I am sending the following freedom of information act request to the Town of Olive Town Supervisor, Berndt Leifeld. The Democratic Party lied to the American people. It claimed to be the party of the poor and middle class. But when Barack Obama was elected, his first and so far only tangible series of acts was to transfer four trillion dollars to America's super-rich. That is the largest example of corruption in American history. If you combine the corruption associated with Jay Gould, Jim Fiske, John D. Rockefeller, Willy Durant and his insider trading while at General Motors, the corruption on Wall Street in the 1920s that preceded the Great Depression, Enron, Worldcom and the other late 1990s scandals, the S&L crisis of the late 1980s, you combine them, and triple them, they are less than the corruption associated with Barack Obama and the Democratic Party of 2009. Yet, the American media continues to crow about the Mr. Obama's supernatural powers. He is not only the most corrupt president, he is the most corrupt individual in American history.
In our little Town of Olive, we see a microcosm. Corrupt Democrats, who justified the massive wealth transfer to banking interests in the name of "deflation", aim to raise taxes by nearly nine percent. It doesn't bother the Democrats to talk about "deflation" and nine percent tax increases (with utterly no concomitant increases in services) in the same breath. The degree of stupidity and corruption in American politics is nonpareil.
After two trips to the Town of Olive offices I was able to obtain a copy of the September 2009 year-to-date budget variances. The variances indicate that spending has been at approximately 69% of the budget but 75% of the year has passed. That makes it difficult to understand why a nine percent tax increase is necessary.
I reproduce the letter, which I am sending certified mail this morning.
PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
October 21, 2009
Mr. Berndt Leifeld
Olive Town Supervisor
45 Watson Hollow Road
West Shokan, NY 12494
RE: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear Mr. Leifeld:
Thank you for providing most of the budget reports I requested upon my second trip to your office. I have a few questions for public consumption.
1. The highway and general fund budgets indicate that the Town has spent 69.01% of the amount budgeted as of September 30, but 75% of the year had passed as of that date. This indicates a budget surplus.
2. Where do budget surpluses get deposited and what are the balances in all of those accounts?
3. When have surplus, unspent monies been used to reduce taxes, and when have they been used to increase special and earmarked accounts?
4. This is a freedom of information act request for copies of all current monthly or quarterly bank account and certificate of deposit (not to exceed 50 pages) statements pertaining to the Town of Olive Highway Fund; the Town of Olive General fund; and special or earmarked funds. These should encompass all town cash, certificate of deposit and other liquid holdings.
5. If (4) does not encompass all town cash holdings I would appreciate an explanation as to what funds have been excluded.
6. This is a freedom of information act request for the accounting reconciliation of cash and fund accounts involving end-of-year transfers from the Town’s general and highway funds to earmarked accounts (not to exceed 25 pages).
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Town of Olive Republican Committee
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Aristotle: Virtue Proves the Existence of God
"The question might be raised 'Is luck the cause of this very thing--desiring what one should or when one should?' Or will luck in that way be the cause of everything? For it will be the cause both of thinking and deliberating; for a man who deliberates has not deliberated already before deliberating and deliberated also about that--there is some starting point. Nor did he think, after thinking already before thinking, and so on to infinity. Intelligence, therefore, is not the starting point of thinking, nor is counsel the starting point of deliberation. So what else is there save luck? Thus everything will be by luck. Or is there some starting-point beyond which there is not other, and this-because it is of such a sort--can have such an effect? But what is being sought is this: What is the starting point of change in the soul? It is now evident: as it is a god that moves in the whole universe, so it is in the soul; for in a sense, the divine element in us moves everything; but the starting-point of reason is not reason but something superior. What then could be superior to knowledge and intelligence but a god? For virtue is an instrument of intelligence."
Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics, Book VIII.
Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics, Book VIII.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Town of Olive: Nine Percent Tax Increase When There's an Eight Percent Surplus?
Berndt Leifeld and the rubber-stamp Olive Town Board refused to publish the Town's budget variances when I proposed that they do so at a recent Town Meeting. One of the Democrats suggested that I get out of town instead. However, after two trips to the Town of Olive office on Watson Hollow Road in West Shokan the Democrats-in-power did provide me with a list of budget variances as of 9-30-09, which I copied into the Google Docs file below. You will notice that there are many variances in the year-to-date budget, including a large positive variance with respect to health insurance.
