Wednesday, March 27, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 1932

    Will Anyone Notice the Irony?

    The problem for socialist liberals is that they refute their own policies without meaning to do so. A recent report by the University of Washington is a case in point.

    The report states that the “bare-minimum costs” for living in Hawaii are three times that of the federal standard for poverty. The intent of the study is clearly to justify further wealth redistribution in the form of social programs on the part of government but has real implications for the current legislative session. To quote KITV’s HawaiiChannel.com, “The goal of the study is to help state policy makers to be more realistic when trying to lift Hawaii families out of poverty.”

    https://www.thehawaiichannel.com/news/2102694/detail.html

    And there is the following from the HonoluluAdvertiser article on the same report, “To bridge that gap, the report recommends opening access to job training and education, subsidized child care, housing, health care and food stamps to low-wage workers.” In other words, increase socialist programs and welfare spending.

    https://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Apr/10/bz/bz07a.html

    Thus the report says it costs a family of three over $50,000 to meet its basic needs while the federal poverty level for the same family is a mere $17,550. It seeks to bolster the justification for the aforementioned increased subsidies for the poor on the basis of this disparity. But there is another conclusion that can be drawn. Every penny taken in taxes is that much less for meeting the “bare-minimum” costs of living in this state. In this case, it is robbing Paul to give back to Paul. It simply makes no sense.

    According to the report a single adult would need to earn $10.71 an hour to be self-sufficient, second only to San Francisco. That means a single person would have to make over $22,000 a year just to meet the “bare-minimum.’ One wonders how much of this goes for taxes, but with the tax structure in this state it must be considerable.

    Now this is where it gets interesting. Our Democrat-controlled Legislature is considering increasing every tax and fee possible, in the face of a cost of living that is three times the federal poverty guidelines. They are going to intentionally increase that poverty by taking even more of individual income in the form of increased taxes.

    The increases in the General Excise Tax, the misnamed Long-Term-Care Tax, the proposed City Sales Tax authority, the increase in the Motor Vehicle Registration Fees, and the plethora of other fee increases are all considered to be regressive taxes. This means that the poorer one is, the more punishing these taxes are and the more they will impoverish precisely those who can least afford it. In addition, it will increase the cost of living in a city and state where that cost of living is already prohibitive, as documented by a socialist liberal study.

    The fact that the cost of living is documented to be so high in Hawaii should, for any logical person, preclude any further tax increases as being detrimental to the poorest, most unfortunate among us. In their quest to pander to the poor the Democrat majority in this state’s Legislature would do real damage to the livelihood of the very constituency they claim to intend to help. Every tax increase now being considered will take money out of pockets of those very people that other socialists have documented as being below the poverty line and already struggling to merely survive. This whole scenario is clearly self contradictory.

    It is time to point out the Democrat majority assertions that these tax increases are for the benefit of the people of Hawaii is false. They are not. They simply cannot be. The cost of living here is so high already that any and every tax increase is going to be far more punitive to the general population than any possible benefit.

    Even with the income tax deduction, which was reported to have been reduced from the $100 originally proposed to $80 when finally passed by the Senate, the cost to the individual by the GET, the General Excise Tax, will never be offset by this deduction. The hidden wholesale costs of the GET means that most people will never see the tax increase that actually comes directly out of their pocket. They will just notice prices will increase for everything they buy and it will get harder to make ends meet. The GET will tax far more than just the 4.5 percent they pay retail at the counter. It is truly a highly sophisticated shell game.

    The stated reason for the increase in GET is to increase funding for schools. If that is the case then why isn’t the whole $180 million being allocated to the schools instead of only $120 million, with the remaining $60 million going into the general fund? This is plainly disingenuous. It is transparent misdirection. It is simply a tax increase, plain and simple.

    In the face of this study these tax increases are clearly ill considered. One has to ask to what degree the high cost of living documented is directly due to the current GET and high tax policies with which the Democrat majority has already saddled this state. When is one of the socialist liberal university studies going to get around to exploring this question? The answer is never, the truth is too terrible to contemplate.

    To return to the final line of the KITV article, “The goal of the study is to help state policy makers to be more realistic when trying to lift Hawaii families out of poverty.” What would be the most realistic thing to do to lift Hawaii families out of poverty? Leave more money in their pockets instead of taxing it to fund one boondoggle after another. Don’t increase excise taxes, income taxes, bus passes, motor vehicle registrations, city taxes, and every other fee possible. Let the people keep the money they have worked so hard to earn.

    Stop punishing businesses by taxing them to the point that it becomes a choice between paying those taxes or giving employees wage increases. Stop taxing everything that moves so that it becomes nearly impossible to successfully run a business in this state. Stop insisting that the only solution to the problems in this state is for government to spend ever increasing amounts of money.

    Linda Lingle was elected governor on a platform pledge not to raise taxes. If these resolutions pass then she will have to veto them, although she has refused to say she that so far. If she does, the Democrats will scream bloody murder about her not caring about the poor, not caring about education, not caring about the needs of the state. They will scream about cuts that are, in fact, not cuts but reductions in spending increases. Mostly they will just scream.

    If she doesn’t veto these proposals then she will be regaled as a hypocrite who can’t keep her campaign pledges, who couldn’t even honor her own platform. What the Democrats are attempting to do is set up a scenario where they can attack Gov. Lingle no matter what she does, whichever path she takes she loses. That is what this is really all about, it is a cynical struggle for political power.

    The best case scenario is also the worst case scenario. The Democrats pass these bills, Gov. Lingle vetoes them, and the Democrats override the vetoes. Taxes will go up, living here will become even more difficult, more people will leave in disgust, more people will go into slip into poverty, more businesses will go bankrupt or pull up anchor and leave altogether, and the general economic condition of the islands will deteriorate.

    The connection between this economic deterioration and the Democrat Party’s insistence on increasing taxes will be inescapable. They will no longer be able to hoodwink the people into thinking it is due to anything other than their insistence upon implementing their socialist spending schemes. It will simply not be possible to take hundreds of millions of dollars out of this economy without doing great damage to it. And this time they won’t be able to escape the responsibility of causing that damage. It will be too obvious.

    So the economy of Hawaii will sink. The Democrats will do irreparable damage to their party in the process and the state will move even further to the right, as it has demonstrated at tendency to do the last two election cycles. The harm on a personal scale will be terrible and it will take years to repair, this is worst case side. That the Democrats will weaken their party’s grip on the state even further in the process is the best case side. The cost will be documented by another socialist liberal study that won’t make the connection either, but will study the damage done by the very policies they once proposed.

