Interesting viewpoint from the NAACP of DeKalb County, who is in opposition to the Transportation SPLOST:

http://dekalbganaacp.blogspot.com/2012/02/vote-no-t-splost.html?m=1

Rumors have it that State Rep Earl Ehrhart may be under the mistaken impression that it is the Georgia State Legislature that has authority over how Community Improvement Districts (“CIDs”) spend tax dollars.

PV Offers Exhibit A: In today’s Marietta Daily Journal article detailing the money spent by the Cumberland CID and the Town Center CID (both located in Cobb County) on “educating” the public about traffic and the T-SPLOST vote coming-up this July 31st, Rep. Ehrhart stated the following about the half-million dollars being transferred from the CIDs to the organization called “MAVEN:

“That’s something that will have to be looked into next year [via the General Assembly]…I thought they got the message on that. That’s a shame. It’s certainly using tax money to advocate for (an election). I’m hoping they’re not successful in buying it.”

PV Offers A Disagreement via Exhibit B: In actuality, it is NOT the “legislature” at all that governs how a CID spends its tax dollars, but it is the Georgia Constitution that governs what they are allowed to spend their money on.

CIDs only exist under a specific section of the state constitution, Article IX, Section VII. The Legislature did not “create” them, and therefore it has no power to “regulate” them. The CIDs are only allowed to do what the state constitution specifically authorizes them to do by letter of law, and they are allowed to do nothing else beyond those boundaries.

What does the constitution say about how a CID can spend money? Let’s examine that right now:

Article IX, Section VII, Paragraph III, Sub-Paragraph (c)…2nd to the last line at the bottom of Page 80 states as follows: “The law creating or providing for the creation of a community improvement district shall provide that the proceeds of taxes, fees, and assessments levied by the administrative body of the community improvement district shall be used only for the purpose of providing governmental services and facilities which are specially required by the degree of density of development within the community improvement district and not for the purpose of providing those governmental services and facilities provided to the county or municipality as a whole.”

Reading a little bit further down in Paragraph III, there is this additional statement in the Georgia Constitution: “The proceeds of taxes, fees, and assessments so levied, less such fee to cover the costs of collection as may be specified by law , shall be transmitted by the collecting county or municipality to the administrative body of the community improvement district and shall be expended by the administrative body of the community improvement district only for the purposes authorized by this Section.”

In short, Ladies, Gentlemen, Rep Ehrhart, & Tad Leithead, et al…none of this money being spent on “educating the public” by ANY CID is authorized by the Georgia Constitution. NONE. ZERO.

Additionally, MAVEN (which stands for Metro-Atlanta Voter Education Network) is not located anywhere in or near Cobb County (they are located at 250 Williams St., Suite 2332, Atlanta, GA 30303, which is nowhere near Cobb County).

Therefore, these CIDs are giving money to MAVEN, which is an organization that does not build: “…roads, curbs, sidewalks, street lights, devices to control the flow of traffic on streets and roads; Parks or recreational areas or facilities; Storm water and sewage collection and disposal systems; Development, storage, treatment, purification, and distribution of water; Public transportation; or Terminal and dock facilities and parking facilities…” as is expressly specified in Paragraph II of this Section of the Georgia Constitution to be the ONLY items a CID is expressly-authorized to spend money on.

And, here’s just an easy way to understand this without plowing thru the constitutional excerpts provided above: Let’s say PV is completely in error, and that the CIDs are allowed to spend their money on educating or supporting a tax referendum.

So, assuming they are allowed to do this, could they then invest CID tax dollars into…say…a Nevada-based brothel if that brothel purchased billboard space on I-75 whereby 99.99999% of the square footage of the billboard’s advertising area was “Stuck in traffic? Remember you have a choice to change transportation in Metro-Atlanta on July 31st, 2012” and the only thing the brothel had on there in tiny print was “Paid for by SuzysHouseofPleasure.com”

Would this be a legal use of CID money? C’mon, lawyers of certain politically-connected law firms in Cobb and Gwinnett County…Defend the CID in this hypothetical situation here. What is stopping a CID from spending their money on ANYTHING like this, if a majority of the CID board voted in favor of doing that? Do tell us. (Or, don’t, since you actually won’t be able to due to the Georgia Constitution.)

PV’s Conclusion: So, what does all this mean? Well, besides the CCID Board acting in violation of the Georgia Constitution, the only way to make them address their illegal acts is to take the Cumberland CID to court…and the proper authority to address the unlawful-unconstitutional-illegal spending of tax dollars by all these CIDs for “educating” on a tax referendum is in the Superior Court Circuit in which each CID is located.

That is the only place anyone will get something accomplished. The Georgia Legislature has no authorization or jurisdiction, but the Superior Court does have jurisdiction over how money is spent by any CID, as the Superior Court is the proper venue to challenge any state, county, or local governmental entity for violations of their existence via the Georgia Constitution.

