After City Hall concluded its first round of public hearings, the citizens of Little Rock finally got their first glimpse of the proposed new sales tax initiative last week which is intended to plug an on-going financial problem with meeting the needs of this city. While fully recognizing that something has to be done on the revenue side to address those needs, I must say that the general proposal as recently publicized may be a tough sell. For one thing, while ambitious in its attempt to fund many worthwhile issues, it falls way short of detail in explaining exactly how this money will be spent and what oversight mechanisms will be installed to ensure public accountability. Also, I think it is strategically flawed in its bifurcated structure which only serves to complicate the tax proposal for consideration by our citizens.
Unless I have missed something, it is to have two tax rate increases, one for 1/2% tax to raise approximately $205 million for capital needs which will expire after eight years, and another 3/4% perpetual tax to raise approximately $38 million for general operations by the fourth year assuming a 2% annual growth rate. In regard to proceeds from both taxes the breakdown is as follows:
CAPITAL NEEDS OPERATIONS
Public Safety $ 44,400,000 $ 15,000,000
Public Works $ 70,000,000 $ 5,000,000
Economic Development $ 40,000,000 -0-
Parks, Recreation, $ 40,300,000 $ 4,000,000
Zoo and Tourism
Miscellaneous $ 10,000,000 $ 14,000,000
Totals $ 204,700,000 $ 38,000,000
Aside from being much too general and vague, it appears to be the same old Christmas tree tax proposal that once again is designed to be debated and voted on during the sparsest time of the year for public input in order to maximize a positive result. Just look at the schedule for the second round of public hearings which start tomorrow, June 13th and conclude on June 25th, a popular vacation period for many citizens. Having led a sales tax increase initiative in 2003 to raise $100 million over five years to just address the basic infrastructure needs of this city (i.e. streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, drainage system, etc.) which eight years ago totaled over $500 million, I get the timing. What I don't get is the resistance to fully disclose more detail about both tax proposals which only raises doubts and creates suspicion among the voters. At least in 2003 we identified some specific projects throughout this city that needed to be fixed.
In addition, if some citizens of Little Rock are still complaining about the lack of accountability for the $200,000 that is gifted to the Chamber of Commerce each year for economic development, just imagine what questions will be raised regarding a proposed $40 MILLION economic development fund! And, of course, the "least of these" apparently get left in the wake again with no discernible provision in either tax proposal that I can find to fund a homeless day resource center which has been discussed for years. Yet we are asked to provide who knows what to house and maintain animals at the Little Rock Zoo which reflects a total disconnect in priorities in my view. And, relative to providing additional tax revenue for "tourism", don't we already pay a special sales tax in Little Rock to the Advertising and Promotion Commission dedicated just for that purpose? So, Mr. Mayor, City Directors and Mr. City Manager, please be more open with your citizens and not be so reticent to provide the additional detail on these proposed hefty sales tax increases at the very time you are asking us to support them. We all need many more specifics on how you intend to spend this additional revenue which would make it much easier for you to get what you want.
And, finally, getting back to a point made earlier, why not just consolidate these two separate proposals into one simple 1% permanent sales tax with a dedicated split between operations and capital needs? Surely, an additional $50 million annually is enough to make needed repairs, purchase equipment, build buildings and operate this city for a long, long time without possibly coming back asking for more tax in eight years.
For more of what information does exist on these two proposals, please go to the Arkansas Times blog at http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2011/06/07/little-rock-sales-tax-talk.
