Repealing Two-Thirds Rule; Education Stimulus Money; Obama Being Pro-Choice; Corruption Scandal in Bayview; Brackets of Evil; Even More on Private Charities …

by on March 27, 2009

To the Editor:

One of the past efforts at scrapping the “two-thirds rule” occurred back in 2004. Proposition 56 permitted the State Legislature to pass a budget and any budget-related taxes and appropriation bills with a 55% vote rather than a 2/3 vote.

It further stated that the State Legislature and Governor would permanently lose salary and expenses for each day budget was late and it required 25% of certain state revenue increases be deposited in reserve fund, which cannot be used to increase spending.

I know because I was collecting signatures to get Proposition 56 on the ballot; however, it was badly defeated on election day. We will see what happens this time around.

Brian Wallace
San Francisco


To the Editor:

Your article on the federal stimulus funding is a wake up call to all those who think that education dollars are going to flow right into the school classrooms. Like the hundreds of billions that disappeared into an utterly corrupt banking system, what will prevent these funds from a similar fate with every interest in Sacramento chomping at the bit for a morsel?

The dust from feeding frenzy for stimulus dollars will obscure how and to whom dollars will flow and it will only clear after the money is gone. When and if our District gets its piece of this humble pie, we must make sure that the money is spent on students via services that directly impact the delivery of education to our students in classrooms of public schools across the city.

Parents and other community members can pave the way by taking an interest in their local school’s Balanced Scorecards, budgets and their inevitable revisions. It would be a shame if it after such a long journey the money were to disappeared within our own midst. Be vigilant!

Don Krause


To the Editor:

There is no such thing as “vaguely pro-choice or pro-gay” on the Left. You are either all for abortion or all for promoting homosexuality, or you are against it. Tolerance is not tolerated by the Leftist … only full acceptance.

As for Cheney “support[ing] two wars that continue to take the lives of civilians and U.S. soldiers alike,” so did the entire voting US Senate at the time. And these wars saved lives and kepth us safe for seven years. Let us pray that Obama can match the Bush Admin’s success on national security.

Jay Inpa


To the Editor:

I’m glad to see this reported, especially as rumors, which I really hope are no more than rumors, circulate that Lennar may be the prime beneficiary of San Francisco stimulus funds.

However, I think it’s a bit misleading to call this “corruption in Bayview Hunters Point” rather than corruption at San Francisco City Hall, most importantly in the office of Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose connections to Lennar and PG&E have dominated San Francisco’s city politics since his election in 2003.

Ann Garrison
San Francisco


To the Editor:

I’m not sure you have the right people in your brackets to vote on the most evil person in American politics. You don’t have Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, David Shyster, Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, George Stephanoplous, Carville & Begala, Barack Hussein Obama, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd.

Geessshhh. If you are going to have a contest at least put the right people in it.

Scott Standage


To the Editor:

Why would people WORK as hard as they do, only to provide money to a government approved charity? Most people of means give locally to benefit their community! I see and enjoy the evidence of this every day. You Libs are nuts if you think people will lay down for this crap. There is a REASON why it is hard to find ammunition and weapons in many areas of the country! Please review your stated beliefs on whom gets to spend who’s money. I would suggest you prepare to flee the state on short notice if this and other Lib notions become law! The tea bags will come first. Then, less polite measures will ensue.

Scott Brown


To the Editor:

The charities I give to are the Catholic Church; American Red Cross; and PETA. Now you are telling me that I’m being penalized so Obama can have more money for Healthcare. How do you know that the redirected money is not going to go to bailout AIG again or to buy F-35 Fighters? Answer is … you don’t. Obama says this or that will happen … i.e., transparency in the government, no lobbyists in his administration, tax breaks for 95% of the population, fiscal responsibility, and now redirected charitable contributions to healthcare and you swallow it. Good Grief!!!

Fred Hancock


To the Editor:

You wrote: “Government, not private donors, should decide how tax dollars are allocated.”

