Privilege Down the Drain

Whenever I write something here, I bother to formulate my ideas and choose my words carefully. It's important to me both not to waste my creative abilities, and to respect whatever time you, the reader, are giving me. Thank you for spending a few moments considering my words.

So I find it sad and, frankly, somewhat immoral, when an actual editor of a printed publication mistakes the privilege of the editorial position for a casual soapbox from which to blab more or less thoughtlessly in the style of morning radio banter. It's really a shame.

What got me going on this was reading an editorial this morning in the Boston Business Journal. I can't believe the editor, George Donnelly, spent more than 10-minutes writing it up. But even if he had spent hours, I doubt the quality of the ideas in his piece would have been much improved. How depressing that such incurious, uncritical ideas come from the pen of an editor!

If you don't want to read the whole BBJ editorial, in a nutshell, it asserts that it is wrong to allow the Occupy Boston protest to continue in public because it may lead to "politically less desirable" groups subsequently also being allowed to protest both in public, and at length. It displays a terrible ignorance of the 1st Amendment (the law of our land), a fearsome dose of Fake Patriotism (my own, personal nemesis), and an unfortunate amount of misinformation about the roots of the protest itself (the least worrisome part of this editorial).

It's embarrassing that the Boston Business Journal publishes editorials that make it so clear that its leadership doesn't support the fundamental rights of the U.S. Constitution for *all* citizens--not just the ones who agree with the BBJ editor's personal outlook on life. When one has the great, personal fortune of publishing an opinion-based editorial to be read by thousands, it's really a shame to squander it on silly rhetoric. Editor Donnelly isn't Howie Carr, for heaven's sake [note: Carr is something like Boston's print version of Rush Limbaugh]. Doesn't Donnelly feel any responsibility at all to his readers, or even to his own intellect, to craft an editorial based on factual assessments, critical thinking, and some understanding of our laws, rights, and the actual players involved in the suit at hand, rather than slap down some trite hyperbole about "utopians" and "rent-free" living?

It's not even possible to know if Donnelly is, in his words, "perplexed" and literally doesn't understand the judge's ruling, or if he's just irritated that the judge used legal precedent and the Constitution as the basis for the ruling, rather than Donnelly's own subjective, personal opinion that the Occupy protesters are bothersome to him, and thus not entitled to their Constitutional rights. It seems he was just being rhetorical, but his commentary on the situation is so basic, and his use of the phrase "protected speech" (which is not really the protected right at issue in this case) makes me think that in fact, he actually doesn't get what happened.

Donnelly says "the problem with Judge McIntyre's ruling is it sets a broad precedent for other, and perhaps less politically desirable, occupations of public space." That's spurious (and creepy!). The right of assembly is established in the 1st Amendment. It is granted to all Americans and it does not matter one iota whether they are "less politically desirable." To imply otherwise is deeply un-American and unpatriotic.  Furthermore, Judge McIntyre did not create or reinterpret the right of assembly this week. In fact, the judge was *following*, not *creating*, legal precedent established a few days earlier.

The decision in the case of Occupy Wall Street (a few days in advance of the Boston decision) established two precedents for adjudicating any Occupy protest location: (1) Such a protest *is* protected by the 1st Amendment (by the way, for those who are thinking "free speech," you don't know your whole 1st Amendment. Grab your copy of the Constitution--what, you don't have one? why not? I thought you were a big patriot--and re-read the last line); (2) Because the location of the New York City protest is on private property, the 5th and 9th Amendment rights of the property owner are not trumped by an unmitigated protection of the protesters' 1st Amendment rights.

So here in Boston, where the protest is not on private property whose owner wishes the protest to cease, the legal precedent seems to establish that the Occupy Boston protesters are protected by the 1st Amendment, and there is no other condition strong enough to outweigh the right of the protesters to remain.

Look, I'm not a Constitutional scholar. I'm not even a lawyer. But I'm a Constitution-loving American who has a brain, a copy of said document, and a  belief that it is a moral obligation of every American to defend our rights for *everyone*, and not just for the people we happen to agree with. For me, personally, part of defending our rights means actually bothering to give some considered thought to the issues of the day, not to just blindly accept the sound bites at face value, and to speak up when someone--especially someone who should care more, like the editor of a popular publication--wastes the privilege of his position with unconsidered talk that is contrary to our democracy.

Since When Does Our Police Department Do Free Enforcement for Private Companies?

I have been meaning to write about this for ages--this and the myriad other ways that various entities--local, national, private and public--extract every possible penny they can from me and my neighbors, family, and friends.

