Slashdot Mirror
Arizona Considers Selling Capitol Buildings
Things are so bad in Arizona that legislators are considering selling the House and Senate buildings where they've met and worked for more than 50 years. Dozens of other state properties may also be sold. The plan is to sell the properties and then lease them back over several years before assuming ownership again. "We've mortgaged the legislative halls," said an exasperated state Rep. Steve Yarbrough, a Chandler Republican. "That just tells you how extraordinary the times are. To me, it's something we're going to have to do no matter how much we find it undesirable." I bet they could get a great price on the Grand Canyon.
Low taxes can have high costs.
Arizona's actual long-term plan is to sell all of their Capitol buildings and replace them with Lowercase buildings and pocketing the difference in caost.
What the HELL IS IT doing here ?
Is this like monopoly? I tend to lose not long after I have to start mortgaging my properties to the bank.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I've consistently said the same thing: Don't cut taxes, cut spending. Just as consistently, my thoughts have been shot down.
Well here's the final result of irresponsible fiscal policies. Congrats, the government now belongs to the bank.
With some prudence during the boom times, maybe we wouldn't be seeing so many issues during the bust? I know it's hard to imagine, but some governments paid down debt during the boom, rather than cutting taxes to unsustainable levels, only to be laughed at. Who's laughing now?
It's been a long time.
...in yesterday's post on Mike Shedlock's blog. He makes a telling point: "Bear in mind, you can only sell the Capital Building once. Then what? Is anyone looking ahead?"
The Army reading list
Sell a building you designed specifically for your purpose to someone, then lease it from them (for less than the mortgage payment of course), then expect to be able to buy it back from them at a later date? Good fucking luck!
"Aah! I see you have the machine that goes 'ping'. This is my favourite. You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to, and that way, it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account."
I can see it now: "Microsoft Hall of Justice"
:)
This is not a signature.
A bank needs a bailout from the government.
The government needs money to pay them.
The government mortgages their property to get money from a bank.
The government gives the money to the bank.
Who wins?
This is the worst I've heard of yet. How about they try to fix the problem instead of a temporary fix? That and I don't see how this is actually going to save any money. They'll incur the cost of moving everything to a new location, rents at the new location...etc etc etc.
If you already can buy the politicians who work there, what could be the problem of being able to buy the building itself?
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
On a per capita basis, Arizona is worse off than California. The cause is due to a confluence of factors, including not saving enough for the bad times, taxes being too low or spending being too high, having such a growth oriented economy, etc.
But there are two items which I am CONVINCED are major factors as well.
1) Term limits: They suck. I used to support them, but I was wrong. Term limits result in a legislature that doesn't know WTF it's doing at any time. There is no institutional memory, and once someone understands the complex process of creating and passing legislation - they get the boot. Additionally, because no one exactly knows their jobs, term limits result in a weak branch of government, so the executive tends to dominate. This is not what our respective state constitutions intended. I wish people would put two and two together on this.
2) Illegal alien "crackdown" and employer sanctions: AZ is suffering a major real estate crisis. The crisis is for reasons obvious to anyone, but a contributing factor for our crappy economy and crappy real estate was the crack down on illegal aliens. Folks don't realize that these people rent and spend here too (often times without the societal expense us "real people" tend to cause society). When you have sweeps, a lack of employment and a general sense of animosity towards those who (in my view) are major contributors to society, they move one state over (they're not moving back to Mexico). I wish people would understand this point too.
Certainly, the overall economic factors play a very large role, but AZ has gotten itself in a big mess all by itself...
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
So what if I buy one of these properties then break the tenants lease (pay a financial penalty or something) then I'd outright own the property? Would the building be zoned commercial or could I make one of these buildings into my house? or bed & breakfast? (which would great if I bought a jail)
Just thinking outside the box here...
Tax and spend liberals (both R and D) has even higher costs.
Here's a novel concept .... LIMIT GOVERNMENT SPENDING.
Lets start cutting all the crap out of budgets, removing social programs that don't work, and get back to basics. How about stop stupid feel good programs that do nothing but create stupid rules that cost nothing but money on things that don't work.