    Will anyone notice the irony?

    ”’Don Newman is a free-lance writer in Honolulu. He can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:newmand001@hawaii.rr.com

    The Moral Case for Use of Force to Disarm Iraq

    The other day we watched as the Iraqi people pulled down a statue of Saddam Hussein in downtown Baghdad. We watched as they dragged the head of that statue through the streets of that city which has for so long been under the tyranny of this madman. We watched as children used their shoes to hit posters of the now deposed ruler of Iraq.

    We were able to watch these things because when it mattered Americans did not stand by and watch but got involved. We saw a compelling reason to take up arms in defense of world peace and security against an evil man with weapons of mass destruction.

    In recent weeks, and even now while we speak, we hear and read of people who say that the use of force is never justified, that war is never morally acceptable, and that our very presence there is evil.

    They protest. They march. But in the end they do nothing to oppose a man who has murdered his own citizens, a man who celebrated the 9/11 attack and who is amassing weapons of mass destruction to use against the “infidels of America.”

    It is clear that believers of all faith agree that war was never part of God’s plan. All was perfect in the beginning — whether by Christian, Jewish or Muslim theology. Before that, all was idyllic in the universe, at least until Lucifer sinned. Then there was war in heaven, and Lucifer was expelled

    Propaganda Machines in Hawaii Should Take a Lesson from Iraqi Minister of Information

    Did you see that Iraqi Minister of Information on TV? He was great, a classic.

    I wish that if people here in Hawaii were going to propagate misinformation to that same extent, that they’d at least do it with that flair and panache — rather than in all seriousness. Then at least we’d know when to laugh. Otherwise, like the Arabian audience who really took them seriously, they lose all faith and confidence in the reports and media.

    Today’s local media offerings indicate some union is readying itself for contract negotiations by planting the notion that in Hawaii, the poverty level is three times higher than what it is as a national standard.

    So while it would be at the poverty level for three to live on an income of $18,000 in the rest of the U.S., in Hawaii, a family of three needs $51,000 just to match that poverty level.

    The Honolulu Advertiser’s writer couldn’t tell the difference between the University of Washington and Washington University, where presumably he got that authoritative information.

    The KITV article omitted attributing that to any Mainland source but instead quoted some person affiliated with the University of Hawaii for his credibility.

    The pathetic thing is that neither source apparently have anybody on their staffs who can discern the preposterously bogus from real science — and that is the indictment of the education one expects to get in Hawaii. Why is that worth a premium?

    The ultimate objective of education is to produce citizens capable of learning and thinking for themselves — and not going through their whole lives relying on these “experts” to do their thinking for them.

    Such a system is referred to as a technocracy — in which those who have been given the benefit of the credit for being knowledgeable in a field, then claim that trust as their divine jurisdiction. And thus they claim in future discussions on these matters, that only these experts, know and have a right to direct the course of the agenda, which invariably comes to be, that they endlessly need to get more money because the problem they were charged with addressing in the first place, has now gotten totally out of control, requiring all our society’s resources.

    When this occurs, obviously we are investing in the problem rather than its solution and elimination. The object of health care is not to have better, more expensive health care and well-paid professionals in this field — but to have health to obviate the need for health care.

    But we also notice when these health-care workers go out on strike that they’re not exactly paragons of good health themselves but often as it turns out, are the prime candidates for their own services. Likewise in education, one would think that the good teacher is the one to which his students feel less reliance on his continued, perpetual guidance.

    Isn’t that the product we hope to produce through education? Or is it these people who are so easily manipulated and deceived because they cannot discern any differences that they will believe anything any propagandist and con artist wishes them to believe? And that’s why we need the people to reclaim education and health as their essential rights — rather than continue to be exploited for the benefit of a few self-designated people (oligarchs).

    So as we see the people being liberated in Iraq, here in Hawaii, we need to be mindful that we too are not really a democracy in this true sense but are controlled by the powerful vested self-interests, whose only skill and talent seems to be in learning how to play the game. And that is what we reward rather than the person of honor, integrity and good health. Thus we see in the reports this pervasive cynicism and corruption of those who have known and know nothing else. And that is all they ever communicate to us — their utter despair of ever having met somebody who ever told them the truth about anything. “What difference does it make?”

    The objective of any healthy society are people who can tell these differences and therefore make intelligent choices — for themselves, and not to produce as its ultimate product, people who cannot — and thinking that is a compassionate, intelligent, well-meaning society, liberal and tolerant society. Societies like that are the evil in the world.

    ”’Mike Hu is a resident of Honolulu and can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:humikhu@aol.com

    Grassroot Perspective – April 11, 2003-On the Chopping Block: The Real Cost of Corporate Welfare; United They Fall: Unions Won't Prosper if American Corporations Don't; Real Earnings Higher in Right to Work States: Evidence From the AFLCIO Empire; The Fundamental Problem with Social Security

    0

    “Dick Rowland Image”

    ”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

    – On the Chopping Block: The Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

    By Michael LaFaive

    A World Connected, Institute for Humane Studies

    It is poor economics and fundamentally unfair for government to pick
    winners and losers by providing special breaks, favors, or subsidies to
    certain firms and not their competitors. The only problem is, state
    governments are doing exactly that.
    CONTACT: Institute for Humane Studies, 3401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 440,
    Arlington, VA 22201, 703/934-6920, fax 703/352-7535, email mailto:ihs@gmu.edu
    https://www.theihs.org

    – United They Fall: Unions Won’t Prosper if American Corporations Don’t

    By Stephen Moore

    Cato Institute

    It would appear that the pilots and mechanics will soon discover an
    important lesson: The alternative to accepting reduced salaries will be
    no jobs at all. The United labor fracas raises the question of whether
    unions have so outserved their usefulness that they are now doing more
    harm than good for American workers. The unions are already losing
    hundreds of thousands of members every year, and their recent behavior
    suggests that labor bosses are intent on accelerating their own demise.

