Today, taking the first step toward what could be the most momentous ballot
fight in Massachusetts history, a group of small-government activists led by
two-time Libertarian Party candidate Carla Howell will file an initiative
petition to abolish the state's personal income tax. If the attorney general
approves the language and if the petitioners collect the necessary
signatures, the measure will be on the state ballot in 2002.

Fasten your seat belts. We may be in for a wild ride.

If Massachusetts voters get a chance to abolish the income tax, there will
be a din the likes of which this state has never known. Every special
interest that sups at the public trough will howl with fury, warning that an
end to the income tax will mean an end to civilization as we know it. The
schools will shut down, they will moan. The sick will die. The courts will
collapse. Bridges will buckle, the unemployed will go hungry, and every city
and town will sink into fiscal chaos. They will say, in short, that the loss
of its income tax will leave Massachusetts starved and disgraced. How can
Carla Howell possibly defend that?

Howell is the articulate Libertarian who challenged Ted Kennedy in the US
Senate race last year and drew 12 percent of the vote, nearly tying the
Republican candidate, who got 13 percent. It was a notable achievement for a
third-party candidate, especially one whose philosophy of minimal government
flies in the face of everything that liberal Taxachusetts is supposed to
favor.

Still, 12 percent is only 12 percent. Massachusetts voters may have cut
their taxes last November and voted Republican in the last three
gubernatorial elections, but it isn't exactly obvious that they want to
shrink state government radically. Howell and others who advocate an end to
the income tax will be fighting an uphill battle. Voters will be skeptical.
Opponents will be well-funded. Republican politicians no less than
Democratic ones will rush to defend the status quo. The media will trumpet
the horrors awaiting Massachusetts if the income tax goes by the boards. It
won't be an easy sell.

Even for those of us who consider taxation little better than legalized
theft, there is no denying that wiping out the income tax would take its
toll on state government. In 2000, the income tax generated more than $9
billion for the treasury - 57 percent of the state's total tax revenue of
$15.7 billion. It funded almost 41 percent of the state's $22 billion
operating budget. Critics will demand to know how Massachusetts could
survive without it. Will Howell have an answer?

Of course she will.

For a start, she can point out that seven states already manage without an
income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and
Wyoming. Two others, New Hampshire and Tennessee, tax only dividends and
interest. Beacon Hill may be addicted to income tax revenues, but addictions
aren't healthy. And as countless ex-smokers, ex-gamblers, and ex-drinkers
can testify, it is a blessing to overcome them.

No doubt Howell will make the point that state government spends so much
money because it has it, not because it needs it. The dollars gush in, so
many in recent years that the state literally hasn't been able to spend them
fast enough: Even with a budget racing far ahead of inflation, Beacon Hill
kept winding up with nine- and 10-figure surpluses. And that doesn't count
the billions stashed away, unused, in various rainy day and insurance funds.
Or the state's $7 billion share of the tobacco settlement.

Deleting the income tax from the state's fiscal calculations would not roll
us back to the 19th century. It would roll us back to 1991. Do the math:
Subtract $9 billion of income tax revenues from this year's $22 billion
budget and you are left with $13 billion. That was roughly the size of the
state's budget (in unadjusted dollars) when Michael Dukakis left office.
Many things have been said of Dukakis, but no one ever accused him of
cutting government to the bone. At $13 billion, state government was big,
powerful, intrusive, and top-heavy. Restored to $13 billion, it would still
be far from Spartan.

But it will certainly be smaller. And that, say Howell and her fellow
petitioners - who are organized as the Committee for Small Government - is
the point.

"Making state government small will make people's lives better and
happier," she told me yesterday. "$9 billion less for the state means $9
billion more for voters to spend on their priorities: their kids' education,
their churches, their retirement. It means $9 billion more for the
Massachusetts economy - and that means new businesses, new opportunities,
new jobs."

Ready or not, the mother of all ballot fights is about to begin. Better
buckle up.


Source:
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/212/oped/Abolishing_income_tax_is_feasible
+.shtml                
 DON'T YA'LL JUST LOVE IT WHEN "WE THE PEOPLE" GET CONTROL???? 

Warning to mayors of America's racially polarized cities: Competence matters.

Don't deliver on campaign promises, and voters will eventually throw you out, no matter what the color of your skin.

That's the lesson, at least, from this week's primary election in St. Louis, where the incumbent mayor, who is black, received a paltry 5 percent of the vote.