This is why the CIDs (any and all CIDs located all over the metro-Atlanta area should be taken to court if they are using tax money in connection with the TIA/T-SPLOST vote) need to be sued in their local Superior Court circuit for unconstitutional use of tax dollars. Ignore what CID lawyers claim. They are wrong. Beat them in court.

To: Mr. Sam Olens, Attorney General

So, Mr. Olens, we’re kinda, sorta puzzled about what it is you think your role is as Attorney General of Georgia, and how you actually promulgate your duties in real life:

1) You bring forth new legislation that causes news organizations up and down this state to swoon and coo all over your “baby” that you conceived called HB 397.

2) You introduce more stringent (presumably) requirements for Open Records Act requests for information from state, county, and local government agencies (“agencies” will be used interchangeably in this discussion with “entities”), and you provide new penalties for failure of any government employee who violates the performance of answering a Request.

3) You introduce more stringent requirements for what constitutes how “Open Meetings” are to be conducted, and what government officials can and cannot do…also providing new penalties for violations.

4) You have reduced the cost of paper copies from $0.25 per page to $0.10 per page…even though in this world today, a LOT of agencies actually have the ability to directly scan documents into a PDF document a lot quicker than actually printing-out documents and mailing them…but, again, we’re not going to quibble over this bit of illogic.

5), 6), 7)….and whatever other new things you have in the bill.

BUT…here is the really, really, really strange part of this whole charade of yours to promote “open government” in Georgia:

IF someone filed an open records request on any state agency (i.e., executive branch of Georgia government), and if they were to uncover either a violation of some civil law in Georgia, or perhaps even a violation of a criminal statute in Georgia by anyone in that state agency (or, in the case of the Board of Regents’ issue, where there are multiple violations of malfeasance alleged by many individuals…with documented proof from the Plaintiff), you, as Attorney General of Georgia, would immediately act to seize the proof of the violations of laws, seal-off the evidence and take-on the role of taxpayer-paid-for defense attorney for the offending person, persons, or entire organization.

And, of course, in addition to the violation of Georgia laws that were uncovered through the course of this hypothetical open records request, there might also be violations of federal law uncovered as well (since the Board of Regents receives earmarked-funding from the feds that passes through the State of Georgia Revenue). But, because of the role you see yourself, you would take action to protect your client (the state agency) from any kind of criminal or civil investigation, and bury that evidence as deeply as possible.

So, you kinda play several roles in the case of malfeasance by anyone in any executive-branch state agency: Defense Attorney, evidence lockup guy, magistrate judge, and basically, Chief Cover-Up Officer of Malfeasance by state employees and publicly elected officials of state agencies.

Anything we miss here?

And…just to carry out this line of thinking a little further…you’re hoping you might serve in the Justice Department of a President Mitt Romney? Perhaps you even have Eric Holder’s job in mind, eh?

Based on your current actions to date as Chief Cover-Up Officer of the Board of Regents/Defense Attorney for the potential abuse and misuse of millions of Georgia taxpayer dollars, could you take a moment and kindly explain to us in Georgia and America how what you do in Georgia right now with regards to the Board of Regents’ case would translate to the kind of person Republicans would like to see replace Eric Holder as Attorney General of the U.S.? From our standpoint, when it comes to cover-up of what the executive branch of a government is doing, it actually does not appear there would be much of a change in results if you were switched-out with Eric Holder…?

Take all the time you want, Sir. Really.

MEMORANDUM

To: Mr. Sam Olens, Attorney General

Sir, you are familiar with the Georgia Constitution, correct? The one you swore an oath to uphold when you became a licensed attorney in Georgia?

Specifically, we’d like to point you to this section: Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph X states the following:

“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law [emphasis added], or laws impairing the obligation of contract or making irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be passed.”

So, if we release information now about the case you just happen to be the defense attorney of right this moment defending the Georgia Board of Regents in a whistleblower lawsuit, you will not be able to insert a clause in HB 397 that forbids us from discussing and releasing the following information.

For everyone else’s knowledge who is reading this Memo to you, Mr. Olens, the whistleblower lawsuit accuses Regent members of all kinds of different malfeasances, not the least of which is the fact that when (for example) an employee at any of the 35 Georgia university or colleges of higher education is terminated from employment (or a student is expelled), the Regents advertises they have an “appeals process” in place that supposedly allows the terminated employee an opportunity to spend ALL their time writing-out details of their situation and why they feel their termination/expulsion was in error. This document is called an “Application for Review.”

Except, according to the whistleblower lawsuit, these appeals are never actually seen or reviewed personally by the members of the Board of Regents Organization and Law Committee.

So, the terminated employee is left with 1) no job, 2) no hope for a true appeal, and 3) a whole lot of personal time spent writing an appeal (all the while telling themselves there’s a chance SOMEONE at the Regents will read it and see their issue and they will have their job back/get readmitted to school) when, in fact, the Regents are too busy discussing such weighty issues like whether or not Charmin toilet paper is softer on their rear-ends than Scott toilet paper.

