Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Republicans

Journal Red Warrior's Journal: Politics/Initiatives. 18

Journal by Red Warrior
I-900 and I-912 will both be on the next ballot. W00T! One repeals a (IMNSHO) terrible tax increase, the other mandates that the state auditor be required to do performance as well as financial audits.

I have mixed feelings about this:
A U.S. District Court judge on Friday struck down as unconstitutional Washington state's new "top two" primary system, approved by voters in the fall, saying it infringed on the rights of political parties to pick their own nominees for office.. On the one hand, I'm a strong believer in the initiative process, and believe that if the people actually go to the trouble of engaging in direct democracy, that should carry a lot of weight. OTOH, The concept of freedom of association really does indicate that political parties get to pick who their candidates (and their members, for that matter) are. I-872 really stripped the parties of that right.

Personally, I think the best answer is to just tell the political parties "The general election is on X date. We need the names of your candidate for this office no later than X-60 days. Thank You. Good-day." If the parties want to have conventions, primaries, BBQs - more power to them. Freedom of association also means responsibility to pay for it your own damn self.

Picked the R icon only because the /. editiors seem to have decided we have no use for a politics icon...

Since my previous JE was probably long enough to get deleted by most:
From the April 15 in July Department: Interesting piece of trivia: If you (as a single person) have under $25K adjusted gross income (after your IRA deduction....), you can fill out IRS Form 8880 and receive a tax CREDIT for some percentage of your pre-tax retirement savings contributions. If you had contributions to a retirement program, had an Adjusted Gross under 25K (50K if married, filling joint), and did not take advantage of this, I have two words: "Amended Return".

This discussion was created by Red Warrior (637634) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Politics/Initiatives. More

Politics/Initiatives.

Comments Filter:
  • If you (as a single person) have under $25K adjusted gross income (after your IRA deduction....), you can fill out IRS Form 8880 and receive a tax CREDIT for some percentage of your pre-tax retirement savings contributions. If you had contributions to a retirement program, had an Adjusted Gross under 25K (50K if married, filling joint), and did not take advantage of this, I have two words: "Amended Return".

    That paragraph alone highlights a fact that has been apparent to me for some time. Your tax system i

    • Undoubtedly. Even after using tax preparation software, the advice of my mother the accountant, and discussions with the (actually & really) helpful people at the IRS I am STILL not sure I handled the whole house rental thing right - specifically whether I took the best depriciation method or not.

      Oh, and I hadn't even known about this Form 8880 (which number is scary in and of itself...) until TurboTax printed it out for me. Neither had my mom or the CPA I work with... Yeah, I'll be buying TurboTax aga

      • I thought about going back to TaxCut after the year of the evil DRM Intuit forced on everyone, but they cleaned up their act, it seems. Plus, I decided I can't switch until my stock writeoff runs out, which is still a couple years away *rolls eyes* anyway.

        (Hey, I hated losing all that money, but the writeoff meant I got plenty of money back, instead of being taxed on unimployment insurance. I think taxing unemployment insurance is pretty low, by the way. :) )
    • That paragraph alone highlights a fact that has been apparent to me for some time. Your tax system is too complicated. For the record, ours is too, but it seems like yours is even more out of control than ours.

      Don't bet on it - Grasping Gordon implemented a disastrous mess of tax credits in the UK as well, and recently had to recruit an extra 3,500 staff just to man the helpline for sorting out his latest mess... Then we have the "child trust fund", a "working families tax credit" or something like that..

  • Personally, I think the best answer is to just tell the political parties "The general election is on X date. We need the names of your candidate for this office no later than X-60 days. Thank You. Good-day." If the parties want to have conventions, primaries, BBQs - more power to them. Freedom of association also means responsibility to pay for it your own damn self.

    That's fine, but the voters at large want to participate in the process. And the parties want them to.

    So it means a compromise. The parti
    • Your last paragraph says it all:

      The parties choose how their nominees may be selected. One of those ways is using a primary, the terms of which the parties choose. The people then get to decide whether they will participate in that primary, including whether to fund it. They can choose not to.

      Works for me. I vote for not.

      • Why do you want to vote for not? Just to save money, or because you think the public should have no say in the process? Or is it just out of spite?

        Regardless, the "not that simple" part is that the people do want a say in the process, and are willing to pay for it, even if it is not exactly on their own terms. So maybe you don't want a say, or maybe you don't want to pay for that privilege, but most people do.

        Although if the Grange has its way, the primary will be destroyed permanently. Worse, we woul
        • Why do you want to vote for not? Just to save money, or because you think the public should have no say in the process? Or is it just out of spite?

          Perhaps...for the reasons I outlined in my JE. If the parties are going to determine what is done, and who gets to vote, in the name of "freedom of association", then the parties can pay for said freedom. Why do you pretend not to understand? Why do you ignore the simple words I typed. Or was it actually too complicated? If you want to have a discussion, fine.

          • If the parties are going to determine what is done, and who gets to vote, in the name of "freedom of association", then the parties can pay for said freedom. Why do you pretend not to understand? Why do you ignore the simple words I typed. Or was it actually too complicated?

            You've got this all backward. It was not too complicated, it was too simplistic. I get the "if they want to control it, they should pay for it." But then the people don't get to participate, which everybody seems to value. You did
            • I get the "if they want to control it, they should pay for it."

              Then don't claim to not understand my position, and don't put up straw men in it's place.

              But then the people don't get to participate, which everybody seems to value.

              Bzzt! The political parties in this state have made it abundantly clear that they do NOT want "the public" to participate, unless it's on the party's terms. They did this in overturning the blanket primary. They further did this in overturning the initiative that is the subjec

              • The political parties in this state have made it abundantly clear that they do NOT want "the public" to participate, unless it's on the party's terms.

                I agree, and I did not say otherwise, so I don't know why you implied I am wrong with a buzzer onomatopoeia. They want public participation, but they want it on their own terms. Yes.

                You are bringing up an issue that is only tangentally related. It is not a question of whether *I* value public participation. It is a question of whether the public should f
                • [snip most tripe]

                  The nominating primary was *always* a "private political party function", even when it was a blanket primary.

                  Simply put, you lie. It was NOT a "private political party function". That was specifically why it was overturned in the courts a few years back, leading to I-872. Honest, look up the court case and the arguements made.

                  The terms have changed, but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the event, and the public still chooses whether or not to fund it. The only question is

      • "Freedom of association also means responsibility to pay for it your own damn self."

        I am totally in agreement here.

        That said, I think there is some merit to having the government offer election services to political parties to help keep the process open, accessible, and (hopefully) honest. The government needs to have the electoral infrastructure in place for the general elections anyway, so it's not a big deal to offer it for use for partisan primaries too.

        But the parties damn well should be billed for

Slashdot Top Deals

3500 Calories = 1 Food Pound

Close