It also appears that St. Louis, where blacks and whites are almost evenly divided, is poised to join the list of places that freely swing between electing black mayors and electing white mayors. Having won the Democratic primary in a heavily Democratic city, Francis Slay, who is white, is widely expected to govern city hall after next month's general election.

While racial divisions in the United States remain in a glacial state, some optimists see in city politics the signs of a thaw. As more voters become willing to forgo race as the biggest factor in a local election, they say, that new pragmatism could begin to affect state and national contests too.

Here in St. Louis, Clarence Harmon, the city's second black mayor, was overwhelmingly rejected Tuesday because voters evidently viewed him as ineffective. He was challenged by two major candidates: a former mayor, Freeman Bosley Jr., who is black, and the president of the board of aldermen, Mr. Slay. Slay won handily, with 54 percent of the vote to Mr. Bosley's 41 percent.

If Slay wins next month, he would join white mayors who have taken over from blacks in a slew of cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

"The first time there's a black mayoral candidate, a lot of mobilization goes on," says Wilbur Rich, a political scientist at Wellesley College in Wellesley, Mass., and author of several books on black urban politics. "People say: 'It's our time.' But the black mayor himself has to make the case for reelection."

If those mayors can't, then they're eventually replaced. In some cities, even predominantly black ones such as Gary, Ind., and Oakland, Calif., white challengers made convincing cases they could get things done better. Both men won, helped by their political pedigrees (former California Gov. Jerry Brown in Oakland in 1998) and their ties to the black community (lawyer Scott King in Gary in 1995).

"It's a leap of faith, but it's a leap black people can make because they realize the political power they hold," Professor Rich says. "Let's face it. Black people have been voting for white people for a long, long time. The big deal is getting white voters to vote for blacks."

In many predominantly white cities, this is not a problem. Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, Denver, Minneapolis, and Des Moines all have elected black mayors. Half of the nation's big-city black mayors govern cities that don't have a black majority, says David Bositis, senior political analyst with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington think tank dealing with African-American issues. In all, nearly 500 US cities have black mayors.

But in urban centers where whites fear that "blacks are taking over," the equation doesn't look so rosy, political scientists say.

In Philadelphia, after white Mayor Ed Rendell replaced the city's first black mayor, he became immensely popular by turning the city around. When term limits ended his mayoral tenure, he endorsed John Street, the black president of the city council. Even with that endorsement, however, whites turned out in droves for his opponent, Sam Katz, who won 49 percent of the vote and nearly became the city's first Republican mayor in five decades.

In this week's St. Louis primary, exit polls revealed a similar racial divide. An overwhelming majority of blacks (85 percent) supported the black,candidate, while virtually the same percentage of white voters (86 percent) picked Slay. Mayor Harmon drew only 8 percent of white voters and 2 percent of blacks.

"The issues related to race are very deep," says John Logan, a sociologist at the University at Albany (N.Y.). "And ... there's been almost no change in the dimensions of the problem. What changed was the willingness of white candidates to be accountable for what they do on race issues and look for black support."

After Rudolph Giuliani, a white Republican, took over from the city's first black mayor, he managed to govern despite virtually ignoring local black leaders.

But most mayors - white and black - have eschewed that model. Instead, they're following the example of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. Elected two years after the death of the city's first black mayor, Harold Washington, Mr. Daley reached out to blacks and Hispanics. During his tenure, for example, the city has paid $9.8 million to help 14 of Chicago's largest black churches run social and day-care programs, according to the Chicago Reporter. In his last reelection bid two years ago, Daley won better than 4 in 10 voters in the city's 20 predominantly black wards.

Already, cities such as Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles are seeing a rise of other ethnic minorities, which complicate the balancing act all mayors perform. Professor Logan says this fragmentation will influence racial politics more than the move to judge candidates by competence.

St. Louis has yet to feel that impact. But because the mayor shares budget power with the city comptroller and the president of the board of aldermen, coalition-building is a hallmark of local politics.

"It's been clear since the '80s that any effective governing coalition ...Is a biracial coalition," says Terry Jones, a political scientist at the University of Missouri at St. Louis.

THERE IS HOPE FOR HOUSTON YET!!!!!!

LOAO...WE THINK HE SOLD OUT, AND THE WHOLE THING WAS A POWER PLAY....AND NOW HE HAS BEEN PROMISED MORE POWER...ALSO SUPPORT FOR WHATEVER POSITION HE WANTS TO RUN FOR IN 2003...LOOK AT WHO HIS CAMPAIGN TREASURER IS...NONE OTHER THAN TWO TIME CAMPAIGN TREASURER OF LEE PEE'S.. JACK LINVILLE....THAT WHOLE DEAL STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN, AND CARROLL SHOULD BE ASHAMED. WE CERTAINLY ARE ASHAMED OF HIM.

DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH!

LEE PEE IN A SWIMSUIT??????PLEEEEEEEEEEEEASE NO!

DARLIN...UNDER THIS MAYOR IT'S THE PRIVATE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE GIVEN OUT THAT HAVE EATEN OUR TAXES UP...THE ONLY STANDARD FOR BEING ON THE "A" LIST FOR RECEIVING A CONTRACT IS THAT YOU HAVE DONATED/RAISED MONEY FOR LEE PEE...DON'T GIVE US THAT CAPITALISM BIT.....THESE IDIOTS ARE "CAPITALIZING" AND MAKING A FORTUNE BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR THE RIGHT TO A CONTRACT....DON'T BELIEVE US? CHECK OUT WHO GAVE LEEPY MONEY....~~> THEN EVERY WEEK LOOK AT COUNCIL AGENDA AND SEE WHO GETS THE CONTRACTS!!!!!

From: 
To: <snitch@housnitch.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 10:32 AM
Subject: Where there' smoke there' fire
Sunland is sooo nervous about the revelation that they are padding their TxDOT invoices that they are trying to cover their tracks.

They did the same at the City of Houston. All they have to do is check with some ex city employee that knows about it.

Err ahh, does anybody know where Jerry King is working?

KING IS NOW WITH SUNNLAND....AND LEEPY IS GIVING THEM LOTS OF CONTRACTS...JUST WAIT UNTIL YA'LL HEAR EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS COMPANY....WE WANT TO FILE AGAINST IT FIRST THEN WE'LL TELL YOU!

Who monitors the results of the rank tests that HPD takes..ie. LT and Capt Tests...and does HPD have a quota that must be racially met in each rank regardless of the outcome of the tests that they take.I also would like to know where events may contact to get a free HPD escort such as the one in the
recent gay pride parade. I think this is a good idea and think perhaps the city should consider making HPD units availabe for Little League parades, football parades,school fall carnivals etc. Most of these organziations must budget $ to pay officers to attend. It would be nice to have them for free....what a great community service...thank you for your time

CAN'T ANSWER THE ONE ABOUT THE RANK TESTS ... BUT HAVING PARTICIPATED/THROWN A NUMBER OF PARADES/PROTEST MATCHES, I CAN TELL YOU THAT ALONG WITH EVERY PARADE PERMIT COMES POLICE PROTECTION ... FOR CROWDS, TRAFFIC, AND PEOPLE. IT'S CALLED MAINTAINING  "CONTROL"... AND YOU DO PAY A FEE FOR THE PERMIT. IF VEHICLES ARE INVOLVED YOU ALSO MUST CARRY IN EXCESS OF $1 MILLION DOLLARS IN INSURANCE.

I know this article doesn't pertain to HFD, but this could be a problem if we allow assessment testing to take place.

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Local & State

Aug. 2, 2001, 10:34PM
EEOC says city broke U.S. law
Public Works didn't save data
By JO ANN ZUÑIGA
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle

A city department violated federal record-keeping laws when it did not file test scores of black applicants seeking promotion to senior inspector, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found.

"Evidence also revealed that the interviewers failed to retain all of their `interview question sheets with scores' taken during their interviews," Joan
Ehrlich, EEOC district director, noted in a July 26 letter reporting the agency finding......

WATCH 'EM GUYS!!!!!!

Sometimes, there is justice in the world....

 Cigar Story

A Charlotte NC lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars then insured them against fire among other things.  Within a month having smoked his entire  stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on  the policy, the lawyer filed a claim against the  insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer  stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small  fires."  The insurance company refused to pay, citing the  obvious reason: that the man had consumed the  cigars in the normal fashion.     The lawyer sued....and won! In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the  insurance company that the claim was frivolous.  The Judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held  a policy from the company in which it had warranted  that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed  that it would insure them against fire, without defining  what is considered to be "unacceptable fire," and was  obligated to pay the claim.  Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process,  the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid  $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars  lost in the "fires."     NOW FOR THE BEST PART...     After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company  had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!!  With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous  case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of  intentionally burning his insured property and sentenced him  to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine. 

This is a true story and was the 1st place winner in the recent  Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.