Yeah, times are tough. TOUGH SHIT. We can't afford all the pretty shiny programs when life was easier. Time is now to TIGHTEN our belts and get rid of cruft.
Yeah, some people might get hurt in the process, but if we continue going like we currently are, we are hurting future generations. People are already getting hurt, we shouldn't be passing that crap on to our children.
I know, bleeding heart liberals will go ape shit over this, but I don't freakin care. Because they are selfish twits who are only thinking about the here and now, and don't give a shit about the future generations.
Selling buildings and leasing them back is NOT productive in the long run, and is VERY short sighted. It is sacrificing the future instead of dealing with the core problems NOW.
CUT SPENDING, don't increase future spending to pay for today's spending.
What I would like is a automatic revocation of politicians who can't pass a balanced budget on time. You can't do that, you're fired and can never run for any office anywhere ever again. Throw them all out!
Maybe then we'll get someone besides a career politician into office who can do what is needed, even when unpopular.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Since the Grand Canyon (the proper part near the middle) is a federal park and thus federal land (with the exception of the reservations in the area), I doubt the state would be able to sell any. Although they might be able to fetch a decent price on some of the land outside of the park. If anything, their smaller state parks in the center of the state might be worth looking into. But in all seriousness, it seems as if they are trying to use this as an excuse to move out of the old building. From what I've read about the building, it is costing Arizona hundreds of thousands of dollars just to pay for the repairs and retrofits to the old building.
You don't live in Arizona do you? They've already cut everything they can.
I doubt this. Have a look at Wikipedia
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona_state_budget
In 2009 the State Budget is $55 billion dollars. In 2000, the State Budget was less than half of that. Did our wages double from 2000 to 2009? If not, then why the hell did spending? Every state that is in red ink could easily avert its fiscal crisis if all it did was revert to a 2004 budget... We're not even talking 4 years ago...
There's constitutional restrictions on what they can touch (direct voter mandates cannot be cut)
This is an excuse. There is just a lack of political will to really make hard choices.
Change the State Constitution.
This is my sig.
Too bad it didnt get better after I left Arizona 10 years ago. Now the repug-led legislature is trying to privatize the buildings and funnel yet more money into the pockets of the people who elected them. This is the same idiotic type of idea as making all the interstate into Toll roads.
The State of Arizona's budget for 2009 is $55 billion dollars. The shortfall is about a couple of billion. If all the state did was to adopt the budget from 2006, which was 42.7 billion dollars, me thinks the state would be in the black and by a pretty penny.
This is my sig.
There's a difference between patriotism and theft.
Look at the budget for the State of Arizona...for 2000, it was 27 billion, for 2009, it is 55 billion...
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Arizona_state_budget
Gov't spending is up 8% annually. Where the hell is the money going? Why do you want to raise taxes to double their current levels when people's paychecks have not gone up. Cut services... the state spending is out of control.
This is my sig.
At least State governments are restricted in how much damage they can do in being unable to run long-term deficits. Mischievous government should be forced into foreclosure just as the imprudent individual. It will be a great day when the Capitol and White House are on the auction block in a desperate attempt to prevent the Federal Government from entering default.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Im confused here... If they sell the buildings then lease them from the new owners do they not have to pay rent? Then in a few years when the economy is better wont they have to buy it back for more then they sold it for? Real estate generally increases in value not decreases. It would make the whole deal a loss for the state then wouldnt it? I see no way that this would help out with their yearly budget except for the year they sell it. After that its only going to be a net loss.
It seems to me this sounds like a bs accounting scheme. Kinda similiar how a few states say its cheaper to keep a murderer in prison for life then it is to execute him within a few years. Its looks great in the short term but in the long run it costs much more.
It just sounds really stupid to me. I can understand trying to get some money to make ends meet but this whole deal makes me scratch my head.
Do the buildings go "ping"?
/., go to 3:00 of this. Don't worry, you'll get there some day in a distant future.
If you're new on
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
The heights of stupidity people will go just to avoid raising taxes.