    CONTACT: Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC
    20001, 202/842-0200, fax 202/842-3490, https://www.cato.org

    – Real Earnings Higher in Right to Work States: Evidence From the AFLCIO
    Empire

    By Stan Greer

    National Institute for Labor Relations Research

    Right to Work laws safeguard employees’ freedom of association
    evenhandedly: They prohibit the firing of employees for refusal to join
    or pay “fees” to a union, and they also prohibit termination for joining
    or financially supporting a union. Union officials’ opposition to Right
    to Work laws tends to be voiced on economic, rather than philosophical,
    grounds. But F. Howard Nelson, a researcher employed by the
    AFLCIO-affiliated American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union, has
    created an interstate cost-of-living index that gravely undermines Big
    Labor’s economic indictment of Right to Work laws. Adjusted for
    differences in living costs as measured by Dr. Nelson’s index,
    employees’ mean weekly earnings in 2000 in the 21 states that then had
    Right to Work laws were $638, compared to $632 in states without such
    laws. After subtracting federal taxes and state and local taxes that are
    not factored into the Nelson index, employees in Right to Work states
    earned a mean of $484, compared to $468 in non-Right to Work states.

    CONTACT: The National Institute for Labor Relations Research, 5211 Port
    Royal Road, Suite 510, Springfield, VA 22151, 703/321-9606, fax
    703/321-7342, email mailto:research@nilrr.org https://www.nilrr.org

    Above articles are quoted from Heritage Foundation, The Insider 2/2003
    https://www.heritage.org

    ”Roots (Food for Thought)”

    – The Fundamental Problem with Social Security

    By Dennis E. Clayson

    There is one question that most Americans refuse to think about. Pundits
    and commentators will take the logic of its premise up to a certain
    point and then go no further. Perhaps it is because of the almost
    universal lack of economic knowledge in our society, or because many do
    not want to face the implications of the answer. Whatever the reason,
    the answer relates to almost every discussion of federal taxation and is
    the key to the debate over Social Security.

    The question can be stated simply. What can the federal government do
    with a surplus to make that surplus available in subsequent years?

    If you think about it carefully, you will realize that there is nothing
    the federal government could do with a surplus that would result in its
    preservation and expansion. Consider the options. For example, you might
    suggest that the government could print money and store the money in
    large vaults somewhere. Yet printed money has no value except to
    facilitate exchanges. The longer you hold it, the more it depreciates.
    Even naive citizens will not invest wealth in this fashion.

    Some have suggested that the government could take whatever surpluses it
    has and invest them in the marketplace. There are two reasons that the
    government can’t do this. First, federal power is based on several
    sensitive balances. The trust between these constituencies is not
    sufficient for investments on this scale. Second, it would destroy the
    free marketplace. Normal fluctuations in the market would be seen as
    public threats and there would be tremendous political pressure for
    governmental control. Third, over time the government would end up
    owning the country, or at least all means of production, which is close
    to the economic definition of socialism. The amounts of wealth
    confiscated by the government are too large to be invested in this
    fashion. Even if these problems could be overcome, the investments would
    only make sense if the government were willing to liquidate assets. This
    is problematic. History indicates that the federal government is
    unlikely to do this. Assets quickly build special interest groups, and
    they represent a type of power that is very difficult to relinquish.

    Political leaders have suggested that a surplus could be used to reduce
    the size of the national debt. On the surface this appears to be a way
    of investing money for the future, while at the same time demonstrating
    a concern for fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, this solution also
    fails. It is easy to explain why.

    If you were to loan the government money by buying a government bond,
    you would make an agreement with the government that you would give them
    a certain amount of money, and after a specified period of time they
    would give you back an amount larger than what you invested. If the feds
    decided to “buy down” the national debt, they would have to come to you
    and do one of two things. They could retire debt prematurely by not
    paying off the full maturity value, or by paying it off earlier than
    initially agreed upon. In the first case they would say to you, “We want
    to retire our debt, therefore we will pay you the principal plus the
    amount of interest you have accrued up to this date.” You would not be
    happy with this solution. The government would be essentially breaking
    its promise to you to pay you a larger amount in the future. You may be
    less likely to loan the government money again. Even more troubling, you
    may be less likely to trust the government as a stable instrument of
    investment. If your attitude became widespread, the feds would no longer
    be able to service their debt. The government is not going to put itself
    and the world’s economic future into the jeopardy this policy could
    create.

    Alternately, they could come to you and pay off the full amount before
    it is due. This makes you happy, but it makes the taxpayers very
    unhappy. To do this, the feds have to essentially increase the interest
    on the national debt and cheat taxpayers in the process. There are two
    reasons why the government will not do this. It would have a tendency to
    get people kicked out of office, and it would require the surplus to be
    utilized (albeit inappropriately) instead of being spent. Washington is
    about power, privilege, and influence. Money buys all three. If surplus
    money is used to pay you for a past debt, there is less for federal
    politicians to spend on other purposes.

    The second major thing the feds could do to reduce the national debt is
    simply to issue less of it. Note, however, that issuing less debt has
    nothing to do with any surplus. All the government has to do to issue
    less debt is to balance the federal budget. Any money left over (i.e., a
    surplus) cannot be used to accelerate the process. So, a surplus cannot
    be used to buy down the national debt. It can be used on paper to make
    it appear that way, but essentially the government is still spending the
    surplus the same as any other income. The federal government can only do
    two things with a surplus, either send it back, or spend it.

    This creates a very important question. If the government only has two
    options, which one would give the best results to the average taxpayer
    now and in the future? The last fifty years have taught us that once a
    government program is in place, it hardly ever goes away. Not only that,
    but spending for these programs seldom declines. Political battles over
    budgets have not been about spending reductions, but about the size of
    increases. Spending a surplus obligates the government to spend at least
    the same amount in the future. This requires that either surpluses will
    continue indefinitely, or that taxes and/or debt will have to be
    increased. Balancing the budget by returning surpluses does not obligate
    the government to future spending. It also allows the money to stimulate
    the free market, increasing the nation’s wealth.

    All of this brings us to a discussion of the Social Security surplus.
    What are the consequences of accepting the proposition that the federal
    government cannot maintain a surplus?

    The first consequence is fundamental and is widely recognized. There is
    NO Social Security surplus. Yes, there is one on paper, but in the real
    world it does not exist. Furthermore, it has never existed and it never
    will. This fact is independent of party politics, shifty bureaucrats, or
    any election cycle revelations. It does not matter who is in power, or
    what their ideology is. There is no Social Security surplus because it
    cannot exist. The second consequence is actually more troubling. There
    is a basic problem with how the Social Security system has been
    unethically represented to the American people.