Nine months into the year, the Town is under budget. The total budgeted spending for the year is as follows.
Olive Highway Budget, 2009: $1,715,202
Olive General Fund Budget, 2009: $2,178,065
Total: $3,893,267
Three fourths or nine months of these budgeted amounts are:
Olive Highway Budget 9-30-09: 3/4 x $1,715,202 = $1,286,402
Olive General Fund Budget 9-30-09: 3/4 x $2,178,065 = $1,633,549
Total: 3,893,267 x 3/4 = $2,919,950
But actual spending as of 9-30-09 is as follows:
Olive Highway Actual Spending 9-30-09: = 1,183,727
Olive General Fund Actual Spending 9-30-09: = 1,485,312
Total = 2,669,039
Note that 2,669,039 / 2,919,950 = 91.4%. That is, the Town is under budget by 8.6%.
Now why, during a supposed "depression" that President Barack Obama and the Democrats used to justify a $4 trillion subsidy to the wealthiest Americans, hedge fund managers, investment bankers, money center commercial banks, George Soros and the like, is it necessary to raise taxes when the Town is under budget?
(Note: You can scroll down or across using the bar at the bottom of the Google Docs chart.)
Nine months into the year, the Town is under budget. The total budgeted spending for the year is as follows.
Olive Highway Budget, 2009: $1,715,202
Olive General Fund Budget, 2009: $2,178,065
Total: $3,893,267
Three fourths or nine months of these budgeted amounts are:
Olive Highway Budget 9-30-09: 3/4 x $1,715,202 = $1,286,402
Olive General Fund Budget 9-30-09: 3/4 x $2,178,065 = $1,633,549
Total: 3,893,267 x 3/4 = $2,919,950
But actual spending as of 9-30-09 is as follows:
Olive Highway Actual Spending 9-30-09: = 1,183,727
Olive General Fund Actual Spending 9-30-09: = 1,485,312
Total = 2,669,039
Note that 2,669,039 / 2,919,950 = 91.4%. That is, the Town is under budget by 8.6%.
Now why, during a supposed "depression" that President Barack Obama and the Democrats used to justify a $4 trillion subsidy to the wealthiest Americans, hedge fund managers, investment bankers, money center commercial banks, George Soros and the like, is it necessary to raise taxes when the Town is under budget?
(Note: You can scroll down or across using the bar at the bottom of the Google Docs chart.)
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Burkean Conservatives Tell Diedrich Knickerbocker-Style History
Diedrich Knickerbocker was Washington Irving's fictional historian who told a fictional account of early New York. In a similar way, Edmund Burke and his conservative followers tell a fictionalized history of the world in which Europe was originally a free market society and through the "progress" of "liberalism" the freedom has eroded to the point where rights established in the 17th century now need to be protected from further inroads. That story is a Diedrich Kinckerbocker history.
Here are a few points about the fallacies of Burkean conservatism:
1. Liberalism was an innovation of Locke and other liberals in the 17th century, and it evolved out of a reaction to state-dominated social organization. The European kings had been attempting to centralize state control of the economy since the fall of Rome. In fact, Rome was the inventor of the mixed economy, centrally controlled political system pretty much what is called "Progressivism" or "state-activist liberalism". Hence, this economy is neither liberal, conservative or Progressive. It is reactionary.
2. "Liberalism" means "of freedom" or pertaining to a free man. It was Locke's and several other theorists' radical creation. Although British institutions had evolved gradually since the Norman invasion, the dominant world view of Europe and Britain was the "great chain of being". Liberalism rejects the great chain of being in a much more fundamental way than any other ideology, more so than Progressivism, mercantilism, socialism or communism which re-create the great chain of being, asserting the need for centralized elites. It is therefore the most radical of any ideology.
3. There was never any other meaning of "liberalism" until the Progressive era in the early twentieth century. There was never a debate between "liberals" and "conservatives" in the 18th or 19th centuries. These terms were later creations, and both are creatures of Progressivism.