So long as my taxes remain low, I don't give a shit what these politicians do to keep them low.
The economy is in poor shape now, but will probably get much, much worse in the coming years (see today's poorly performing 5 year treasury bond sales, an indicator that foreign banks and investors don't want to invest in us, even with a higher "tail" interest rates.). What makes our state legislators think that they will have more funds in a few years to buy these properties back?
It is in no one's interest that the US economy crash and burn, and that is why the oil rich countries, and China, Russia, etc. appear to be cooperating on "gently" moving the world to a "basket of currencies" rather than use the dollar as the main international exchange currency - they don't want us to crash and burn and take them with us. A slow and gradual process is the best that we can probably hope for.
How can the USA cooperate? For one thing, how about reducing federal, state, and local expenditures by 25% (OK, I just made up that amount, but it sounds about right).
Painful? You bet. Government workers will have salaries and benefits reduced, as will the general population. Deals with labor unions will be broken. Benefits form the ponzy scheme known as social security will be cut back.
Corruption needs to be nipped. As a starter, how about a tax on financial transactions that do not involve real goods and services: apply a 1% tax to hedge fund investment transactions, etc. Slow down the non-productive use of money.
Bush, Obama, and Congress have already proven themselves to be firmly in the pockets of corporations and their lobbyists - that will not change. Why should people who get to make the rules be fair with the rest of us?
According to this Arizona's year 2000 budget was 23.7 billion USD out of 158.5 billion USD GDP. The numbers for 2009 are projected to be 55 of 267.5 billion.
Perhaps you can explain why you think it's acceptable for state spending to grow faster than GDP. (8% a year or so. I never get raises like that.)
Someone appears to have mistaken the "-1 troll" moderation for the "-1 disagrees with me about taxes" or "-1 ignorant of the matter at hand."
While I think his post was maybe... dumb... it doesn't seem like trolling to me.
The issue here is that they need to raise taxes to support their own weight but the conservative party in this state is too stupid to realize it and the other half have no spine to push for what is needed so you end up in a stalemate resulting in even more stupid decision making.
Population growth does not account for doubling the budget. This is inexcusable. There's no need for a state's budget to ever escalate past GDP growth. There's a natural limiter there. The fact of the matter, state governments are utterly corrupt, looting the treasury, and the people, and now they are crying for more taxes. It's theft, is what it is.
This is my sig.
They're selling their own office instead of cutting back on education, health care, road maintenance, the fire department, &c. I think it's better for lawmakers to inconvenience themselves instead of the public. It's even mildly noble.
Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
As a starter, how about a tax on financial transactions that do not involve real goods and services: apply a 1% tax to hedge fund investment transactions, etc. Slow down the non-productive use of money.
I'm sorry, but where do you think that money goes?
That's how corporations are able to raise capital to expand their businesses. By levying a tax on the transfer of money from one investment to another, all you're doing is incentivizing people to keep their money in less productive concerns. How is that supposed to help the economy?
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
Better to sell off the Congressmen than the building. It'll have the added benefit of keeping them from spending more money.
In Denmark the former tax minister Peter Brixtofte was mayor in the Farum municipality (he's apparently infamous enough to get his own Wiki page in English).
He implemented a similar scheme in Denmark (now called "Farummodellen"). If we ignore the fact that this was and still is against the law in Denmark, Farum municipality has ended up with the worst economy in any municipality in the country, despite the fact that it used to be one of the richest and most prosperous ones.