    To put this into perspective, consider the following thought problem.
    Suppose the federal government wants to start a retirement program. It
    proposes that every worker make a contribution to the feds and then that
    worker would be sent a check every month by the government when he or
    she retires. For the sake of simplicity, we will say that the government
    agrees to issue a $400 per month check upon retirement. There are four
    workers for every beneficiary, so each worker is asked to pay $100 per
    month into the system. The workers agree, thinking that $100 per month
    will secure them a $400 per month retirement.

    The program is popular, especially with the retired, but the feds,
    looking into the future, realize that soon there will be only three
    workers for each beneficiary and soon thereafter, only two workers. This
    will mean that the two workers in the future will have to pay $200 per
    month into the system and will still only get $400 per month out of it.
    The future workers might not be happy about this. What to do?

    A federal worker comes up with a solution. We could, he says, get the
    workers now to pay a surplus so that the future worker won’t have to pay
    so much. This plan is deemed brilliant, so the feds ask the current
    workers to pay $130 per month. It is a small sacrifice, they say, to
    keep the system solvent and to make sure that the $400 per month is
    there for you when you retire. The feds are still paying out $400 per
    month, but are now bringing in $520 per month from the four workers.
    They now have a $120 per month surplus.

    Here is where it begins to get interesting. The feds forgot to tell the
    workers that they can’t invest the extra $120 per month. They can’t put
    it into the bank, they can’t buy wealth with it, and they can’t even
    invest it in the stock market. They have to spend it, which they are
    delighted to do. The feds are getting the best of both worlds. They have
    extra money each month to spend on office buildings, B1 bombers, and
    political pork to keep their federal rears in Washington, and — this is
    the best of all — they don’t have to raise any taxes to do it. The feds
    would be smart to say nothing about this, and they don’t. But being
    compulsive, they write themselves out an IOU every time they spend the
    $120 dollars.

    The current worker retires.He wants his $400 per month that he was
    promised and for which he paid. There are now only two workers to
    support him. Each worker must pay $200 per month to support the system,
    twice as much as the current retiree paid. The future worker is unhappy
    and asks the feds to cash in the IOUs to help him out. The feds say that
    they would be happy to do that, but that they spent the money and on
    paper bought a federal bond, which was secured by the future worker’s
    taxes. If it weren’t for the IOU (bond), maybe the future worker and the
    retiree could work out a different arrangement, but the feds’ IOU has
    sealed the deal. So the future worker will have to pay $130 per month,
    plus all the IOUs. The total, as if by magic, comes up to over $200 per
    month.

    Notice something interesting here. The future worker has to pay the same
    to keep the system solvent, irrespective of how much the current worker
    paid in surplus to “keep the system solvent.” In other words, the future
    worker has been scammed because the promises made to him have been
    violated. The present worker has also been scammed because he was told
    that his sacrifice in paying more than the system needed would relieve
    the future worker and make the system secure. Neither of these happened.
    In between time, the feds had a party on the extra money, the so-called
    “Social Security surplus.”

    The ethical problem is actually worse than this little story
    illustrates. Who pays Social Security taxes? Who paid the surplus?
    Social Security charges are a flat tax on all persons with income. The
    teenager flipping hamburgers pays the tax, the working poor pay the tax,
    the part time worker pays the tax, and they all pay at the same rate.
    Making “the rich” or “big” businesses pay for redistribution of wealth
    by claims that you are helping the poor are common and accepted
    strategies, but robbing the working poor for more governmental pork is a
    very hard sell.

    The amounts are enormous. Over the last five years, the surplus has been
    $100 to $170 billion a year. In 1999 there were approximately 111
    million workers in the United States and $133.7 billion of Social
    Security surplus, or $1,205 per worker. This $100 per month tax is
    seldom acknowledged as money that will be spent as general revenue, and
    never, ever is the American worker informed that it will not make the
    system secure,or that he or she will have to pay it again when the
    Social Security IOUs become due.

    Social Security is a pay-as you-go system. It should never be presented
    as anything other than this. The increased costs per worker projected
    for the future of the system will have to be taken from the workers at
    that future time. If those workers refuse to pay the bill, or if paying
    it weakens the economy, the system will run head-on into a wall. There
    is no way to avoid this. It is essential for the economic wellbeing of
    the nation that Social Security reform be initiated, and initiated as
    soon as possible. If nothing else, for economic and ethical reasons, the
    surplus payments should be eliminated immediately.

    Dennis E. Clayson is a Professor of Finance at the University of
    Northern Iowa. He also writes a weekly column for the Waterloo- Cedar
    Falls Courier.

    Above article is quoted from Public Interest Institute, Facts & Opinions, February 2003 https://www.limitedgovernment.org

    ”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”

    “That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man
    begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where nonconformity with
    the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of
    disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing,
    takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent;
    where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that
    we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.”
    — Judge Learned Hand, Speech to the Board of Regents, University of the
    State of New York [October 24, 1952]

    ”’Edited by Richard O. Rowland, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached at (808) 487-4959 or by email at:”’ mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com ”’For more information, see its Web site at:”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/

    Grassroot Perspective – April 11, 2003-On the Chopping Block: The Real Cost of Corporate Welfare; United They Fall: Unions Won’t Prosper if American Corporations Don’t; Real Earnings Higher in Right to Work States: Evidence From the AFLCIO Empire; The Fundamental Problem with Social Security

    0

    “Dick Rowland Image”

    ”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

    – On the Chopping Block: The Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

    By Michael LaFaive

    A World Connected, Institute for Humane Studies

    It is poor economics and fundamentally unfair for government to pick
    winners and losers by providing special breaks, favors, or subsidies to
    certain firms and not their competitors. The only problem is, state
    governments are doing exactly that.
    CONTACT: Institute for Humane Studies, 3401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 440,
    Arlington, VA 22201, 703/934-6920, fax 703/352-7535, email mailto:ihs@gmu.edu
    https://www.theihs.org

    – United They Fall: Unions Won’t Prosper if American Corporations Don’t

    By Stephen Moore

    Cato Institute

    It would appear that the pilots and mechanics will soon discover an
    important lesson: The alternative to accepting reduced salaries will be
    no jobs at all. The United labor fracas raises the question of whether
    unions have so outserved their usefulness that they are now doing more
    harm than good for American workers. The unions are already losing
    hundreds of thousands of members every year, and their recent behavior
    suggests that labor bosses are intent on accelerating their own demise.