As far as I can tell, all of these practices are immoral, and most of them are either illegal or would not stand up in court, were someone with as much money as a wealthy corporation to provide a challenge.

The photo at right shows a metered parking lot, located at approximately 399 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts.

Like most drivers, when I see a parking spot with a parking meter, beside a big, blue public parking icon ("P"), I take it that I'm looking at public parking--whether it's on-street or in a lot.

In the case of the parking lot in question, if you parked here and your meter did in fact expire, so that you returned to your car to find a City of Malden parking ticket on your windshield, you might be aggravated to have been ticketed, but it likely wouldn't occur to you to question whether the city had a right to ticket you in the first place. Right?

Well, I'm telling you that in this lot, the city should not be ticketing you or anybody else.

Here's why. This parking lot is not a public lot. That's right; it's a privately owned lot, and all the money deposited in its meters is destined not for the City Treasury, but for a private company. I am not sure which company is the owner. I believe it's either LAZ or Fitz who, between them, have a good stranglehold on area parking. Let's say it's Fitz. In any case, it ain't the city.

So, tell me why you should be required to pay the city $15 if you are late feeding Fitz's parking meter. What city rule or ordinance have you violated? What jurisdiction could the city possibly have over parking time limits in a privately-owned parking area? What right might the Registry of Motor Vehicles possibly claim to put a hold on your ability to renew your license and thus operate a vehicle legally simply because you didn't pay parking citations wrongfully issued to you while you were parked on private property?

And why should my tax dollars be used to pay a policeman to check the meters in a private lot?

I don't know which is worse!

If Fitz wants to monitor its own lots and tow cars away when meters expire, let them. If they want to impose some kind of legal fee structure to deter parkers from not feeding their meters, fine. In that case, they can take the market consequence and see if parkers still want to park there given the extreme enforcement. But it is outrageous that a private company that is too stingy to hire its own parking lot attendants is able to avail itself of free policing on the taxpayers' tab!

And it is indefensible that while residents endure double-digit unemployment and struggle to put decent food on their tables and decent roofs over their heads, that they are once more nickle-and-dimed by their own government--in this case for dollars to which the government ought to have no legal claim whatsoever.

Here's the cherry on top. You know how I found out about this debacle? I was at the Malden police station to get a parking permit, and in the course of speaking with the officer at the window, he began quietly to complain about the wrongs of parking in Malden. It was this officer who told me that the parking lot on Main Street does not even belong to the city, that all the officers know it, and that they resent being made to ticket residents who are parked there.

The officer, who asked not to be named, wondered aloud how many cumulative police hours are wasted patrolling that lot as a freebie for Fitz that could otherwise have been used to do something actually related to public safety or improving, not deteriorating, the quality of life of Malden's residents.

What do you think? Is there any possible justification for the city's issuing public parking tickets to cars parked on private property?

Government Contracts Used as Cash Cows to Nickle and Dime Taxpayers for Private Profit

Let's start this story with the Massachusetts law that prohibits charging extra for credit card transactions

MASSACHUSETTS POSSESSES A "NO SURCHARGE RULE" FOR CONSUMER PURCHASES

"No seller...may impose a surcharge on a cardholder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check or similar means."

Statute: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 140D, § 28A(a)(2) (West)

Discounts for Cash Payments are allowed in Massachusetts

Discount offered to induce payment by cash, check or other means not involving a credit card not considered a finance charge if offered to all prospective buyers and disclosed clearly and conspicuously.

Statute: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 140D, § 28A(b) (West)

Statutes cover: Credit cards only

Statute: (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 140D, § 1 (West))

And yet...

Yesterday I went to City Hall to pay a state excise tax on my car. It turned out that they didn't accept payments for that there, so they referred me to the next town over, whose city hall has an electronic kiosk (a machine) where taxpayers can pay their excise tax.

I drove over to the other town. I didn't have the excise tax bill with me because I had misplaced it. Since it can be easily looked up using my driver's license number, I wasn't concerned.

I found the payment kiosk. It turns out not to be owned and maintained by the Commonwealth, but rather by a private company (Kelley & Ryan Associates) that, it seems, has a contract to collect various payments (like excise tax or parking tickets) owed to the Commonwealth.

I initiated my transaction, following a system of prompts that began by offering me a selection for taxpayers who didn't have their bill right there with them.

I entered my name, date of birth, and license number. Then I had to enter my Social Security number. This rubbed me the wrong way. I do realize that SS numbers are in fact taxpayer ID numbers. However, here in Massachusetts, we specifically have the option of not associating our SS number with our driver's license, and it should be very simple to accept my payment and associate it with my vehicle simply by using my license number.