To give you an idea of the state it left them in:
In Denmark we have several types of taxes, the municipalities set two types: Municipaly/council tax and property tax. All non-calculated numbers below taken from here
And compare these two for two fairly close and I think fairly comparable municipalities:
In 1995 it was 17.30 and 0.60 percent respectively for Farum (sell and lease back)
In 1995 it was 19.20 and 0.88 percent respectively for Lyngby Taarbæk
In 2005 it was 22.80 and 1.80 percent respectively for Farum (sell and lease back) (total increase of 5.94%)
In 2005 it was 19.90 and 0.83 percent respectively for Lyngby Taarbæk (total increase of 0.54%)
Taxes doesn't tell the whole story of course. So let's look at expenses for the two, calculated pr resident:
In 1995 it was (Euro)4,256 for 17,835 residents in Farum (sell and lease back)
In 1995 it was (Euro)4,526 for 49,578 residents in Lyngby Taarbæk
In 2005 it was (Euro)8,949 for 18,662 residents in Farum (sell and lease back)
In 2005 it was (Euro)7,572 for 51,611 residents in Lyngby Taarbæk
So, an increase in expenses of 110% and an increase of 4.6% of the population for the sell and lease back municipality
And, an increase in expenses of 67% and an increase of 4.1% of the population for the other one
Now, I'll be honest and say that economics is tricky, and it doesn't get easier when you factor in Brixtofte's convictions for corruption and criminal breach of trust and the still unresolved main case against him partly involving the sale and lease back issues, but all in all it really really didn't pan out in Farum, despite the municipality getting a huge (Euro)268M subsidy paid out over 15 years from the government.
Even without looking elsewhere, think of it like this:
Government owned: expenses = Maintenance_g
Privately owned: expenses = Maintenance_p + profit
The only way that (maintenance_p + profit) < (maintenance_g) is if maintenance_p << maintenance_g, in which case you'll either end up with a horribly maintained building, possibly unsuitable for people to work in, OR you're paying low level government employees way too much. Last I checked that the latter has never been the case. When's the last time you heard someone say "I'll get a nice cozy government job - it pays a lot better"?
First, it always is spending that is too high. Politicians make promise after promise because they are not truly responsible for the costs they impose on their constituents. I know some will say that is not true because we can vote them out, but we don't. Just like schools, its the other guy's politician that is bad; theirs is great. Yet while we have politicians clamor to hold corporate executives responsible for the slightest expenditure or such they allow no such hold on themselves. Throw in their truly golden retirement programs we only encourage them to laden on the promises so they can stay in office.
Just as the Federal government has lost its way so have the states. Both have moved to remove all responsibility for life's difficult decisions. They take our rights away because we ourselves have lost what our rights really are. People today are more concerned with their right to choose who the next American idol is, the right to choose their preferred cell provider, and the right to watch the channels on TV they want. Yet the turn a blind eye to rights that require self responsibility. However politicians are more than willing to step into this void and grant you rights that you already have but they do it with a twist. If you have noticed, most of these new rights come at the cost of someone else paying for it, doing the work.
As for illegals, please don't try to write off their burden on society. They consume the same if not more of the same government provided resources we all pay for yet the majority don't pay the same taxes we do. After all they aren't legal so how do we collect from them? Buying food at the local grocery and paying rent does not pay for the services our society provides. There are also many studies which show a large illegal population both committing crimes and incarcerated. You cannot have a great society if you guilt yourself consistently in to turning away from the hard decisions.
What I find amazing is that regardless of loss of income governments only resort to blackmailing the tax paying populace into paying more instead of cutting back on the frivolous or over staffed government agencies. Instead of cutting "lifestyle" agencies and such where do they hit us first? Education, police, and fire. This was well played out in Atlanta recently. Until the city folk caved and accepted higher taxes the city set about to close fire and police stations in sensitive areas - read areas where resistance to increased and undue taxation were most evident.
Yet people want to hand their right to choose their own health care to these people? Guess what, you will see endless expansion of it as well. Think its bad that Arizona is thinking of selling state property, wait till it becomes too expensive to afford your own because of the endless increases to the promises made possible by your work.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Perfect explanation.
Between 1990 and 2000, Arizona's population grew from 3,665,228 to 5,130,632 (40% Increase)
Between 2000 and 2008, Arizona's population grew from 5,130,632 to 6,500,180 (27% increase, or 77% relative to 1990)
Consider also the fact, that most of the people moving to Arizona are going into retirement, and thus will very likely need medical attention/help a couple of years _after_ moving there. Add to that, that the housing boom probably lead to considerable urban sprawl, thus requiring large investments into infrastructure and making this infrastructure harder to maintain.