    CONTACT: Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC
    20001, 202/842-0200, fax 202/842-3490, https://www.cato.org

    – Real Earnings Higher in Right to Work States: Evidence From the AFLCIO
    Empire

    By Stan Greer

    National Institute for Labor Relations Research

    Right to Work laws safeguard employees’ freedom of association
    evenhandedly: They prohibit the firing of employees for refusal to join
    or pay “fees” to a union, and they also prohibit termination for joining
    or financially supporting a union. Union officials’ opposition to Right
    to Work laws tends to be voiced on economic, rather than philosophical,
    grounds. But F. Howard Nelson, a researcher employed by the
    AFLCIO-affiliated American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union, has
    created an interstate cost-of-living index that gravely undermines Big
    Labor’s economic indictment of Right to Work laws. Adjusted for
    differences in living costs as measured by Dr. Nelson’s index,
    employees’ mean weekly earnings in 2000 in the 21 states that then had
    Right to Work laws were $638, compared to $632 in states without such
    laws. After subtracting federal taxes and state and local taxes that are
    not factored into the Nelson index, employees in Right to Work states
    earned a mean of $484, compared to $468 in non-Right to Work states.

    CONTACT: The National Institute for Labor Relations Research, 5211 Port
    Royal Road, Suite 510, Springfield, VA 22151, 703/321-9606, fax
    703/321-7342, email mailto:research@nilrr.org https://www.nilrr.org

    Above articles are quoted from Heritage Foundation, The Insider 2/2003
    https://www.heritage.org

    ”Roots (Food for Thought)”

    – The Fundamental Problem with Social Security

    By Dennis E. Clayson

    There is one question that most Americans refuse to think about. Pundits
    and commentators will take the logic of its premise up to a certain
    point and then go no further. Perhaps it is because of the almost
    universal lack of economic knowledge in our society, or because many do
    not want to face the implications of the answer. Whatever the reason,
    the answer relates to almost every discussion of federal taxation and is
    the key to the debate over Social Security.

    The question can be stated simply. What can the federal government do
    with a surplus to make that surplus available in subsequent years?

    If you think about it carefully, you will realize that there is nothing
    the federal government could do with a surplus that would result in its
    preservation and expansion. Consider the options. For example, you might
    suggest that the government could print money and store the money in
    large vaults somewhere. Yet printed money has no value except to
    facilitate exchanges. The longer you hold it, the more it depreciates.
    Even naive citizens will not invest wealth in this fashion.

    Some have suggested that the government could take whatever surpluses it
    has and invest them in the marketplace. There are two reasons that the
    government can’t do this. First, federal power is based on several
    sensitive balances. The trust between these constituencies is not
    sufficient for investments on this scale. Second, it would destroy the
    free marketplace. Normal fluctuations in the market would be seen as
    public threats and there would be tremendous political pressure for
    governmental control. Third, over time the government would end up
    owning the country, or at least all means of production, which is close
    to the economic definition of socialism. The amounts of wealth
    confiscated by the government are too large to be invested in this
    fashion. Even if these problems could be overcome, the investments would
    only make sense if the government were willing to liquidate assets. This
    is problematic. History indicates that the federal government is
    unlikely to do this. Assets quickly build special interest groups, and
    they represent a type of power that is very difficult to relinquish.

    Political leaders have suggested that a surplus could be used to reduce
    the size of the national debt. On the surface this appears to be a way
    of investing money for the future, while at the same time demonstrating
    a concern for fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, this solution also
    fails. It is easy to explain why.

    If you were to loan the government money by buying a government bond,
    you would make an agreement with the government that you would give them
    a certain amount of money, and after a specified period of time they
    would give you back an amount larger than what you invested. If the feds
    decided to “buy down” the national debt, they would have to come to you
    and do one of two things. They could retire debt prematurely by not
    paying off the full maturity value, or by paying it off earlier than
    initially agreed upon. In the first case they would say to you, “We want
    to retire our debt, therefore we will pay you the principal plus the
    amount of interest you have accrued up to this date.” You would not be
    happy with this solution. The government would be essentially breaking
    its promise to you to pay you a larger amount in the future. You may be
    less likely to loan the government money again. Even more troubling, you
    may be less likely to trust the government as a stable instrument of
    investment. If your attitude became widespread, the feds would no longer
    be able to service their debt. The government is not going to put itself
    and the world’s economic future into the jeopardy this policy could
    create.

    Alternately, they could come to you and pay off the full amount before
    it is due. This makes you happy, but it makes the taxpayers very
    unhappy. To do this, the feds have to essentially increase the interest
    on the national debt and cheat taxpayers in the process. There are two
    reasons why the government will not do this. It would have a tendency to
    get people kicked out of office, and it would require the surplus to be
    utilized (albeit inappropriately) instead of being spent. Washington is
    about power, privilege, and influence. Money buys all three. If surplus
    money is used to pay you for a past debt, there is less for federal
    politicians to spend on other purposes.

    The second major thing the feds could do to reduce the national debt is
    simply to issue less of it. Note, however, that issuing less debt has
    nothing to do with any surplus. All the government has to do to issue
    less debt is to balance the federal budget. Any money left over (i.e., a
    surplus) cannot be used to accelerate the process. So, a surplus cannot
    be used to buy down the national debt. It can be used on paper to make
    it appear that way, but essentially the government is still spending the
    surplus the same as any other income. The federal government can only do
    two things with a surplus, either send it back, or spend it.

    This creates a very important question. If the government only has two
    options, which one would give the best results to the average taxpayer
    now and in the future? The last fifty years have taught us that once a
    government program is in place, it hardly ever goes away. Not only that,
    but spending for these programs seldom declines. Political battles over
    budgets have not been about spending reductions, but about the size of
    increases. Spending a surplus obligates the government to spend at least
    the same amount in the future. This requires that either surpluses will
    continue indefinitely, or that taxes and/or debt will have to be
    increased. Balancing the budget by returning surpluses does not obligate
    the government to future spending. It also allows the money to stimulate
    the free market, increasing the nation’s wealth.

    All of this brings us to a discussion of the Social Security surplus.
    What are the consequences of accepting the proposition that the federal
    government cannot maintain a surplus?

    The first consequence is fundamental and is widely recognized. There is
    NO Social Security surplus. Yes, there is one on paper, but in the real
    world it does not exist. Furthermore, it has never existed and it never
    will. This fact is independent of party politics, shifty bureaucrats, or
    any election cycle revelations. It does not matter who is in power, or
    what their ideology is. There is no Social Security surplus because it
    cannot exist. The second consequence is actually more troubling. There
    is a basic problem with how the Social Security system has been
    unethically represented to the American people.