4. American conservatism begins with William Howard Taft's presidency. Taft did not like Roosevelt's idea of establishment of the Federal Trade Commission and regulation of trusts. Roosevelt wanted to establish a regulatory agency to manage trusts and to control prices. Taft wanted to regulate trusts through legal prosecution under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Both Taft and Roosevelt were Progressives.
The modern "conservative" movement descends from Taft-style Progressivism. The modern "liberal" movement descends from Roosevelt-style Progressivism. Neither has anything to do with the liberalism of the 19th century. Both are radical breaks.
5. The ideas of current-day "liberals" or "progressives" are a recapitulation of mercantilism and the Roman economy. Hence, they are not "progressive" but reactionary. The ideas of free market capitalism descend from Adam Smith. Both mercantilism and free market ideas were created at the same time. David Hume, Lord Shaftesbury and the other mercantilists and the advocates of free market capitalism, Adam Smith, were rough contemporaries. Smith wrote in response to mercantilist ideas that had been discussed in his lifetime.
6. Federalism, Montesquieu's creation of the 18th century, was NOT a gradual creation and was not conservative. It did exist in Switzerland, so unless the United States had been a colony of Switzerland, federalism's application here was radical. Montesquieu argued that federalism was the best system to create a democratic form of government. There was nothing conservative about the adoption of federalism by the founding fathers. They had read Montesquieu and they applied his ideas anew.
7. Current day "liberalism" is mercantilism. It advocates a strong central state to manage the economy. American liberalism of the nineteenth century lead by the Democratic Republicans starting with Jefferson and on through Andrew Jackson and his followers rejected mercantilism. Mercantilism did not reappear until the Progressive era. The Progressives called mercantilism "Progressivism".
8. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were Federalists. Washington was NOT A FEDERALIST. Hamilton advocated mercantilism. Adams, who had been Washington's vice-president, was the only elected Federalist. The Federalists supported the anti-libertarian Alien and Sedition Acts. Adams lost in 1800 and the Federalist Party disappeared, completely and soundly rejected. Although Hamilton's Bank of the United States continued until 1836 (it had been terminated and then re-established in 1816), it was terminated as the country became more committed to freedom and less committed to mercantilism.
9. The debate between "conservatives" and "liberals" in the twentieth century was between two sets of mercantilists, neither of whom focused on the chief aspects of free market capitalism that characterized the nineteenth century.
Hence, American conservativsm is NOT CONSERVATIVE. It conserves nothing. It is an aberration from the evolution of the American economy in the nineteenth century and it asserts insitutions such as the Federal Reserve Bank, economic regulation and Social Security that have absolutely no continuity with the American past.
To assert an American conservativism, conservatives have a choice of several illogical claims.
1. They can claim that it is conservative to support the Progressivism of Roosevelt but not the laissez faire economics of Jackson.
2. They can claim that it is conservative to support the 18th century mercantilism of Hamilton and Hume but not the 18th century free market ideas of Smith and Jefferson.
3. They can claim that it is conservative to support the free market ideas of Jackson, but to reject the older Roman and 16th century emphasis on centralization (Henry VIII, for instance, aggressively centralized monarchical power and stripped away the aristocrats' local armies and other of their powers).
There is little that is conservative about the Bill of Rights. These were innovations that were occurring and need to evolve as stresses on freedom change. There is nothing conservative about any of it.
Rather, there is a choice between state control, which goes back to the Egyptian, Persian and Greek times and before, and freedom, which also goes back to the days of Athens. There is nothing "progressive" about state control (and calling it "liberal" is Orwellian) and there is nothing "conservative" about rights.
There is liberalism or libertarianism and there is authoritarian or totalitarian authority. "Progress" or "conservation" are ruses and are used for deceptive purposes.
Here are a few points about the fallacies of Burkean conservatism:
1. Liberalism was an innovation of Locke and other liberals in the 17th century, and it evolved out of a reaction to state-dominated social organization. The European kings had been attempting to centralize state control of the economy since the fall of Rome. In fact, Rome was the inventor of the mixed economy, centrally controlled political system pretty much what is called "Progressivism" or "state-activist liberalism". Hence, this economy is neither liberal, conservative or Progressive. It is reactionary.
