USA and North Korea celebrate 15 April

For Americans some are protesting it as Boston Tea Party day, a day to protest taxes, as it is the day for the final lodging of tax returns for the Federal government. A tax code that is mind numbingly complex, give the likes of lawyers and H & R Block completely unproductive jobs helping people avoid the heavy hand of the US Federal Government pursuing its number one goal - taking money off of US citizens to pay for its activities. NOTHING the US Federal Government does is pursued with such relentless threats and assuming guilt (with you having to prove innocence) like it pursues tax.

CNN reported "CNBC personality Rick Santelli went off on Obama's policies live on air. "The government is promoting bad behavior," he said, his voice loud. He asked why Obama would make Americans who pay their bills subsidize the mortgages of "losers." Santelli said he wanted a tea party to happen in Chicago, to stand up and angrily demand "No more.""

The Ayn Rand Institute explains more clearly what the problem is:

"Today, thousands of Americans are joining modern day tea parties, named after the Boston Tea Party of 1773. They are protesting a government that, in the wake of today's financial crisis, is rapidly strangling their freedom, with endless bailouts, mounting regulations, reckless spending, and the promise of a crippling tax burden. Correctly sensing that the American system is being discarded, they seek to battle this trend by taking to the streets to register their outrage.

But today's statist onslaught is the result of a deeply entrenched set of ideas about the proper purpose of government. Virtually everyone today believes that unrestricted capitalism is immoral and dangerous, and that the government's role is to actively intervene in the economy in order to achieve the "public good." So long as these ideas remain unchallenged, and no positive alternative is offered, no protest will be able to change the country's course."

That is why a moral defence of capitalism is essential.

Don't expect the man who has engaged in the biggest exercise of fiscal child abuse in world history to do much substantively about it, he is part of the problem. President Obama is promising a simpler tax code according to the Wall Street Journal:

"It will take time to undo the damage of years of carve-outs and loopholes," Obama said. "But I want every American to know that we will rewrite the tax code so that it puts your interests over any special interest."

However, his record in combatting the special interests of his party is so far nil.

SO what about North Korea? Well 15 April is the birthday of President Kim Il Sung. Yes he has been dead since 1994, making North Korea the world's first necrocracy according to Christopher Hitchens. It's a public holiday in North Korea.

Just thought it was a curious parallel.

What Maori can do about representation

Read Blair Mulholland's latest post. It's pretty much on the ball.

Unlike the racist victim promoters in the Green Party and the Maori Party he says:

"No need to worry about rednecks like Harawira and Hawke, you have a right to vote and stand and be elected for the new Council just like everybody else. All you need to do is put it into action and stand!

Good luck in 2010. I hope to see some of you on the hustings, and some of you at the table when it is all over."

A hikoi or protest will deliver nothing in comparison.

Labour complaining about its own policy!

What else can explain the inane press release from former Beehive spin doctor Brendon Burns (now MP for Christchurch Central) moaning that Sky Television won the rights to broadcast the Rugby World Cup?

He says it "is another example of the National/Act Government’s ‘hands-off’ policies failing New Zealanders".

Brendon, it is the same frigging policy that existed under Labour.

There are no so-called "anti-siphoning" laws in New Zealand, there never were under Labour (although Jim Anderton supported them, they would be contrary to New Zealand's WTO commitments in audio-visual services for starters).

So moaning that less than half of households have Sky, really is unimportant, as most people know someone with Sky, and most pubs in the country have Sky.

Or would Brendon rather that taxpayers subsidised TVNZ to pay an unprofitable price for the broadcasting rights?

It hardly matters - National didn't change the law - Brendon just doesn't like a policy that has been in place for the entire period of the last Labour led government.

Talk about scratching around desperately for issues!

MORE good news from The Standard

This time how the government is not forcing you (those who own homes outright and those who have yet to buy a home) to pay for people who took out mortgages they can no longer afford.

I guess The Standard supports subsidies for people who borrow to buy real estate. If that isn't a transfer from lower income taxpayers (those too poor to own, or the elderly who are income poor, but many own their own homes) to middle income ones, I don't know what is.

Socialists are funny aren't they, thinking that when the government doesn't take your money to spend it on propping up people who took risks, that you will be unhappy about it.

A rates cap is not enough

A comment by Nick on one of my posts about the Auckland supercity said:

"Rodney Hide has said the LGA will be amended and this will include a cap on Rates to inflation + population growth. That cap will get rid of these quangos overnight even if the power of general competence remains."

Blair Mulholland thinks that:

"The point of the reforms was not to reduce the size of local government, although it may yet do that. The point was not to reduce rates, although it may yet do that. The point was always to destroy the vice-like grip of socialists and busybodies over our fair region."

Blair essentially thinks that the political demographic of the supercity will lean towards the centre-right, which is nonsense. He says "The Left will lose out in such a contest, not because they have less money (as they will inevitably whine) but because they are simply less organised in Auckland."

Blair is naive. The ARC has been centre-left dominated since its inception, it resisted selling the Yellow Bus Company when National last reformed local government, so had to be forced to do so by legislation because it could not fairly be a subsidiser of public transport through competitive tendering, and compete with the private sector in those tenders. The proposals create a grand ARC. It will NOT stop the vice like grip of busybodies over Auckland - not by a long shot.

Nick's more interesting point that a cap on rates (well after inflation and population growth) will be an effective constraint also misses certain key points. Such a cap does NOT restrict the regulatory powers of local authorities, it does NOT restrict the powers of local authorities to borrow and start up public sector businesses. Given the growth of local government in recent years, it does nothing more than slow down future growth.

Like I said before, a supercity for Auckland does nothing to address the core question - what should be the role of local government?

New Zealand is NOT a federal constitutional democracy. Local government has powers purely because central government lets it. Local government currently has unlimited powers because the Labour/Alliance coalition, with Green party support, granted it such powers.

A rates cap should be introduced quickly as an interim step, but a fundamental review of the powers and purpose of local government is needed - now - before super unitary authorities are to be created.

I'd hedge a bet that as long as people are confident their footpaths and roads would be maintained, rubbish collected, water/sewage systems function, and private property rights are protected from encroachment or torts (e.g. nuisance), most would want nothing more from local government.

Moreover, I struggle to find a single useful activity local government undertakes that can't simply be user pays in one capacity or another, or isn't just a matter of delineation of what ought to be property rights.