According to information transmitted to Political Vine via email, there was testimony given that is part of Open Records right now, and it contains the following excerpt regarding the sworn testimony of Regent Doreen Stiles Poitevint dated February 8, 2010, Page 11:

Q: “Is there a review of any documents or evidence by the Board of Regents?
A: “Do you mean physical documents?
Q: “Yes, Ma’am.
A: “No.”
Q: “Do the Regents review the applications for review that are submitted by the employees?”
A: “No.”
Q: “Why not?”
A: “I think just like I said time restraints.

So, from what we understand (again, Mr. Olens, we’re just catching you and others up on the case information as it has been relayed to us), you and the whistleblower are locked into a battle in Fulton County Superior Court concerning a case YOU supposedly won (on behalf of your client, The Board of Regents) over the matter of the release of court documents such as this testimony by this Regent.

So, let’s see if PV understands this reality with HB 397: On the one hand, you appear to be opening up the ‘closed doors of state, county, and local governments’ all over Georgia…while at the same time seeking to block access to information that directly points to a Georgia-based legal entity (Board of Regents) via repeated court motions against a pro se attorney (yeah, you make sure you strut around like you’re the baddest AG in America with that accomplishment)…and this information points directly to what appears to be, or what may actually be, extensive corruption in the Board of Regents.

Is this about right?

Well, as we said at the very, very beginning…the General Assembly cannot pass a retroactive law. So, we are therefore publishing this information NOW and linking to the documents below NOW in advance of the likely passage of this legislation that you have, apparently, either misled legislators on…or, they may be, for all we know, just as corrupt-minded as you are to be interested in ensuring that evidence regarding potential corruption and misuse of taxpayer dollars totaling in the multi-millions of dollars never sees the light of day in Georgia.

Multiple Conflicts of Interest Between AG Olens, His Oath of Office & Board of Regents

Denial of Motion Filed In Fulton County Superior Court

Mr. Olens, we submit this Memo to you dated March 21, 2012.
===============================================================================
PV Note: Information contained in this Memo was obtained through contact with Denise Caldon, the person responsible for filing the whistleblower lawsuit against the Georgia Board of Regents. If you wish to find out more info about her case, feel free to contact here at:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/denise-caldon/26/624/949

The Meat and Potatoes of SB 448

In order to best explain what this legislation is designed to accomplish, let’s take a hypothetical case study: Let’s say, hypothetically, that there was a guy named Masun Wain Williams and, back in 2005, he owned a land development company called Swampland Development LLC (“SDL”).

Williams spotted a prime piece of swampland in some county somewhere for $5,000,000, and he dreamed of a vision of multi-family housing being built on this swampland. Williams checked his pockets and discovered he did not have $5 million.

He decided to go visit his local banker, Joe Bob-The Banker. Williams told Joe-Bob “I want to buy this land for $5,000,000. Can you help me out with a loan?”

Banker Joe-Bob responded with “Well…sure. But, since SDL has no other assets except for this land you wish to buy, my lending rules require me to require you to give us a personal guarantee that even if your ‘wonderful, can’t-miss land development idea’ goes south, you will personally guarantee a repayment of this loan.”

Williams responded with “Sure thing! You know me, Joe-Bob. I always pay my debts, and you know I’m good for this loan. Where do I sign?”

And, so, back in 2005 (in this hypothetical case), a loan for the land deal was granted Williams for him to purchase the $5 million piece of land.

So, at the conclusion of the transaction, the following occurred:

1) Mr. Williams had $5 million in cash
2) Joe-Bob Banker had a loan note (call it the “Note”) with Williams’ personal guarantee that even if the slimmest of possibilities happened with the new mutli-family development going the proverbial “south,” the bank would get its money back (with interest of course) from Williams.

Now, over the course of time, the market for development did, in fact, go “south”…and the apartment complex was never fully built.

Also in the course of time, Joe-Bob’s Bank flipped the Note to some other entity wholly separate from Joe-Bob’s Bank; call this new entity “High Risk Taker”…or, “HRT.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Attorney General Sam Olens responded to our “Part 1” Alert with the following emailed response:

“New sections f, g and h were predominantly written by counsel for the AJC and Georgia Press Association to make computer records more accessible to the public. Fire your researcher.”

PV Responds: The Research Team of Political Vine examined the “new and improved” language AG Olens refers to in his emailed response prior to issuing Alert #1, and discovered that (regardless of who did or did not write it) it does not cover by specific language (which is how a LOT of Georgia law is interpreted by government attorneys up and down this state on the subject of open records requests) all aspects of electronic delivery.

The new Section (f) reads as the following: “As provided in this subsection, an agency’s use of electronic record-keeping systems must not erode the public’s right of access to records under this article. Agencies shall produce electronic copies of or, if the requester prefers, printouts of electronic records or data from data base fields that the agency maintains using the computer programs that the agency has in its possession. An agency shall not refuse to produce such electronic records, data, or data fields on the grounds that exporting data or redaction of exempted information will require inputting range, search, filter, report parameters, or similar commands or instructions into an agency’s computer system so long as such commands or instructions can be executed using existing computer programs that the agency uses in the ordinary course of business to access, support, or otherwise manage the records or data. A requester may request that electronic records, data, or data fields be produced in the format in which such data or electronic records are kept by the agency, or in a standard export format such as a flat file electronic American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) format, if the agency’s existing computer programs support such an export format. In such instance, the data or electronic records shall be downloaded in such format onto suitable electronic media by the agency. No public officer or agency shall be required to prepare new reports, summaries, or compilations not in existence at the time of the request.”