That does make the budget increase much more understandable. Even before I have looked into matters such as one-time effects that might have lowered the state budget in 2000. Or taken inflation into account. Or...
But just keep spouting the only idea you republicans have left...
Look at the Consolidated Anual Financial Report for this State.
Don't laugh, just study. This has nothing to do with the country and land known simply as Arizona and then the Arizonian republic. Someone created a federal corporated known as STATE OF ARIZONA, and it's doing business through Uniform Commercial Code to rent, lease, mortgage, and make claims. I know wher Food4Less and Walmart headquarters are, so who or where does STATE OF ARIZONA do its business?
How can the USA cooperate? For one thing, how about reducing federal, state, and local expenditures by 25% (OK, I just made up that amount, but it sounds about right).
Painful? You bet. Government workers will have salaries and benefits reduced, as will the general population. Deals with labor unions will be broken. Benefits form the ponzy scheme known as social security will be cut back.
Okay, just don't complain when the poor guy who got unlucky and lost his job breaks into your house to get money for food and there are no police less than 20 minutes away when you call the cops. Most government social programs exist for good reasons. If we didn't have so many people that bought into the political falsehood of "small government" we might have actually saved enough money to keep up a civilized society during an economic downturn.
Does it seem odd to anyone else that these people would consider selling off parts of the state government infrastructure BEFORE they would consider legalizing and taxing marijuana? Notice they don't bother to mention what happens if someone buys the debt from the holding company? What if the state brings in lower than expected tax funds for the year? If it works the way normal mortgages go, they get forclosed and kicked out!!! What then??? Arizona's state government has to find a room mate at a flat in the section-8 housing? Putting people in jail, feeding and clothing them, possibly re-training them, re-educating them, costs a LOT OF MONEY every year. Maintaining a virtually military-grade aresenal, and performing break-in exercises cost a LOT OF MONEY. Add to that cost the little contract kick-backs and icing and such and you are talking about a whole LOT OF MONEY!!! When you think about it, that money could most likely have been spent in many more productive ways than busting stoners. Add to the savings of not investigating, arresting, processing, trying, convicting and imprisoning people, the untold millions that could be made in Income tax, excise tax, leisure tax and sales tax, and we could probably afford to go back to a free public university system within 4 years. And best of all, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO CONSIDER SELLING OF "STATE" ASSETS TO DO IT!
-Oz .
This is my favourite. You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to, and that way, it comes under the monthly current budget and NOT the capital account. [applause] Thank you. Thank you. We try to do our best. Well, do carry on.
http://www.geocities.com/pythoninsanity/Meaningoflife.html
This is just absolute bunk. Pretty soon he'll be telling you that you are a corporation owned by the ebil gubmint, that's why they print your name in ALL CAPS!!11eleventy!! Then he will try to sell you books showing you how you don't have to pay taxes because Abraham Lincoln ordered congress to convene at gunpoint and the US has been a military dictatorship since then. If you buy the books and try out the theories, you will go to jail.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Soon, A Lucky day may come when Congress sells its Capitol Building and goes out of business. Federal Government is a Major PITA.
great wheeze, very popular in UK. Sell public building cheap to friend of politician, then lease back with public money. Friend gets cheap building, plus good income, friend takes politician out to lunch every now and then, for free. Friend then increases rent. Great transfer of wealth from public (tax payers) to private, rich happy friend, fat happy politician.
Oh, that's bullshit. The transaction tax will be low enough that occasional trades to shuffle money between investments won't be affected. The fees are aimed at front-running leeches who use algorithmic trading to skim the market hurt everyone else.
Someone forgot to read up on this story. It was a rumor and nothing more. The capitol buildings were never going to be sold.
The transaction tax will be low enough that occasional trades to shuffle money between investments won't be affected. The fees are aimed at front-running leeches [nytimes.com] who use algorithmic trading to skim the market hurt everyone else.
So... You just want to eliminate liquidity from the market. You don't think that will hurt those "occasional trades to shuffle money between investments" far more than the tax itself?