2. "Liberalism" means "of freedom" or pertaining to a free man. It was Locke's and several other theorists' radical creation. Although British institutions had evolved gradually since the Norman invasion, the dominant world view of Europe and Britain was the "great chain of being". Liberalism rejects the great chain of being in a much more fundamental way than any other ideology, more so than Progressivism, mercantilism, socialism or communism which re-create the great chain of being, asserting the need for centralized elites. It is therefore the most radical of any ideology.
3. There was never any other meaning of "liberalism" until the Progressive era in the early twentieth century. There was never a debate between "liberals" and "conservatives" in the 18th or 19th centuries. These terms were later creations, and both are creatures of Progressivism.
4. American conservatism begins with William Howard Taft's presidency. Taft did not like Roosevelt's idea of establishment of the Federal Trade Commission and regulation of trusts. Roosevelt wanted to establish a regulatory agency to manage trusts and to control prices. Taft wanted to regulate trusts through legal prosecution under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Both Taft and Roosevelt were Progressives.
The modern "conservative" movement descends from Taft-style Progressivism. The modern "liberal" movement descends from Roosevelt-style Progressivism. Neither has anything to do with the liberalism of the 19th century. Both are radical breaks.
5. The ideas of current-day "liberals" or "progressives" are a recapitulation of mercantilism and the Roman economy. Hence, they are not "progressive" but reactionary. The ideas of free market capitalism descend from Adam Smith. Both mercantilism and free market ideas were created at the same time. David Hume, Lord Shaftesbury and the other mercantilists and the advocates of free market capitalism, Adam Smith, were rough contemporaries. Smith wrote in response to mercantilist ideas that had been discussed in his lifetime.
6. Federalism, Montesquieu's creation of the 18th century, was NOT a gradual creation and was not conservative. It did exist in Switzerland, so unless the United States had been a colony of Switzerland, federalism's application here was radical. Montesquieu argued that federalism was the best system to create a democratic form of government. There was nothing conservative about the adoption of federalism by the founding fathers. They had read Montesquieu and they applied his ideas anew.
7. Current day "liberalism" is mercantilism. It advocates a strong central state to manage the economy. American liberalism of the nineteenth century lead by the Democratic Republicans starting with Jefferson and on through Andrew Jackson and his followers rejected mercantilism. Mercantilism did not reappear until the Progressive era. The Progressives called mercantilism "Progressivism".
8. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were Federalists. Washington was NOT A FEDERALIST. Hamilton advocated mercantilism. Adams, who had been Washington's vice-president, was the only elected Federalist. The Federalists supported the anti-libertarian Alien and Sedition Acts. Adams lost in 1800 and the Federalist Party disappeared, completely and soundly rejected. Although Hamilton's Bank of the United States continued until 1836 (it had been terminated and then re-established in 1816), it was terminated as the country became more committed to freedom and less committed to mercantilism.
9. The debate between "conservatives" and "liberals" in the twentieth century was between two sets of mercantilists, neither of whom focused on the chief aspects of free market capitalism that characterized the nineteenth century.
Hence, American conservativsm is NOT CONSERVATIVE. It conserves nothing. It is an aberration from the evolution of the American economy in the nineteenth century and it asserts insitutions such as the Federal Reserve Bank, economic regulation and Social Security that have absolutely no continuity with the American past.
To assert an American conservativism, conservatives have a choice of several illogical claims.
1. They can claim that it is conservative to support the Progressivism of Roosevelt but not the laissez faire economics of Jackson.
2. They can claim that it is conservative to support the 18th century mercantilism of Hamilton and Hume but not the 18th century free market ideas of Smith and Jefferson.
3. They can claim that it is conservative to support the free market ideas of Jackson, but to reject the older Roman and 16th century emphasis on centralization (Henry VIII, for instance, aggressively centralized monarchical power and stripped away the aristocrats' local armies and other of their powers).
There is little that is conservative about the Bill of Rights. These were innovations that were occurring and need to evolve as stresses on freedom change. There is nothing conservative about any of it.
Rather, there is a choice between state control, which goes back to the Egyptian, Persian and Greek times and before, and freedom, which also goes back to the days of Athens. There is nothing "progressive" about state control (and calling it "liberal" is Orwellian) and there is nothing "conservative" about rights.
There is liberalism or libertarianism and there is authoritarian or totalitarian authority. "Progress" or "conservation" are ruses and are used for deceptive purposes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
