“But look what has happened in WI. Even after they passed a LAW! the leftists have found ways to ignore the will of the people.”
That is very disturbing; here in NJ when we vote down school budgets, rather than simply leave the budget at the current level, there is some kind of process that results in increases anyway. Now that many people pay $10K+ in property taxes (that is how our public schools are funded), the taxpaying population and corporations are leaving and they still won’t shrink school systems/cut budgets. One result of the teachers’ battle with Governor Christie is that the teachers have kept everything while the cops & firemen get cut (since they can now only raise taxes so much, and it is not even enough for the teachers’ pay increases and costs of benefits - they simply cut somewhere else).
The Democrats’ prime concern has to be stopping the migration of taxpaying Americans from the lib states; they take their electoral votes and tax revenues with them, leaving illegal aliens, our permanent underclass, and the public employees to “administer” the reservation with few resources. If they “nationalize” the socialism, there would be nowhere to flee to; the serfs would be stuck on their communes. They push home ownership at all costs because it ideally generates a property tax revenue stream and they realize that high-earning tenants are the first to flee.
>>“But look what has happened in WI. Even after they passed a LAW! the leftists have found ways to ignore the will of the people.”
>
>That is very disturbing
The Judiciary hasn’t been on the side of the people in a VERY long time.
Consider, for a moment, Kelo v. New London; in this case the Supreme Court allowed as legitimate the usage of Immanent Domain to serve a “public use” the ‘projection’ of higher tax-revenue. This boils down to the USSC saying that “we *think* the government will make more money if...” as being sufficient reason to dispossess a person of their property.
Never mind that this amounts to a de facto amendment of the Constitution’s 5th Amendment to remove ‘for public use’ because it renders those words of no meaning because the mere assumption, even mistaken, of “more revenue” is held to be ‘public use.’ {and how far is it to grant this legal larceny to allow the government seizing private property and selling it off to pay for debts/”unfunded liabilities”?}