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
It's the exchange's job to provide liquidity, not Goldman Sachs'.
It's the exchange's job to provide liquidity, not Goldman Sachs'.
What?
Who's going to be on the other side of all those trades, if not speculators? A transaction requires two people: a buyer and a seller. The exchange cannot fill the role of either.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
Who'd want to buy the house where the economy of Arizona died? I heard it was murdered.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
...is only going for a 50 year lease. Indiana sold the Indiana Toll Road (I-80) for 75 years to a foreign company, along with Illinois selling the Chicago Skyway, and Chicago also sold all of their parking meters for 75 years as well.
It's just goddamn ridiculous. In 2080 our kids' kids' kids are going to piss on our graves realizing how much we f'd them over with these kind of contracts.
I have a better idea, why not lease naming rights? I'm envisioning...The Trojan Condoms State Office Building...Where you get f**ked, but at least you have protection.
I was in Prescot the end of May and sales tax was 10%.
Costco was selling a WD 2.5 inch HD passport 500mb drive for 99.99 after a $20.00 off coupon.
They taxed the sale before the coupon price so I paid $12 in sales tax.
There are lots of people out of work in Arizona and many people are working 2 jobs just to get by as costs vs wages are not in sink for many mid lower income people. Seeing all of the empty malls and boarded up business I dont think that local business is doing so hot either.
Raising taxes is the last thing Arizona needs right now.
Government needs to learn to do more with less, just like everyone else in my opinion.
I live in Arizona and one of the big reasons the state has run out of money is the voter initiatives. This is where an informed population would come in handy. The local government puts these ballots out for all kinds of neato stuff and enough voters fall for them. The result is that something like half of our spending is automatic and can't be easily cut because it is written into law. Each time they would get low on funds, one hand would ask for more taxes while the other hand continued to dole out pork. It is a runaway train. This is very upsetting and I've have had it. For awhile now, I have voted "no" on every tax increase, bond issue and accounting trick. Why give an addict more of what they are addicted to and then expect them to practice self control? Cold turkey. No more money, cut spending.
As much as I hate tickets, I think they and all these other states with budget problems need to tell their cops to step it up a notch and give a lot more speeding tickets and such...
I know an ex-cop who claims there's no such thing as quotas...in these tough times, there need to be, and they need to be way, way up there...
Look at the budget for the State of Arizona...for 2000, it was 27 billion, for 2009, it is 55 billion...
Read your OWN DAMN LINK.
First sentence of your OWN posted link.
"Labeled as one of the "worst budget deficits in the U.S." [1] Arizona is currently projected to have a $1.6 billion shortfall for the fiscal year than ends in June 2009. This projected shortfall represents 16 percent of the $9.9 billion state budget.
The budget for Arizona is nowhere NEAR the 27 -- 55 billion you state. What are you confusing Arizona and California?
There is tons of state land that they could sell, they should start with that.
Just imagine if the Federal Government did this and Madoff ended up owning the jail that he is living in!
I wonder how many well connected criminals are in the Arizona Jails and what loopholes their high price dlawyers can find in the leases!
The mind boggles ...
So population and inflationary costs would be in line with a 158% increase, but instead the budget increased 200%, give-or-take.
However, assuming that government is a service (something I don't assume, but most people do), the cost of providing that service should go *down* with respect to what they provide, and having a larger population should provide better economies of scale, making their services *cheaper* per person.
So the government is doing the opposite of what private services do. Getting more expensive with time rather then less, and getting more expensive the more its "customer base" grows.
"Increasing technology levels"? Technology improves efficiency and lowers cost, not the other way around. In addition, I don't think individuals' absolute wealth is really increasing any more. Any increases we should be seeing are offset by the geometrically increasing amounts of our wealth that are siphoned off by the government (especially at the federal level) to pay for wars and bank bailouts.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Things don't necessarily mean what you think they mean, bucky. Your interpretation is just plain whacked. Do NOT attempt to use what you've 'learned' from those books you got from the militia.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This was done in Canada years ago.
It is basically a way one government can try and make it self look fiscally responsible. Emphasis on "look".
