More taxes

February 20, 2014

It seems that paying taxes to governments does not entitle us to get what we pay for.

The El Paso Times reported that the city of El Paso will pay $1.5 million dollars over 3 years to the feral government.  The money is to be used to pay salaries and overtime so that more agents can staff the ports of entry.

According to the article, the goal is to reduce waiting times on the bridges to “15 minutes and no more that 30 minutes”.  I have difficulty believing what the Times publishes especially when in the same article they wrote “City officials said last year that 2.6 vehicles crossed El Paso bridges.”

Not the point

The Times’ sloppy publishing is not my point.  Rather, why do we have to pay extra here?

Trashy

Similarly, why do downtown property owners have to pay the Downtown Management District to handle “sanitation and security” when the city is supposed to do that for them?  Recently the district has been involved in a controversy over a process that would allow them to double the taxes on members over a period of years.

Lucky us

The Texas legislature does not seem to want to pay to fund new roads in El Paso that some think are necessary.  Our city council formed the Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority whose purpose essentially is to raise money to fund transportation projects.  Our money.

Coming soon?

Might we see Neighborhood Investment Tax Watching Interior Transportation (NITWIT) zones soon?  These zones could impose an extra tax on individual neighborhoods to fund fixing our local streets.

We deserve better

Brutus

1 Comment | City government, County Government, El Paso Independent School District, Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Prove the charges fairly

February 19, 2014

The El Paso Times published a good headline article, Killers benefited by testifying, the other day.

Let me say first that I am not personally soft on crime, I just think that the government ought to have to prove their charges fairly.  Certainly what is deemed illegal for the defense should be illegal for the prosecution.

The article points out that in federal criminal trials witnesses for the prosecution are often rewarded based upon their testimony at trial.  These rewards take the form of shorter prison sentences, money, legal resident status as well as other incentives.

Paid to testify

The testimony is purchased by the government and jurors are asked to believe it.  If someone from the defense side of the case offers an incentive to anyone to testify, a felony is committed that I believe can result in a five year jail term.

So much for fairness.

The truth

If a citizen lies in a federal investigation another crime has been committed.  The penalty for that federal felony?  Five years in prison.

Many if not most federal indictees plead guilty to lying about their case rather than committing the underlying crime.  Just ask Martha Stewart.

On the other hand law enforcement officials are allowed to lie to you during an investigation.  An FBI agent telling you “Your friend is in the other room and has blamed the crime on you”, even if it is not true,  is legal.

So much for fairness.

Misprison

You can get sentenced for up to three years if you fail to report a felony that you are aware of.

Prove the case

Once again, please know that I think that criminals should be punished.

I think that the process of proving guilt should be fair.  The government should not use these techniques to prove a weak case or to save money and time.

Eternal vigilance is the cost of liberty.

Cato

Leave a Comment » | El Paso Times, Federal Government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

Congestion Mitigation

February 18, 2014

Not being an engineer, to me congestion mitigation is the same as coughing.

I guess they want us to cough up more money.

Item 3.4 on the February 10, 2014 city council agenda increases the cost of the ball park.

The September 25, 2013 El Paso Times editorial had this statement in it:

“Mayor Oscar Leeser made it clear the city will not add another cent to the now-$64 million project. He and City Council deserve credit for being firm on that.”

Crossings

The agenda item considers the construction of two pedestrian crossings over the depressed train way into the new ball park.  The project amount is set at $2,875,410.

This money clearly is part of the ball park cost and adds almost $3 million to the total.

Under “AMOUNT AND SOURCE OF FUNDING:”  our city engineer entered “NONE”.

Not so

The project requires an agreement between the city and the state titled “LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT ADVANCE FUNDING AGREEMENT For A Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement (2014 CMAQ STP-Flex) Off-System Project”.

The second page of the backup material is a proposed resolution that states “for a total project amount of $2,857,410 with a local contribution by the City of $239,976”.

That works out to 23,997,600 more cents when the mayor and council evidently said not a cent more.

And climbing

One document says no local money will be spent.  One page later a document says that $239,976 will be spent.  Then attachment C of the same document says that the “Local Participation” will be $545,400.

You can read the whole mess here.

Not one cent more

The vast majority of the project will be paid for with state and federal funds.

It seems obvious that someone was not telling the mayor and council the truth when they said no more money would be needed.  Otherwise I doubt that they would have said “not one cent more”.

Will council ever hold anyone accountable?

We deserve better

Brutus

4 Comments | Ball park, City government, El Paso Times, Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Too true

February 3, 2014

Brutus wrote about the city manager’s recent speech to a group downtown in City manager speaks of “undue tax burden”.

I followed the link to the El Paso Times article and read that she had said something else disturbing to me:

 “Some times you have people who have really great visions and are really forward thinking and sometimes they are a little ahead of their time and they push the envelop a little to [sic] far and a little too fast. But you have to do that to make change. We did a lot of really great things and I am really proud to be a part of the organization and the community.”

Too far, too fast

I googled “define too” and got this definition: “to a higher degree than is desirable, permissible, or possible; excessively“.

In other words more than they should have.

Try these explanations  and see what you get:

“Officer, I wasn’t speeding too much”.

“I didn’t steal too much”.

“I didn’t mean to hurt you too badly”.

Proud

It seems that her quote may define her administration.  I think she was saying that the end justifies the means.

That is precisely how we get out of control governments.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Cato

 

2 Comments | City government, County Government, El Paso Independent School District, El Paso Times, Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

If you don’t like the rules, change them, don’t ignore them

January 19, 2014

I would like to see our national government respect the tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The tenth amendment was passed to clear up the issues relating to the so-called “general welfare”,  “commerce”, and “necessary and proper ” clauses.  If the power is not enumerated in the constitution the national government does not have it.

Does the constitution need to be changed?  I believe so.  It was written over 200 years ago and our environment has changed.

Bring forward the proposed amendments, but until then quit ignoring the constitution.

We deserve better

Brutus

4 Comments | Federal Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »