County property taxes are currently the subject of a fracas.
The county executive wants to cap increases in assessments at
4%, because school districts aren't allowed to gain more than 5%
a year and if they do, they have to lower the tax rate to compensate.
This cap sounds like a win for the taxpayer at first glance, but
actually, what it means is that under-assessed properties will remain
under-assessed while everyone else picks up the difference. Accurate
assessments and the resulting changes in millage rates are more fair,
and the current scheme might violate the state constitution. (Fairer
still, of course, is to not tax property, or savings. If you have
to tax something, taxing consumption (sales tax) seems fairer, with
exemptions for food, heat, etc. But don't penalize people for trying
to save for the retirement no one else will provide.) But the part I like is that when
approving this plan, the council mandated that tax bills would show
whether you gained or lost from this scheme. So at least they have
to tell us. :-) (Well, that said, how many homeowners see their tax
bills? They go to the mortgage company.)
According to CNN, a CA
prosecutor and judge conspired to keep Jews off capital juries
because "no Jew would vote to send a defendant to the gas chamber".
I find this curious. Yes, I know a lot of liberal Jews who are
anti-capital-punishment, but that's because they're liberal,
not because they get it from their religion. Lots of non-Jews are
anti-capital-punishment, too. I actually wonder what the proportions
supporting capital punishment are in the four groups represented by these
two divisions: Jews and Christians, and religious versus non-religious.
(Non-religious, in this case, means identifying with the religion but
not doing much of anything about it, like the bagels-and-lox Jews and
Christmas-and-Easter Christians.) I suspect that religious
Jews are the most likely to suppor the death penalty.
Finally, Terry Schiavo. The situation is tragic, but I don't see
how it's any business of the federal government to intervene in a
specific case. If you have an issue with the way the state courts
are structured, address that (if you can, constitutionally -- which
I doubt). But you don't get to pick and choose interventions like
that. So purely on legal-purity grounds, I hope this current effort
fails. On non-legal-purity grounds, I feel awful for everyone involved
but it's a sucky way to live and if she did express an opinion on
that, her family needs to honor it. And this should serve as a
wake-up call for everyone to put these things in writing; she was
only 26 when she was struck down. I had a living will by then;
do you now?