PV’s Comment on the New Section (f): It does not state “how” the information is to be delivered. It only provides that the records being maintained by an agency in electronic format “shall be provided.”

As far as this new section (f) is concerned, an agency is required to extract the data, but they could choose to require that the information be placed on a disk, money charged for that disk, and money charged for mailing that disk and/or requiring anyone to come in and physically sign for the disk…and that would be in accordance with the specific wording of the law…when it may be easier (and much less expensive) to provide the data via emailed attachment.

The original law stated it this way: “…records maintained by computer shall be made available where practicable by electronic means, including Internet access.“

There is a specific meaning to the phrase “shall be made available” that is not present in any language of the new Section (f).

The new Section (g) states the following: “Requests to inspect or copy electronic messages, whether in the form of e-mail, text message, or other format, should contain information about the messages that is reasonably calculated to allow the recipient of the request to locate the messages sought, including, if known, the name, title, or office of the specific person or persons whose electronic messages are sought and, to the extent possible, the specific data bases to be searched for such messages.”

PV’s Response to Section (g): Again, this covers nothing regarding a specific requirement for how the information requested is to be delivered.

The new Section (h) states the following: “In lieu of providing separate printouts or copies of records or data, an agency may provide access to records through a website accessible by the public. However, if an agency receives a request for data fields, an agency shall not refuse to provide the responsive data on the grounds that the data is available in whole or in its constituent parts through a website if the requester seeks the data in the electronic format in which it is kept. Additionally, if an agency contracts with a private vendor to collect or maintain public records, the agency shall ensure that the arrangement does not limit public access to those records.”

PV’s Response to the new Section (h): The language specifies that “an agency may [emphasis added by PV] provide access to records through a website accessible by the public…”

Ladies & Gentlemen, a “website” is not the same element in the world of the Internet as an “email communication” is.

There is no language specific to addressing the concept of email delivery of information, nor is there specificity on the “shall” aspect of requiring an agency to provide the data via the web or Internet where practicable.

If Senators Hamrick, Cowsert, Crosby, McKoon, Stone, Bethel, Fort, Carter (or anyone else) on the Senate committee reviewing this law wishes to make this law as equal or better to what it once was, you would do the following:

Change #1) Strike the word “may” anywhere it appears and replace it with the word “shall.” Any lawyer will tell you that there is a legal distinction in interpretation of the word “shall” compared to the word “may.” (Any lawyer denying this fact may need their bar license reviewed.)

Change #2) Insert the language of the former Section (g) back into this bill: “…records maintained by computer shall be made available where practicable by electronic means, including Internet access, subject to reasonable security restrictions preventing access to nonrequested or nonavailable records.”

Because, again, “Internet access” covers both “web-based access” and “emailed access” while “web-based” only covers a Website. From experience, PV knows that lawyers for government agencies always look for any way in which to deny access to public records.

No one should have any problem with the aforementioned language revision.

PV Note To AG Olens: Sir, you stated in your response that this new language was “predominantly” written by counsel for the AJC and the Georgia Press Association. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, your office now has an opportunity to re-examine the language of HB 397, and make these two corrections that need to be made.

And, even if counsel for the Press Association were to fight it, you know we’re right, and for the people of Georgia, you should act on that basis because everyone knows there is a difference between “shall” and “may,” and that there is a difference between “Internet access” and “Web-based access.” Even if you were not conscious of the issues with this specific language before, now you have an opportunity to correct this in the law before it is considered by the Senate.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter of utmost importance.

Rumors have it that while Attorney General Sam Olens and State Representative Jay Powell have been touting HB 397 as “The Sunshine Bill” designed to provide more “transparency” to state, county and local governments, in fact, it is making it more challenging to access information by way of throwing-up financial barriers to make it more expensive to obtain information under Open Records Act laws for no other reason than to make it more expensive for ordinary citizens to uncover corruption in their government.

PV Provides The Evidence: For YEARS, the Open Records Act allowed for the access to information “maintained by computer” by any agency to be delivered via the Internet where practical. In fact, this is how the law currently reads under OCGA Section 50-18-70(g):

“At the request of the person, firm, corporation, or other entity requesting such records, records maintained by computer shall be made available where practicable by electronic means, including Internet access, subject to reasonable security restrictions preventing access to nonrequested or nonavailable records.”

In the most recent version of HB 397, this entire section is crossed-out, thereby meaning that agencies (e.g., Cobb County Government…the entity AG Olens is a former county commission chairman of) no longer have to forward emails sent by anyone in the agency…and that, instead, each email would have to be printed-out and a copy purchased for $0.10 per copy.

(AND…by the way, it was in the original version of the bill as well, so nobody better claim “Oh, it must have been struck by the other guy…we’re not responsible for that”)

If this bill passes as is, it will seriously impede all efforts by citizens, bloggers, news media, or whoever to obtain by electronic means records that are ALREADY in electronic format and able to be transmitted over the Internet.

Furthermore…there’s also this new addition to the law which makes the retrieval of emails written by government officials, employees, or whoever in a Georgia government state, local, or county agency much more difficult to uncover corruption and illegal acts by government officials:

“OCGA 50-18-71(g): “Requests to inspect or copy electronic messages, whether in the form of e-mail, text message, or other format, should contain information about the messages that is reasonably calculated to allow the recipient of the request to locate the messages sought, including, if known, the name, title, or office of the specific person or persons whose electronic messages are sought and, to the extent possible, the specific data bases to be searched for such messages.”

You see, right now, people have to pay money for the search and retrieval time and any other research time spent by an agency for any time greater than 15 minutes.

So, since the onus already exists on the person making the request to pay money for the search and retrieval time, there should be no problem with any government entity in Georgia dealing with a blanket request for, as an example, “all emails between Faye DiMassimo and anyone at Brock & Clay Public Affairs” without the requestor having to specify by “reasonable calculation” (whatever the heck THAT means…go try arguing with an attorney on what the definition of “reasonable” is as he/she is charging you for the time to argue…) the names of the people at Brock & Clay PA the requestor is interested in seeing the email traffic from.

PV Is Disgusted: The only…Only…ONLY reason to strike-out the “deliverable by Internet” part of the law is to deliberately block someone from accessing information without them having to expend a lot more time and money to have to actually travel to a government agency and obtain copies of the information.

AND…the striking of this section actually dovetails quite nicely with the rumor PV heard regarding AG Olens making frequent trips to the Cobb County Commission to mentor Tim Lee, and listen to Tim Lee’s problems with all the open records requests being filed by the many Cobb community activists (one being PV, by the way) who are intent on uncovering the corruption that has long been embedded in Cobb County Government.

The deliberate striking of the section of the ORA concerning delivery of computerized records by Internet is a blatant attempt to send Georgia back to the Stone Age for access to “openness” and “transparency” in our government.

While the AJC is busy gives kudos and backslaps to Powell and Olens, PV sees a different intent altogether with this bill: Bait-and-Switch of what the definition of “Sunshine” should really entail.

There is not one corrupt-free reason that Section 50-18-70(g) should have been struck from the law. Everyone has a computer these days…all governments do as well, and to strike this requirement demonstrates someone had forethought and deliberate intent to make it a whole LOT more challenging for people to access public information from their governments. The only question remains is WHO that person was?

There will be more Alerts issued this week as PV wades through this bill and wonders what other land mines lie in wait for our so-called “open and transparency-based government in this state.” Stay tuned.

ATLANTA, Ga. (March 9, 2012) — Fox Business Network host and commentator John Stossel will be the keynote speaker at a special April 12 dinner celebrating the upcoming relocation of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) to Atlanta this fall.

The dinner, entitled An Evening with FEE, will take place April 12 at 7:00pm at the Atlanta Renaissance Waverly Hotel (Galleria). FEE is one of the oldest free-market organizations in the country, reaching more than 15,000 students a year through week-long seminars and other events.

At the dinner, Stossel will deliver a positive, inspiring message about school choice and privatization, and his new book – No, They Can’t: Why Government Fails, But Individuals Succeed – will be available for purchase. Stossel is long-time friend of FEE and a frequent contributor to The Freeman magazine, FEE’s signature publication since 1956.

Event tickets can be purchased online; $125 a person, $200 a couple and $1,000 for a table of eight. For details visit http://www.fee.org/stossel.

About the Foundation for Economic Education

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) inspires, educates and connects students with the ‘first principles’ of freedom by exploring the economics of free enterprise and a limited government. Founded in 1946, FEE is a non-political, non-profit, tax-exempt educational foundation and accepts no taxpayer money. FEE is supported solely by contributions from private individuals, foundations, and businesses and by the sales of its publications. For more on FEE, please visit www.fee.org

Interviews and speaking requests may be arranged by contacting Margaret Poteet at (404) 419-1303 or at mpoteet@fee.org.

260 Peachtree Street, NW
Suite 2200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 419-1303

What is the difference between a Republican who is in favor of TSPLOST and a Communist? The Communist will admit he’s a Communist; the Republican who supports T-SPLOST won’t.

Foreword

I’ve been doing lots of thinking lately. I mean a LOT of thinking. I’ve been engaging in a lot of thinking lately because I haven’t spent my time watching ANY of the presidential debates. None. I consider the debates to be nothing but a circus sideshow designed to lure me away from working on something productive for me and my life, and so far, I don’t believe I’m missing anything of any substance.

What have I been doing instead? Listening to books-on-CDs. Not fictional crap. Not political history crap. Not biographies of presidential candidates crap.