    To put this into perspective, consider the following thought problem.
    Suppose the federal government wants to start a retirement program. It
    proposes that every worker make a contribution to the feds and then that
    worker would be sent a check every month by the government when he or
    she retires. For the sake of simplicity, we will say that the government
    agrees to issue a $400 per month check upon retirement. There are four
    workers for every beneficiary, so each worker is asked to pay $100 per
    month into the system. The workers agree, thinking that $100 per month
    will secure them a $400 per month retirement.

    The program is popular, especially with the retired, but the feds,
    looking into the future, realize that soon there will be only three
    workers for each beneficiary and soon thereafter, only two workers. This
    will mean that the two workers in the future will have to pay $200 per
    month into the system and will still only get $400 per month out of it.
    The future workers might not be happy about this. What to do?

    A federal worker comes up with a solution. We could, he says, get the
    workers now to pay a surplus so that the future worker won’t have to pay
    so much. This plan is deemed brilliant, so the feds ask the current
    workers to pay $130 per month. It is a small sacrifice, they say, to
    keep the system solvent and to make sure that the $400 per month is
    there for you when you retire. The feds are still paying out $400 per
    month, but are now bringing in $520 per month from the four workers.
    They now have a $120 per month surplus.

    Here is where it begins to get interesting. The feds forgot to tell the
    workers that they can’t invest the extra $120 per month. They can’t put
    it into the bank, they can’t buy wealth with it, and they can’t even
    invest it in the stock market. They have to spend it, which they are
    delighted to do. The feds are getting the best of both worlds. They have
    extra money each month to spend on office buildings, B1 bombers, and
    political pork to keep their federal rears in Washington, and — this is
    the best of all — they don’t have to raise any taxes to do it. The feds
    would be smart to say nothing about this, and they don’t. But being
    compulsive, they write themselves out an IOU every time they spend the
    $120 dollars.

    The current worker retires.He wants his $400 per month that he was
    promised and for which he paid. There are now only two workers to
    support him. Each worker must pay $200 per month to support the system,
    twice as much as the current retiree paid. The future worker is unhappy
    and asks the feds to cash in the IOUs to help him out. The feds say that
    they would be happy to do that, but that they spent the money and on
    paper bought a federal bond, which was secured by the future worker’s
    taxes. If it weren’t for the IOU (bond), maybe the future worker and the
    retiree could work out a different arrangement, but the feds’ IOU has
    sealed the deal. So the future worker will have to pay $130 per month,
    plus all the IOUs. The total, as if by magic, comes up to over $200 per
    month.

    Notice something interesting here. The future worker has to pay the same
    to keep the system solvent, irrespective of how much the current worker
    paid in surplus to “keep the system solvent.” In other words, the future
    worker has been scammed because the promises made to him have been
    violated. The present worker has also been scammed because he was told
    that his sacrifice in paying more than the system needed would relieve
    the future worker and make the system secure. Neither of these happened.
    In between time, the feds had a party on the extra money, the so-called
    “Social Security surplus.”

    The ethical problem is actually worse than this little story
    illustrates. Who pays Social Security taxes? Who paid the surplus?
    Social Security charges are a flat tax on all persons with income. The
    teenager flipping hamburgers pays the tax, the working poor pay the tax,
    the part time worker pays the tax, and they all pay at the same rate.
    Making “the rich” or “big” businesses pay for redistribution of wealth
    by claims that you are helping the poor are common and accepted
    strategies, but robbing the working poor for more governmental pork is a
    very hard sell.

    The amounts are enormous. Over the last five years, the surplus has been
    $100 to $170 billion a year. In 1999 there were approximately 111
    million workers in the United States and $133.7 billion of Social
    Security surplus, or $1,205 per worker. This $100 per month tax is
    seldom acknowledged as money that will be spent as general revenue, and
    never, ever is the American worker informed that it will not make the
    system secure,or that he or she will have to pay it again when the
    Social Security IOUs become due.

    Social Security is a pay-as you-go system. It should never be presented
    as anything other than this. The increased costs per worker projected
    for the future of the system will have to be taken from the workers at
    that future time. If those workers refuse to pay the bill, or if paying
    it weakens the economy, the system will run head-on into a wall. There
    is no way to avoid this. It is essential for the economic wellbeing of
    the nation that Social Security reform be initiated, and initiated as
    soon as possible. If nothing else, for economic and ethical reasons, the
    surplus payments should be eliminated immediately.

    Dennis E. Clayson is a Professor of Finance at the University of
    Northern Iowa. He also writes a weekly column for the Waterloo- Cedar
    Falls Courier.

    Above article is quoted from Public Interest Institute, Facts & Opinions, February 2003 https://www.limitedgovernment.org

    ”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”

    “That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man
    begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where nonconformity with
    the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of
    disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing,
    takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent;
    where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that
    we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.”
    — Judge Learned Hand, Speech to the Board of Regents, University of the
    State of New York [October 24, 1952]

    ”’Edited by Richard O. Rowland, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached at (808) 487-4959 or by email at:”’ mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com ”’For more information, see its Web site at:”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/

    From Shopping Shame to Disobedient Children

    0

    “Suzanne Gelb Image”

    ”Shopping — Why the Embarrassment?”

    Dear Dr. Gelb:

    I love shopping at thrift stores, especially when I get new designer clothes. But when people compliment me and ask me where I buy my clothes, I’m embarrassed to tell, but I don’t want to fib. How do I respond?

    Designer Wear

    Dear Designer Wear:

    Guilt and shame can run deep, and many adults find themselves burdened with childhood conditioning that to take hand-me-downs and to shop at bargain basements is shameful — they are reluctant to share their shopping preference because of the fear of how others may judge them. As one shopper put it, “I can’t tell people that I shop there; they’ll think I’m a scrooge or that I’m poor and down trodden.”

    Some people have neutralized this conditioning by exploring the attitudes acquired in childhood that solidified this type of emotional reaction. Having done this, they have been able to go to thrift stores and grab those designer clothes, and if they see that $300 evening gown or that $600 cashmere sweater that they can pick up for $3.95, then they jump on it like a dog on a bone. In one instance, a shopper resolved the type of shame you described and then when her friend admired her garment, she comfortably said, “oh it’s a little something that was on sale and I couldn’t miss the opportunity to indulge myself.”