I have always said that the Left despises private charity because it undermines Government programs. I see now that I have been proven correct. That is why I love to give to charity and ministries — every time I do it I know that I’m undermining a Government program. I do it because I know, for example, that my church does a better job of helping the poor and needing people’s needs than the Government. I do it because I know who needs help better than the Government. I do it because I’m ultimately a better judge of who needs help. And that makes me feel great!

Jeanne Titus


To the Editor:

I disagree with one major premise in your article, that government, not donors, should be deciding where the tax dollars are spent. I’m sorry, but when did someones charitable contribution become the governments tax dollars? You are assuming that those dollars SHOULD be tax dollars, but alas, they are not. I believe donations should be allowed to be deducted dollar for dollar. Since when should any one entity decide where I donate to? Why does the government allocate my money, if I don’t agree in those allocations? Since when are you or any entity able to decide that symphonies, operas and elite educational institutions like Harvard are less deserving of MY money? Judge me if you will, and say all of what I know will be false assumptions of who I am, but I know in my heart I am right, and on principle I will stand.

Paul Martinez


Randy,

You are brave to stand up for shrinking this tax scam (despite the timidity of the proposed measure). As a recovering former executive director of an environmental non-profit and foundation program officer, you are exactly right that non-profits are complicit in the privatization of government and actually benefit from the very cause of the problems they were set up to supposedly solve. You put it very precisely when you wrote: “But nonprofits opposing this progressive reform miss the big picture. Government, not private donors, should decide how tax dollars are allocated. For too long, wealthy people have been allowed to redirect their taxpayer dollars away from serving education, health care and other pressing public needs to boosting symphonies, operas and elite institutions like Harvard…”

I have become fed up with the entire non-profit world in which NGOs of all sizes are prostrating themselves for grants form corporate funded foundations and wealthy individuals who caused the very problems they are working on. Take for example the Ocean Conservancy which has an international Coastal Clean Up campaign funded by Coke.

I attribute the non-profit/NGO model as the primary cause for the decline in persistent powerful social movements in this country. Not only have they assisted the privatization of many former responsibilitites of government (feeding the poor and watchdogging polluters, etc.) but they have allowed corporations to use their wealth to castrate any burgeoning movements before they have a chance to blossom and have a real lasting impact.

It’s no surprise to see Sandy Weill writing on behalf of the interests of non-profits. For most of them, the line between corporations and non-profits have blurred so much as to make them indistinguishable.

Robert O.


To the Editor:

We’re on the road to serfdom … cuz of idiots like you! There is just not enough chain to enslave the citizenry in your cargo hold. More government, more government, haven’t you seen what happens in socialist countries and what the end result of socialism is! Your desire for economic freedom via wealth distribution but then you don’t allow that the proles can decide where they want their money to go. Where’s the freedom. You’ve buried yourself in your own lunacy.

Mark Allen


To the Editor:

You sir, miss the mark. I – and most people with a brain in theis heads – want to decide what to do with their hard earned money. The Government works for the people not the other way around and I don’t want the Government deciding what’s the best use of MY money.

Individuals are much better equipped to make decisions than a “Government” as to where to spend their money and who to give it to. Individuals are better equipped to address Social justice than a Government. The best way to help the poor is to COMPLETELY SEPARATE the economy and the State.

I find your article INSULTING. You, your ideas about Social Justice, and your ideas on how best manage MY money are completely revolting.

Magda Amor


To the Editor:

You wrote: “what people like Weill most love about charitable deductions it that it gives them, rather than society as a whole through its democratically elected public officials, the power to decide how their tax dollars should be spent.”

Wow! The arrogance and elitism that runs through this article and thought process is breathtakingly uninformed and exceedingly dangerous. Your socialist agenda and beliefs will end in the destruction of the greatest country that has ever existed, as it has everywhere else. Just witness what your policies have done to California. John Galt lives!

Tom Young


You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:

Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)

Filed under: Archive