No, I’ve been listening to books that feed my mind business and life philosophies. You’d be amazed at what you can learn when you step-out of the political mishmash (of, again, crap) and take-on the challenges of listening to the ideas and philosophies of non-political people.

One such book I just finished listening to for the first time was the 1938 book by Napoleon Hill called “Think And Grow Rich.”

It is not a book that will show you how to “get rich quick.” It is a book chock-full of lessons in morality, lessons in business, and, especially, lessons in how to control your own mind.

The book should have been more aptly titled “How to Control Your Mind So That It Helps You Get Rich”, whether that “richness” is richness in life, richness in monetary wealth, or richness in whatever goal you would like to achieve.

It’s a challenging book to read, and a pretty challenging book to even listen to, not because it’s boring, but because as each new idea and viewpoint is revealed, I found my mind spinning-off into a thought process relating to what I just heard and then I had to reel my mind back-in to focus on the next nugget. (If you buy it on CD, I advise using a remote-controlled CD player to work through it because some parts you want to stop-rewind-play to listen to over and over again due to how poignant the subject matter is.)

(By the way, lest I leave you bereft with the benefit of being able to acquire the “book” version, the copyright protection for Think And Grow Rich expired sometime in the past few years, and I found a PDF version on the Web which you can have access to by clicking and saving it on your computer here.)

There were several amazing things I derived from my first “listen” to the audio version. Several things that apply to our current economic and political times.

The book was published just after the Great Depression ended. Lots of the conversation is all about what led up to it, what happened during it, and what people were faced with during the time of the Great Depression.

The parallel in the times it covered compared to today’s times is uncanny with what people were screaming about back then, and what they’re screaming about today.

Here’s one excerpt that I laughed my butt off at because it’s so fitting to today’s political environment:

(Page 121): “Just to keep the record simple and understandable, I will add that these capitalists are the self-same men of whom most of us have heard soap-box orators speak. They are the same men to whom radicals, racketeers, dishonest politicians and grafting labor leaders refer as “the predatory interests,” or “Wall Street.”

See anything familiar in that excerpt? “Grafting labor leaders” of the 1920s are today’s union bosses. “Dishonest politicians” of the 1920s are, well, like they’ve always been in EVERY country on the planet: Dishonest low-lifes.

“Predatory interests” and “Wall Street” of the 1920s are what the ignorant “Occupiers/Newt Gingrich Supporters” of today scream and whine about with regards to “Wall Street” and “venture capitalists.”

If you can pull yourself away from the political debate circus for long enough to immerse yourself in “Think And Grow Rich,” your mind will be a lot better for it and you will find yourself thinking a whole lot better about yourself and the world around you. (Of course…you actually have to have a mind in order to do this. Some of you folks have allowed your brain to become nothing but a reflection of what happens in the political world and your cortex has melted away.)

And, now…the feature presentation…
Read the rest of this entry »

The Basics of State Tax Dollars

Which costs more, a dollar of private money or a dollar of state government tax money? While this question may provoke you to think of an age-old question like “Which weighs more, a pound of gold or a pound of chocolate?”, and subsequently you jump to the conclusion that a pound of gold weighs the same as a pound of chocolate and a dollar in the private sector is equivalent to a dollar of public sector money, that leap would be incorrect.

What’s the difference? A whole lot, actually. For the subject matter at hand, I am going to focus strictly on the state tax dollars since this is a discussion centered around what the state legislature does with state tax dollars (however, the same logic presented can be easily applied to county and school tax revenues with different tax rates).

The Georgia state sales tax rate is 4%. This means that for every taxable product purchased for delivery within the geographical boundaries of the State of Georgia, each dollar expended on buying those products requires an additional $0.04 of private sector capital money to be paid to the state of Georgia.

The state income tax rate is a sliding scale from 1% to 6% as a cap. For ease of calculation purposes, assume that the average income tax rate is 6% as a conservative number.

Though I know there is not a 50-50 split in revenue derived from sales taxes and revenue derived from income tax rate, let’s assume there is just to get this analysis going (Note: Yes, I know there are other taxes and fees, etc. but these are the two primary ones for state revenue tax dollar generation).

Taking the average of 4% sales tax and 6% income tax rate, we get an average rate of 5%. What does this mean? It means that for every dollar of economic activity generated by the private sector in Georgia, the state will collect 5 cents ($0.05) on top of each dollar spent for itself. ‘Economic activity’ being some form of purchase or earnings that occurred.

Which…means that in order for the state to receive just one dollar of tax revenue, there had to have been $20.00 of economic activity that took place within Georgia.

AND…in actuality, that extra dollar that goes to the state means that someone in the private sector actually had to spend $21.00 of their money to purchase $20.00 worth of goods/services/earnings, and also contribute $1.00 to the state in taxes.