The buildings are basically assets. Sell 'em for 50 Million to some company that leases them back to you. Does it matter that rather than maintaince costs of 2 million a year have now turned into 4 million a year? No, because political parties are short sighted and are more interested in getting re-elected than doing anything worthwhile. By doing this this they can now add 46 Million to their budget, helping them "balance" the budget. Never mind in the long term you lose money or it is a one shot deal. From their perspective if you don't get re-elected it doesn't matter anyway, and if you do you can deal with it then with some other short sighted plan. Likely you just say its these tough economic times, or the cost of doing business, and raise taxes (or cut programs) to cover you losses.
They do it all the time in Ontario, Canada as well as the feds. The best part is the kick backs to political friends. (or making new friends by selling them something worth 100 million for 50 million, etc...). Ah politics, ain't it grand? What makes you want to cry is every single one will talk about accountability during election time, but no one ever is, with perhaps the exception of a scape goat or two.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_holds_going_out_of_business
Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
Especially with how someone with mod-points came by and removed all my post having cites to US Code, of which I am not an interpreter. Mod-points improve discussion, not negate it or impede knowing the post of the participants say if none quoted one-another in-line. Goes to know that you have a double-personality on Slashdot in your favor at all times.
I referenced those Legal citations, I didn't interpret them because they are self-explanatory on what the United States IS (not are), and what IT (not they) HAS (not have) become. And then you strawman that I received my information from militia, when in-fact it was from a U.S. district Courthouse.
A programmer knows the code, for which I can't say you are much of anything other that spouting your incompetance with inacurate ad hominem silliness. As others you've groped would say, So do I say "don't even touch our doorknobs. Just go."
Seeing you ignored my question in subject, here is Section 83 for you; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000083----000-.html
You can blather on about this all you like, quoting irrelevant shit you don't understand, but it means fuck-all, no one sane believes you, and your theories are worthless. I had a good friend who got seriously burned by this weak ass shit and is now in jail, which is where you will go if you think this crap will get you anywhere in a court of law. So shut up and pay your fucking taxes, you dig it?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You simply show up at DMV with the trust documents filled out properly (there are many how to books for this) and a title transfer to the trust name. It can be any trust, LLC or Corporation BTW - just so it has a legal identity.
As for the picture on your driver license, I understand that most people have cousins who look amazingly like them. The key thing here that there is no mechanism to enforce these tickets outside the US so they just don't bother sending one.
People I know who have done this simply send in the form for "someone else was driving" (included in the ticket) and in a couple of weeks get back a letter telling them that the case was dismissed.
Yes the license plate covers could never work for long and are unlawful now anyway. I did lie the idea of covering the state name though - that had style!
Some sort of decal (flag?) on your windshield (roughly behind your rear view mirror) would be quite effective though - it would obscure your face without getting in the way of your sight line to the road. This works because the camera must be mounted at an angle to your car and the paralax allows you to obscure the camera without obscuring the road.
Check it out the next time you are waiting for a red light.
There are a lot of flaws in the system which are being carefully hidden.
I got interested in this subject when I had to give up driving due to severe cataracts and parked my car in my garage for six months. During that time I got two robo-cop ("photo radar") tickets even though my car was parked in a locked garage! The judge agreed that there was something wrong and dismissed them both (I had to show my eye doctors report and the schedule for the surgery.) The car and plate looked like mine (a Grey Camry - no surprise), but the driver did not look at all like me or anyone I know.
The biggest surprise came when I went to reactivate my license - they couldn't FIND the current license which was suspended due to blindness, only a very old one which had expired about 15 years ago! They happily renewed that one so I am OK to drive. However it leaves me wondering what happens the NEXT time the system writes me a ticket and finds that my license is suspended due to blindness!
The people that I have talked to in the court system tell me that the personal service is the only way that ANY of the tickets get paid - that is why it is as high as 10%! The trick of just ignoring the first letter is pretty well known now it seems.
It seems that there are a whole lot of tricks as well as many flaws in the system so this little game will likely go on for quite some time.