ARTISTS - Visual and Audio
Laura Raborn at http://paintingsofhome.com and http://claygifts.com
Jim Johnson at http://yessy.com/jimjohnson/gallery.html
Russ Powell at http://powellphotos.com
Linda Flake at http://lindaflake.com
Tom Herrin at http://tommysart.blogspot.com
Matt McLeod at http://matt@mattmcleod.com
Artists Registry at http://www.arkansasarts.org/programs/registry/default.aspx
Sandy Hubler Fine Art at http://sandyhublerfineart.com
George Wittenberg at http://postcard-art-gallery.com
Will Barnet at http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&expIds=17259,17315,23628,23670,24472,25834,26095,26328,26562,26637,26761,26790,26849,26992,27095,27126,27139,27147,27178&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=will+barnet&cp=9&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=xpfETMT1O4L6lwf66ugE&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQsAQwAQ&biw=1350&bih=501
Barry Thomas at http://barrythomasart.com
Sherry Williamson at http://meowbarkart.com
Julie McNair at http://juliemcnair.com
Phoebe Lichty at http://phoebelichty.com
GALLERIES
Local Colour Gallery at http://localcolourgallery.com
Chroma Gallery at http://chromagallery.com
Cantrell Gallery at http://cantrellgallery.com
Greg Thompson Fine Art at http://gregthompsonfineart.com
Red Door Gallery at http://reddoorgalleryonline.com
M2 Gallery at http://m2lr.com
UALR Gallery Program at http://ualr.edu/art
Gallery 26 at http://gallery26.com
Boswell Mourot Fine Art at http://boswellmourot.com
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
"We Want Peace"
One bi-product of taking a leave of absence from blogging is that the world continues piling up stories of conflict, abuse of power, sex scandals, political shenanigans, education turmoil, etc., all of which provide great fodder for not only print journalist and television talking heads, but also for those of us who are much less formally qualified but still have a passion to offer commentary on such issues. The problem is simply choosing one subject from this vast array of topics. However, one recent event in the news just screams for attention if for no other reason than its profound importance to the world. Specifically, I am referring to the seemingly endless Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
First, let me offer a little personal history on this subject. On March 13, 1956, while on a trip to the Middle East as part of a Mediterranean cruise with my grandmother, aunt and three cousins, we were on the way from Beirut to Damascus to visit the Holy Land by car when our caravan was stopped at the Syrian border for routine passport checks. When what should have been a simple brief event turned into a prolonged process, it became apparent that something was wrong. To make a long story short, my grandmother and I were informed that we would not be allowed to enter Syria because they thought we were Jewish and the tour operators could not guarantee our safety. The point being that this was my very first experience with the same discrimination that many Jews have long felt which some think caused many to flee their Arab neighbors for Europe, so I am not insensitive to their situation. In any event our entire family elected to abandon that segment of our trip and return to Beirut and accept the kind invitation of a Lebanese politico, whom we had met on board ship after one of his lectures on the Arab/Israeli conflict, to visit him at his home in Tripoli should we have time. Little did we know at the time that we would. This brings up the second point of this little sidebar - i.e. he was the very first person I can ever recall framing this problem in the historical context of having gone on for centuries, and that it may take centuries to solve it. History seems to be confirming his prophesy, which brings me back to the subject at hand.
Since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 there have been 13 different Prime Ministers (four served subsequent second terms), most of whom have proclaimed "We want peace". My first personal memory of this position goes back to Golda Meir in 1969, followed in succession by Yitzhak Rabin (who was assassinated in 1995 for his support of the Oslo Peace Process), Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and now Mr. Netanyahu again. What's astounding to me is that several of these leaders also supported some form of land grant back to the Palestinians, most notably Ehud Olmert who actually proposed the very same pre-1967 War plan suggested by President Obama this week which caused the current prime minister to make such a big issue of something that had been discussed for years by parties to the on-going peace negotiations. And then for him to object to these borders just as a starting point stating that they are "indefensible because of certain changes on the ground" was somewhat disingenuous, as he actually was referring to the thousands of Jewish settlements which President Nixon first called "illegal" and President Reagan then termed "not constructive". But that did not stop Mr. Netanyahu from ordering while still here this week that 1,500 more be built.