I have no particular confidence that this electronic kiosk is managed in a secure-enough fashion to sufficiently protect my identity. That's why this method of requiring input of my SS number bothered me.

The next step was to enter a number printed exactly as shown on my bill. Wait, wasn't I in the processing flow for people who don't have their bill handy? Yes, I was. Anytime I see a system designed that badly, it greatly lowers my confidence in the general care taken to build the system. So at that point, I was certainly regretting having entered my social security number in the previous step.

Needless to say, I couldn't proceed with the transaction.

The kiosk was located right next to the payment window of the city Collector's Office. An employee of that office saw me standing there, and saw that I was leaving the kiosk without finishing. I guess she must see that a lot, because she called me over to the window to tell me that I didn't need to use the kiosk--that she could take my payment in person.

Great! A helpful, friendly civil servant. I gave her my driver's license and credit card, and after a few moments, she handed me a printed receipt. Mission accomplished!

Back home, I took the receipt out of my purse and went to file it in my desk. That's when I noticed that I'd been charged an extra 3% for an "online convenience fee." Huh?! I hadn't paid online. I hadn't even paid at their kiosk. I had paid in person at a city office. Right?

I phoned Kelley & Ryan Associates right away. I told them what had happened, and asked them why I'd been charged extra. The employee of Kelley & Ryan told me, "you have to pay extra to use a credit card. Three percent."

"Umm, that's illegal," I told her. "You know that, right? It's illegal in Massachusetts to charge someone extra for paying with a credit card."

She replied, "well, that's how it is; it's three percent extra."

Now, as I said, the receipt identified this extra charge as an "online convenience fee." When I first read that, I immediately suspected that this was really a charge for using a credit card. I thought it likely that Kelley & Ryan are well-aware of the Massacusetts law, and that they try to skirt it by pretending their credit card fee is some other kind of fee.

But the Kelley & Ryan employee made it clear--explicitly confirming to me that this was in fact an additional charge because I chose to pay with a credit card.

The law does allow a vendor to offer discounts for paying by check or with cash. I attempted to give Kelley & Ryan an out, and I asked the employee, "okay, well is there any way I can get a discount then?"

Not surprisingly, she answered me with a scornful tone. "No! No discounts!"

That about wrapped it up for me. Kelley & Ryan have an exclusive contract to collect government taxes from millions of residents of the Commonwealth, and they are illegally increasing the burden on the taxpayer by 3% for the (I'm guessing) millions of online transactions!

This stuff just infuriates me. It is wrong. It is corrupt. It is theft.

And it is just one more example of how American citizens are nickle-and-dimed by both private companies and public entities to drip 90% of them of every bit of available funds they have.

Companies like Kelley & Ryan profit at the public trough--illegally charging individual taxpayers, and I'll bet cumulatively overcharging the Commonwealth, to perform a service that could, and probably should, be kept in-house by the state.

Why should a private, for-profit company be allowed to collect taxes for the state? That they "enhance" whatever profit they already make through the terms of their contract, by illegally passing on their processing fees to the taxpayer, simply rubs copious amounts of salt where the Commonwealth is already hemorrhaging its treasure to outside vendors.

Imagine the outrage the Chamber of Commerce would express if the Commonwealth announced it was going to increase some tax by 3%. Why, the Chamber just poured all kinds of money into defeating the alcohol sales tax increase in Massachusetts by ballot initiative at last week's election. They wouldn't be able to stop quoting how many jobs would be eliminated by a 3% increase on whatever, and how many businesses would suffer.

Yet not a peep when a huge increase is levied by a private, for-profit company on a public tax obligation!

This blog post is the first step in my attempt to right this wrong--to recoup my 3%, as well as all the three percents that have illegally been levied on my Massachusetts compatriots.

Obama Is 2nd U.S. President Born in Africa. Really!!!

Today I came across this very funny website, where you can generate a great-looking Kenyan birth certificate for anybody. Here's one that proves George W. was born in the same Kenyan hospital as Obama. Amazing coincidence! You can make your own, genuine Kenyan birth certificate at http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com.


****************************UPDATE: March 21, 2010******************

It's stupefying to realize that months later, the birthers, tea baggers, or whatever you want to call the idiots who believe this bunk, are still alive and in force. Jeeeeeeeez. Comically, the State of Hawaii has now proposed legislation in their State House to give their civil servants the authority to ignore the repetitive, money-sucking, time-wasting paperwork requests from these fools: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/03/17/hawaii-considers-legislation-to-ignore-birthers