What is the relevance of all this? It is to give you and, especially, the legislators, the meaning behind the numbers that appear on a budget sheet. It means that for every dollar you are asked to spend by some Chamber of Commerce lobbyist about some “great new idea that we need for economic development,” consider that in order for that idea to be a “great investment for Georgia,” it has to directly produce at least $21.00 of economic activity just to break-even on the deal.

And, if all the investment does is “break-even” on the economic investment, there might be a better, more profitable use for those funds that need to be explored. Here’s a thought I’m just going to, you know, put way out there: How about giving money BACK to the taxpayers???

Now, so you’ll have an easy way to figure-out what the breakeven point must be for every investment of “State-Dollars”, use this simple formula: 21 x State-Dollars = Absolute Minimum Economic Breakeven Point of State Dollar Investment.

Call this The Rule of 21®. Because it takes $21 of economic activity to just breakeven on each dollar invested in state tax dollars.

So, for the heck of it, let’s apply the Rule of 21 to some “real-world” examples.

Example #1: Go Fish!

In 2007, then-Governor Sonny Perdue sold the legislature on a deal to invest $19 million in state tax dollars to build an infrastructure of boat ramps and fishing museums to attract multi-million dollar fishing tournaments to the state.

Now, I recall a conversation at the time of this legislation I had with a member of the state house. As I recall, the number he told me that Go Fish! would generate for the state was the order of $250-$285 million of new economic activity over 10 years. Hmm…was that a good investment of state tax dollars?

Let’s use the formula (that would have applied then as it does today since the sales tax rate was 4% then, as was the maximum average income tax rate 6%) we now have: 21 (times) $19 million = $399 million in total new economic activity that would have to be generated just to breakeven.

Good, sound, “conservative” investment, eh? Doesn’t look like it to me. $399 million is $114 million more than the predicted maximum number of $285 million of economic activity this investment was supposed to generate.

Now, the economy tanking aside (which killed the ROI on Go Fish!), there’s the well-known Murphy’s Law of Government which needs to be taken into account before any decision is made by government: “If anything can go wrong, it will do so in triplicate.”

So, this is what we have with that $19 million investment into Go Fish!: 1) An investment that was never there with even a breakeven ROI. 2) Taxpayers who have to keep paying for the Legislature’s inadequate ability to properly apply basic sound principles of financial management.

Example #2: CAPCO

CAPCO is a newly reborn idea of legislation to enable insurance companies to receive tax credits for money they would be paying to the state revenue department, but instead they divert this money to some venture capital firms to use to invest to generate economic activity on behalf of the state. And, whatever profits derived from those ventures would be kept by the venture capital firms, and the ONLY benefit the state might see would be the resulting economic activity from which they would derive either sales tax revenue or income tax revenue from the jobs created, or a combination of both forms of tax revenue.

This news article written by James Salzer of the AJC in late December 2011 provides some good background info on the bill.

This is the legislation in question (it’s long to read, but if you read that first link above that is James Salzer’s AJC write-up, and then read the bill, you’ll understand it a little better.

If you go down to Section 3(d)(1), you’ll find this statement: “The aggregate amount of investment tax credits to be allocated to all participating investors of Georgia business investment companies under this Code section shall not exceed $125,000,000.00.”

What does this mean? Well, it means that if there is a cap on the total amount of tax credits granted to all participants of $125 million dollars, then that $125 million is, essentially, state revenue tax dollars being diverted into multiple venture capital funds with no oversight worth a crap (and any claims that there are are poppycock because we all KNOW from experience that this state’s legislature cannot see fit to supply the real State Ethics Commission with the amount of money they need to enforce compliance of ethics laws, so how will the state provide qualified oversight of a $125 million investment fund? They won’t, and anyone claiming they do will be exposing themselves to be a pathological liar.)

SO…oversight issues aside, what happens when the Rule of 21 is applied to this “economic investment?” Let’s see: 21 x $125 million means that the absolute minimum breakeven point in NEW economic activity that must be generated by this investment is $2,625,000,000. Or, to write it more simply $2.625 billion dollars in new activity.

State Rep Ben Harbin sponsored this legislation. Frankly, I am interpreting this legislation from Harbin to…basically be a cry for help…help in the form of someone performing an electoral intervention for him. Help in the form of someone (ANYONE) qualifying to run against him and kicking him out for trying to overtly set-up nothing but a crony-capital scheme to screw the taxpayers of Georgia.

Because with a breakeven point required of $2.625 billion, it would frankly be a better investment for the state to take those $125,000,000 and invest it in gold bullion because THAT has a higher chance of increasing in value than the generation of $2.625 billion in economic activity from the likes of whoever Harbin’s pals are with the Georgia Chamber of Commerce who convinced him that this would be a keen idea for the taxpayers of Georgia.

Hell, if the state had invested the $19,000,000 it wasted in Go Fish! in 2007 in gold when it was an average of $650 per ounce, it would have been a way better payoff than throwing it into an unprofitable venture like Go Fish!

Conclusion

Truly fiscal conservatives know there is always a cost to capital investment, whether it is private money or whether it is public tax dollars. Enough of the analysis and decision-making based on flowery language and promises of “job creation” by chamber of commerce snake-oil purveyors. Apply the Rule of 21 to every potential state government “investment for economic development” to see if the proposal is practical at all.

