for the next 3 years. In the meantime, there is already sufficient signatures to qualify a Prop 13 for the '06 elections. I cite this as an example of a state that has observed California for years and realized their own solutions are much better served following the California model. Or at least in this area.

But it is not just about protecting seniors. It is far more about sound financial planning as is witnessed by the past 15 years. The greatest problem with linking schools so tightly to property taxes based on market value is the volatility of that mechanism. To wit; when property values rise as they currently are, we would see a great windfall for education. Now add into this mix the Prop 98 law, under which the state is locked into spending that same amount of money next year as they did last year, regardless of economic conditions, plus COLA and ADA-required increase. Now when property value increases slow as they did in the early '90s, or as the "bubble" bursts as many forecast for the near future, the state would be required to continue the same funding as during the boom. The result is an inescapable deficit.

But it gets even worse.

Uncontrolled spending, based on the boom of the mid-late '90s, is what created the massive deficit we now have as the economy slowed with the tech decline and 9/11. What makes it worse is the fact that 72% of state expenditures are tied to guaranteed spending levels required by law, and you are left with only 28% of the total budget with which to deal with economic fluctuations. These legally required spending programs, with poorly conceived funding mechanisms, are at the heart of why the California budget is such a huge battle every year. It is a have a recipe for conflict and bad planning. The base has become so narrow that a volatile funding formula based on property taxes is unworkable.

It is a far better system to base education funding on the General Fund, which, with its much broader base and resultant comparative stability, yields better expenditure management along with consistent fund availability. Unfortunately, the politicians would much rather stand back and throw stones at each other than do their job of managing state expenditures in a fiscally responsible manner.

 

??? Please explain.

In Kelo, were there stores'n'stuff that were supposed to bring in jobs, and that's the difference between Kelo and this case?