Even George Mitchell, the venerable and highly respected former senator who has been working tirelessly to resolve this conflict until his announced resignation, confirmed the validity of the pre-1967 War borders as an accepted starting point just today on ABC's This Week with Christiane Amanpour. In his words there is "no major shift" in policy and that protecting Israel's interests "with agreed swaps" is "significant" because it addresses the settlement issue mentioned above. With the entire Middle East now in the throes of revolution and reform, it's quite possible that Israel might find itself odd man out if continued intransigence prevails, particularly if the Palestinians are successful in getting the United Nations to grant them statehood this fall. King Abdullah II of Jordan on the same ABC program got it right by suggesting that it's always easy "to find an excuse why not to do the right thing". To watch both and hear their exact statements go to (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-comments-israel-1967-borders-major-policy-shift/story?id=13658890.
To lighten up the atmosphere and shamelessly promote a very talented daughter, may I suggest that you enjoy some great new original music now available free at http://phoebelichty.com/.
First, let me offer a little personal history on this subject. On March 13, 1956, while on a trip to the Middle East as part of a Mediterranean cruise with my grandmother, aunt and three cousins, we were on the way from Beirut to Damascus to visit the Holy Land by car when our caravan was stopped at the Syrian border for routine passport checks. When what should have been a simple brief event turned into a prolonged process, it became apparent that something was wrong. To make a long story short, my grandmother and I were informed that we would not be allowed to enter Syria because they thought we were Jewish and the tour operators could not guarantee our safety. The point being that this was my very first experience with the same discrimination that many Jews have long felt which some think caused many to flee their Arab neighbors for Europe, so I am not insensitive to their situation. In any event our entire family elected to abandon that segment of our trip and return to Beirut and accept the kind invitation of a Lebanese politico, whom we had met on board ship after one of his lectures on the Arab/Israeli conflict, to visit him at his home in Tripoli should we have time. Little did we know at the time that we would. This brings up the second point of this little sidebar - i.e. he was the very first person I can ever recall framing this problem in the historical context of having gone on for centuries, and that it may take centuries to solve it. History seems to be confirming his prophesy, which brings me back to the subject at hand.
Since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 there have been 13 different Prime Ministers (four served subsequent second terms), most of whom have proclaimed "We want peace". My first personal memory of this position goes back to Golda Meir in 1969, followed in succession by Yitzhak Rabin (who was assassinated in 1995 for his support of the Oslo Peace Process), Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and now Mr. Netanyahu again. What's astounding to me is that several of these leaders also supported some form of land grant back to the Palestinians, most notably Ehud Olmert who actually proposed the very same pre-1967 War plan suggested by President Obama this week which caused the current prime minister to make such a big issue of something that had been discussed for years by parties to the on-going peace negotiations. And then for him to object to these borders just as a starting point stating that they are "indefensible because of certain changes on the ground" was somewhat disingenuous, as he actually was referring to the thousands of Jewish settlements which President Nixon first called "illegal" and President Reagan then termed "not constructive". But that did not stop Mr. Netanyahu from ordering while still here this week that 1,500 more be built.
Even George Mitchell, the venerable and highly respected former senator who has been working tirelessly to resolve this conflict until his announced resignation, confirmed the validity of the pre-1967 War borders as an accepted starting point just today on ABC's This Week with Christiane Amanpour. In his words there is "no major shift" in policy and that protecting Israel's interests "with agreed swaps" is "significant" because it addresses the settlement issue mentioned above. With the entire Middle East now in the throes of revolution and reform, it's quite possible that Israel might find itself odd man out if continued intransigence prevails, particularly if the Palestinians are successful in getting the United Nations to grant them statehood this fall. King Abdullah II of Jordan on the same ABC program got it right by suggesting that it's always easy "to find an excuse why not to do the right thing". To watch both and hear their exact statements go to (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-comments-israel-1967-borders-major-policy-shift/story?id=13658890.