    ”Body Piercing – What’s a Parent to do?”

    Dear Dr. Gelb:

    I have forbidden my children from body piercing. Last week I accidentally walked in on my daughter in the bathroom and saw she had a navel ring. I later found out she’s had it for months. I am shocked that she’d go behind my back. I wonder how to proceed?

    Deceived

    Dear Deceived:

    When children disobey their parents, a path to success that I have observed is when parents immediately forbid their children to engage in the prohibited behavior (naval ring), and for some time impose heightened parental scrutiny (with body piercing, there could be a need to submit to inspection of the body so that the parent can be sure that the child is not rebelling).

    Parents must be consistent with this behavior and if the child rebels, consequences must be applied to bring the child to understand that as long as they live in their parents’ home, then they must conform to the guidelines and etiquette that the parents teach.

    ”’Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.”’

    ”’This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see”’ “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says”

    ”’Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at”’ https://www.DrGelbSays.com

    Report: Al-Qaida Targeted D.C. Metro

    0

    WASHINGTON, April 9 (UPI) — Law enforcement officials say al-Qaida may have planned an attack on the metrorail system in Washington, The Washington Post reported online Wednesday.

    The report in the Post was confirmation of a story that first appeared Monday in The Washington Times. The information reportedly came from captured al-Qaida operations chief Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and may have involved “starting a fire.” “Law enforcement and intelligence sources said that Mohammed, the self-described architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, provided vague information about the plot along with plans to attack other U.S. targets at home and abroad,” the Post said, “including the U.S. Capitol, and the Israeli Embassy in Washington.” Mohammed was captured March 1 in Pakistan. During subsequent interrogation sessions, “Mohammed did not provide details about a terrorist strike on the Metro system, and authorities have been unable to determine whether there is any credible threat to mass transit here, two U.S. officials said yesterday,” the Post said. The officials said Mohammed may be providing truthful information, or may be trying to mislead U.S. intelligence.

    Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

    American Youth: The Latest Tool of the American Left

    The “peace” movement is a spork. You know, that hybrid utensil of unknown origin and dubious utility whose parts seem to have no logical relationship with each other.

    Like the spork, the anti-war demonstrators are an amalgam — in this case, a combination of manipulators and the clueless. The movement also shares composition with this plastic implement — artificial, fake — and is equally as useless. Ever tried to eat soup or spear a piece of meat with a spork?

    Communism and socialism are proven failures as political and economic systems. Humiliating defeats include the end of the Soviet Union, followed by the emergence of former eastern bloc nations that are stellar examples of free market economies, technology-based governments and definitive, sensible foreign policy. Despite these planet-wide defeats, hard left activists in our own country have never given up hope for emergence as a political force.

    In President Bush’s drive to rid the world of terrorist threats, opportunity has knocked.

    In a recent National Review article entitled

    Senate Divided on Clout of Committee Chairs-Democrat Senator Spearheads Resolution Calling for Decentralization of Chairs' Veto Powers

    0

    The debate rages on again in the state Legislature this year over how much power a committee chair should have, particularly in the conference committees where members of both Houses, led by Democrat-only committee chairs, meet beginning next week to resolve differences between bill versions.

    According Senate rules, a single committee chair can unilaterally veto a bill in a conference committee, even if all other members and chairs involved with the conference committee hearing the bill, are in favor of it.

    Some elected officials in the state Legislature believe that kind of unilateral voting power just isn’t right, but so far, they are in the minority.

    Sen. Les Ihara, D-Kaimuki, rallied 11 of the 25 state Senators to sign a resolution amending Senate Rule 23(3) to require a conference committee to report on a measure when a majority of committee members of both chambers concur in the report. So far, those supporting the equal voting proposal by Ihara are Democrat Senators Roz Baker, Suzie Chun-Oakland, Gary Hooser, Carol Fukunaga and David Ige; and all Republican Senators including Sam Slom, Fred Hemmings, Bob Hogue, Gordon Trimble and Paul Whalen.

    The resolution, which needs the support of two more Senators to pass, calls for equality, fairness and a democratic process in the conference committees by making each vote count as one vote, rather than allowing the chair to trump the process with a single vote or decision.

    However, Democrat Senators in leadership are holding on tight to their committee veto abilities, refusing to give up their right to trump other Senators and House members on their conference committee with their power-packed vote. All Democrats, they are Sen. President Robert Bunda, Sen. Vice President Donna Kim, Sen. Majority Leader Colleen Hanabusa, Sen. Majority Leader Cal Kawamoto, Majority Caucus Leader Shan Tsutsui, Sen. Ways and Means Chair Brian Taniguchi, Labor Chair Brian Kanno, Consumer Protection Chair Ron Menor, Land and Water Chair Lorraine Inouye, Education Chair Norman Sakamoto, Energy and Environment Chair Kalani English and Sens. Willie Espero, Russell Kokubun and Melodie Aduja.

    Senators are expected to vote today on the resolution during the regular scheduled session beginning at 11:30 a.m. on the Senate floor.

    “The voters of each senatorial district have a right to equal representation in the Senate, which means that each Senator has one vote, no more and no less,” Ihara says.

    Ihara points out a conference chair’s unequal voting power can occur when one of two chairs of a Senate conference committee can defeat an amendment to a bill by voting “nay,” even though all of four other senate conferees, including a chair, vote “aye.”

    “That makes the single “nay” vote of the Senate chair equal to four “aye” votes of the other Senators on the conference committee,” Ihara says.

    Ihara says most conference committees have two chairs; thus making the chair veto absolute as only a majority of chairs can override a conference chair veto, even if all committee members vote for the bill.

    He added money committee chairs are not affected by this resolution, since they need veto power to fulfill their duty to pass a balanced budget.

    House Minority Leader Galen Fox also is expected to introduce a similar resolution in the House, in an effort to force House Majority Leadership to change its same rule that allows chairs to unilaterally kill a bill. Fox could not be reached for comment in time for this story.

    ”’Pertinent documents on this issue are available at:”’ https://www.newhawaii.org

    ”Senate Resolution Amending Senate Rule 23(3) to require a conference committee to report on a measure when a majority of committee members of both chambers concur in the report.”