Leave the “job creation” to the private sector. Let the private sector KEEP more money, and we’ll create more products and more services that people will find useful enough to buy, and we’ll create jobs the old-fashioned way: by demand for useful goods and services.

Rumors have it that Republican candidate for president Newt Gingrich has now, officially, superseded his previous “dumbest thing” he ever did (i.e., sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi whining about his belief in human-perpetrated global warming) with a brand-spanking NEW “dumbest” thing ever done.

And, his National Campaign Director Michael Krull thought it’d be so cool to share this by posting it on the Gingrich Facebook Wall on Saturday, December 24th at 6:28 PM. Here is the entire post and the highlighted paragraph PV takes issue with:

———————————————————–
“By now you’ve likely heard that our effort to gain access to the primary ballot in Virginia was not successful. This was not due to a lack of effort by our volunteers, but the cumbersome process in Virginia.

We are exploring alternate methods to compete in Virginia – stay tuned.

Going forward, we will be as in-front of the process as possible and with the help of our grassroots volunteers we will make all other deadlines.

Newt and I have talked three or four times today and he stated that this is not catastrophic – we will continue to learn and grow. Remember that it was only a few months ago that pundits and the press declared us dead after the paid consultants left. They declared that the decision not to compete in the Ames Straw Poll would mean that Iowans would ignore us. Some will again state that this is fatal.

Newt and I agreed that the analogy is December 1941: We have experienced an unexpected set-back, but we will re-group and re-focus with increased determination, commitment and positive action. Throughout the next months there will be ups and downs; there will be successes and failures; there will be easy victories and difficult days – but in the end we will stand victorious.

To help achieve that outcome we each need to spend the next 24 hours enjoying our families and friends as much as possible. Enjoy their company. Be grateful for them. Gather strength from them. The promise of a better future for our family and friends is the reason we are committed to rebuilding the America we love.

May the spirit of the season fill each of you. Merry Christmas.

Michael Krull
National Campaign Director”
———————————————————–

PV Says WTF? Really, Newt? You’re going to compare your failure to get on a ballot with “December 1941″…presumably, December 7th, 1941, perhaps?

Lest we at the Political Vine jump to any conclusions, let’s consider the possibilities:

1) Was it a surprise “attack” of Virginia’s Republican Party’s Rules that prohibited Newt Gingrich from getting his name on the ballot?

2) Were any of Newt Gingrich’s campaign volunteers gunned-down by any kamikaze aircraft and/or volunteer members of OTHER presidential campaigns working to get their candidate on the ballot with enough signatures?

3) Did torpedoes dropped from flying aircraft explode and sink any SUVs piloted by Newt’s volunteers criss-crossing the state trying to get signatures before the deadline?

4) Will the date that Virginia announced that Newt’s name will not be on the ballot be the “Day of Infamy” or the “Day of Stupidity” for the Gingrich campaign?

5) Could it have really been the Germans who bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and then they emigrated to Virginia, became Republicans, and ambushed Newt Gingrich when he tried to get his name on the ballot?

PV could go on and on here, but we’re not historians, we’re political satirists (and this stuff just writes itself).

Newt Gingrich Fans, pay attention to this question: If Barack Obama had said ANYTHING remotely resembling this kind of moronic, puerile analogy, would you have jumped all over him, Yes or No?

And, if the answer is “Yes”, but you don’t utter a peep concerning Newt’s use of this ridiculous “analogy,” then that makes you a potential candidate for being rather…intellectually dishonest yourself.

Newt’s fascination with repeatedly putting his own feet into his mouth aside, it is especially poignant to PV that not too long ago, a Newt supporter (in reference to the then-unraveling Herman Cain campaign) told the PV that “any candidate that cannot run their campaign effectively should not be President”…and, PV wonders if that theory applies to their own candidate now who could not acquire 10,000 registered voter signatures to get his name successfully on a state’s ballot?

Ya know, if you cannot find 10,000 registered voters, how the heck are you going to find 10,000,000* of them???

In a recent online article that exposed the fraud perpetrated by CNN when they claimed Ron Paul “abruptly ended” the interview with CNN reporter(sic) Gloria Borger last week, Newt offered his brilliant(sic) insight into the matter about Ron Paul’s newsletters: “But he’s sufficiently ready to be president? It strikes me it raises some fundamental questions about [Ron Paul].”

PV Sez: Same “fundamental questions” go for you, too, Newt.

PV Prediction: This year, the PPP will not decide the GOP candidate…the Republican Convention will actually be a real convention (complete with delegates/alternates being wined, dined, bribed, extorted, and whatever else people can do to secure a nomination). Count on bedlam and flotsam.

*10,000,000 votes was the approximate number of popular votes that Obama beat McCain by in 2008. (Yes, we know, Liberal Art Majors, that this country’s Presidential Elections are based on the results of the Electoral College and not the popular vote.)