To lighten up the atmosphere and shamelessly promote a very talented daughter, may I suggest that you enjoy some great new original music now available free at http://phoebelichty.com/.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Mr. Brooks, Meet Mr. Krugman
First, in answer to several inquiries as to the absence of posts since March 27th, I have been dealing with some personal issues that caused this hiatus, not the least of which was a tree falling through our house one month ago today during the first wave of recent tornadoes that swept across Arkansas and the south. With recovery well under way, my hope is to resume postings again on a regular basis, but as I have said here before, events will always trump intentions.
Now, to the current issue at hand which was addressed by both David Brooks and Paul Krugman on the very same page of last Friday's New York Times - i.e. the budget debate raging in congress. Not surprisingly, Mr. Brooks in his own unique way has boiled the solution down to a marriage between "spending caps" which the Democrats hate, and "deficit caps" which the Republicans hate, as the former would drastically change Medicare as we know it, and the latter would trigger tax increases. To get around this divide, if substantial spending cuts could be negotiated between both parties, then that would open the door for support for a tax reform package that would raise major tax revenue through closing various loopholes, but leave tax rates in place to conform with a Republican pledge never to raise. It really just gets down to semantics, as the end result is exactly the same, tax revenue is increased which is essential to any successful future budget plan.
Right next door to Mr. Brooks' column is Paul Krugman's slant on the budget question which takes an entirely different tack in that he views any reduction in spending created by "spending caps" would severely reduce funding the very social programs like Medicare on which an ever increasing number of Americans will come to rely. To illustrate his point, if you take the proposed spending cap of 20% of GDP bantered around in both Mr. Brooks' and Mr. Krugman's columns and apply that to health care for our older population that is expected to increase from 20.9% of Americans 65 or older per 100 members of the working population in 2007 to 31.7% in 2025, a 52% increase, and then compound that with ever increasing costs of that health care, there will be a multitude of older Americans who would be devastated by that loss of support. However, he also points out that the older population represents a mighty powerful voting bloc which should cause the Republicans some real heartburn as they attempt to drastically curb spending on very popular social entitlement programs like Medicare.
And then there is the looming issue of using approval of a raised debt limit by both sides as their wedge to achieve their respective objectives. Some say not raising it would trigger an economic Armageddon, others say it really will have little effect. Frankly, I have no idea who is right, but I do know that it's not a risk I would be willing to take were I a voting member of congress. Having suffered through one of the worst economic periods since the great depression that is still in a fragile recovery, I would think most Americans would have little patience with those who would make that irresponsible gamble with our future, as well as a very long memory should the catastrophic theorists be correct.
Now, to the current issue at hand which was addressed by both David Brooks and Paul Krugman on the very same page of last Friday's New York Times - i.e. the budget debate raging in congress. Not surprisingly, Mr. Brooks in his own unique way has boiled the solution down to a marriage between "spending caps" which the Democrats hate, and "deficit caps" which the Republicans hate, as the former would drastically change Medicare as we know it, and the latter would trigger tax increases. To get around this divide, if substantial spending cuts could be negotiated between both parties, then that would open the door for support for a tax reform package that would raise major tax revenue through closing various loopholes, but leave tax rates in place to conform with a Republican pledge never to raise. It really just gets down to semantics, as the end result is exactly the same, tax revenue is increased which is essential to any successful future budget plan.
Right next door to Mr. Brooks' column is Paul Krugman's slant on the budget question which takes an entirely different tack in that he views any reduction in spending created by "spending caps" would severely reduce funding the very social programs like Medicare on which an ever increasing number of Americans will come to rely. To illustrate his point, if you take the proposed spending cap of 20% of GDP bantered around in both Mr. Brooks' and Mr. Krugman's columns and apply that to health care for our older population that is expected to increase from 20.9% of Americans 65 or older per 100 members of the working population in 2007 to 31.7% in 2025, a 52% increase, and then compound that with ever increasing costs of that health care, there will be a multitude of older Americans who would be devastated by that loss of support. However, he also points out that the older population represents a mighty powerful voting bloc which should cause the Republicans some real heartburn as they attempt to drastically curb spending on very popular social entitlement programs like Medicare.