    *WHEREAS, equality and fairness are fundamental principles of democracy that Hawaii citizens expect to be practiced in the state legislature, particularly regarding the voting rights, rules, and procedures affecting each legislator; and

    *WHEREAS, the voters of each senatorial district have a right to equal representation in the senate, which means that each senator has one vote, no more and no less; and

    *WHEREAS, rule 8-b of the 2003 conference committee procedures contravenes the principle of equal voting power because it allows a conference chair to veto the passage of legislation in most situations; and

    *WHEREAS, the relevant text of rule 8-b that provides enhanced voting power to a conference committee chair is, as follows: “To report a measure out of Conference Committee in amended form, a majority of the chairs for each respective chamber…must vote in favor of the proposed amendments…”; and

    *WHEREAS, a conference chair’s unequal voting power under rule 8-b is illustrated by this example: one of two chairs of a senate conference committee can defeat an amendment to a bill by voting “nay”, even though all of four other senate conferees, including a chair, vote “aye” – which makes the single “nay” vote of the senate chair equal to four “aye” votes of the other senators on the conference committee; and

    *WHEREAS, Senate Rule 86(1) provides that the Rules of the Senate may be amended by a majority vote of the members of the Senate, after one day’s notice is provided; now, therefore,

    *BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Twenty-Second Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2003, that Senate Rule 24(3) is hereby amended to read as follows (proposed changes underlined and deletions bracketed):

    *(3) A Conference Committee shall [not] report upon the matter referred [unless] when a majority of the members of each house appointed by their respective presiding officer have concurred in the report. Any conference committee procedure that adds or detracts from this requirement shall be void.

    Senate Divided on Clout of Committee Chairs-Democrat Senator Spearheads Resolution Calling for Decentralization of Chairs’ Veto Powers

    0

    The debate rages on again in the state Legislature this year over how much power a committee chair should have, particularly in the conference committees where members of both Houses, led by Democrat-only committee chairs, meet beginning next week to resolve differences between bill versions.

    According Senate rules, a single committee chair can unilaterally veto a bill in a conference committee, even if all other members and chairs involved with the conference committee hearing the bill, are in favor of it.

    Some elected officials in the state Legislature believe that kind of unilateral voting power just isn’t right, but so far, they are in the minority.

    Sen. Les Ihara, D-Kaimuki, rallied 11 of the 25 state Senators to sign a resolution amending Senate Rule 23(3) to require a conference committee to report on a measure when a majority of committee members of both chambers concur in the report. So far, those supporting the equal voting proposal by Ihara are Democrat Senators Roz Baker, Suzie Chun-Oakland, Gary Hooser, Carol Fukunaga and David Ige; and all Republican Senators including Sam Slom, Fred Hemmings, Bob Hogue, Gordon Trimble and Paul Whalen.

    The resolution, which needs the support of two more Senators to pass, calls for equality, fairness and a democratic process in the conference committees by making each vote count as one vote, rather than allowing the chair to trump the process with a single vote or decision.

    However, Democrat Senators in leadership are holding on tight to their committee veto abilities, refusing to give up their right to trump other Senators and House members on their conference committee with their power-packed vote. All Democrats, they are Sen. President Robert Bunda, Sen. Vice President Donna Kim, Sen. Majority Leader Colleen Hanabusa, Sen. Majority Leader Cal Kawamoto, Majority Caucus Leader Shan Tsutsui, Sen. Ways and Means Chair Brian Taniguchi, Labor Chair Brian Kanno, Consumer Protection Chair Ron Menor, Land and Water Chair Lorraine Inouye, Education Chair Norman Sakamoto, Energy and Environment Chair Kalani English and Sens. Willie Espero, Russell Kokubun and Melodie Aduja.

    Senators are expected to vote today on the resolution during the regular scheduled session beginning at 11:30 a.m. on the Senate floor.

    “The voters of each senatorial district have a right to equal representation in the Senate, which means that each Senator has one vote, no more and no less,” Ihara says.

    Ihara points out a conference chair’s unequal voting power can occur when one of two chairs of a Senate conference committee can defeat an amendment to a bill by voting “nay,” even though all of four other senate conferees, including a chair, vote “aye.”

    “That makes the single “nay” vote of the Senate chair equal to four “aye” votes of the other Senators on the conference committee,” Ihara says.

    Ihara says most conference committees have two chairs; thus making the chair veto absolute as only a majority of chairs can override a conference chair veto, even if all committee members vote for the bill.

    He added money committee chairs are not affected by this resolution, since they need veto power to fulfill their duty to pass a balanced budget.

    House Minority Leader Galen Fox also is expected to introduce a similar resolution in the House, in an effort to force House Majority Leadership to change its same rule that allows chairs to unilaterally kill a bill. Fox could not be reached for comment in time for this story.

    ”’Pertinent documents on this issue are available at:”’ https://www.newhawaii.org

    ”Senate Resolution Amending Senate Rule 23(3) to require a conference committee to report on a measure when a majority of committee members of both chambers concur in the report.”

    *WHEREAS, equality and fairness are fundamental principles of democracy that Hawaii citizens expect to be practiced in the state legislature, particularly regarding the voting rights, rules, and procedures affecting each legislator; and

    *WHEREAS, the voters of each senatorial district have a right to equal representation in the senate, which means that each senator has one vote, no more and no less; and

    *WHEREAS, rule 8-b of the 2003 conference committee procedures contravenes the principle of equal voting power because it allows a conference chair to veto the passage of legislation in most situations; and

    *WHEREAS, the relevant text of rule 8-b that provides enhanced voting power to a conference committee chair is, as follows: “To report a measure out of Conference Committee in amended form, a majority of the chairs for each respective chamber…must vote in favor of the proposed amendments…”; and

    *WHEREAS, a conference chair’s unequal voting power under rule 8-b is illustrated by this example: one of two chairs of a senate conference committee can defeat an amendment to a bill by voting “nay”, even though all of four other senate conferees, including a chair, vote “aye” – which makes the single “nay” vote of the senate chair equal to four “aye” votes of the other senators on the conference committee; and

    *WHEREAS, Senate Rule 86(1) provides that the Rules of the Senate may be amended by a majority vote of the members of the Senate, after one day’s notice is provided; now, therefore,

    *BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Twenty-Second Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2003, that Senate Rule 24(3) is hereby amended to read as follows (proposed changes underlined and deletions bracketed):

    *(3) A Conference Committee shall [not] report upon the matter referred [unless] when a majority of the members of each house appointed by their respective presiding officer have concurred in the report. Any conference committee procedure that adds or detracts from this requirement shall be void.