And then there is the looming issue of using approval of a raised debt limit by both sides as their wedge to achieve their respective objectives. Some say not raising it would trigger an economic Armageddon, others say it really will have little effect. Frankly, I have no idea who is right, but I do know that it's not a risk I would be willing to take were I a voting member of congress. Having suffered through one of the worst economic periods since the great depression that is still in a fragile recovery, I would think most Americans would have little patience with those who would make that irresponsible gamble with our future, as well as a very long memory should the catastrophic theorists be correct.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Packing Heat in the Pews
Just when you think that our state legislature has exhausted their capacity to craft unnecessary and sometimes mindless legislation, along comes proposed House Bill 1958 "TO ALLOW A CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSEE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN IN CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP". In truth, this bill just amends the current prohibition against carrying concealed weapons to church by allowing all churches and other places of worship to decide for themselves who may carry such weapons, but that does not make this legislation any less onerous Go to http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2011/2011R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=HB1958 to learn more about this bill and its sponsors, as well as http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2011/2011R/Bills/HB1958.pdf for a copy of the bill itself.
What is it about the New Testament that the 65 members of the House who voted yea don't understand? I was always taught that it is, essentially, a message of love, tolerance, forgiveness and acceptance as described in various verses including 1st Corinthians 13:1-13 (the Love Chapter), Galatians 5:22-23 (listing the Fruits of the Spirit) and Matthew 5, 6 & 7 (The Sermon on the Mount), to name a few. So, what's next, preachers suiting up with ammunition belts crisscrossed against their chests holding a rifle much in the image of Pancho Villa just to set the tone of the service? Or maybe churches could sell guns and ammunition in their vestibules as fund raising events. It brings an entirely new dimension to the expression "Clinging to God and guns" which got so much attention in the 2008 presidential campaign. If there is one place on earth where we should all feel free of any possible chance of armed violence, it is sitting in our place of worship regardless of faith. If Jesus chased the moneychangers from His "house of prayer" for their contemptible acts, I wonder what he would do today with people packing heat in his temple?
And, finally, isn't it the responsibility of the state legislature to protect its citizens with prudent and reasonable statutes, rather than create the possibility of a "Gunfight at the OK Corral" environment, particularly in a place of worship? This is one really bad piece of legislation among some 3,235 total bills filed just this session (go look for yourself at http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2011/2011R/Pages/SearchBillsByRange.aspx ) that should immediately be, pardon the pun, shot down in my view.
What is it about the New Testament that the 65 members of the House who voted yea don't understand? I was always taught that it is, essentially, a message of love, tolerance, forgiveness and acceptance as described in various verses including 1st Corinthians 13:1-13 (the Love Chapter), Galatians 5:22-23 (listing the Fruits of the Spirit) and Matthew 5, 6 & 7 (The Sermon on the Mount), to name a few. So, what's next, preachers suiting up with ammunition belts crisscrossed against their chests holding a rifle much in the image of Pancho Villa just to set the tone of the service? Or maybe churches could sell guns and ammunition in their vestibules as fund raising events. It brings an entirely new dimension to the expression "Clinging to God and guns" which got so much attention in the 2008 presidential campaign. If there is one place on earth where we should all feel free of any possible chance of armed violence, it is sitting in our place of worship regardless of faith. If Jesus chased the moneychangers from His "house of prayer" for their contemptible acts, I wonder what he would do today with people packing heat in his temple?
And, finally, isn't it the responsibility of the state legislature to protect its citizens with prudent and reasonable statutes, rather than create the possibility of a "Gunfight at the OK Corral" environment, particularly in a place of worship? This is one really bad piece of legislation among some 3,235 total bills filed just this session (go look for yourself at http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2011/2011R/Pages/SearchBillsByRange.aspx ) that should immediately be, pardon the pun, shot down in my view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
