Laserfiche WebLink
A <br />TESTIMONY RELATING TO BILL 102 DRAFT 2 <br />MAY 912018 COUNTY CLERK <br />COUNTY OF HAWAII <br />ALBERT NAKAJI;RECEIVED <br />Time 1!. ,�®pm W­�� <br />Date MAY q. 20/ S <br />Thank you for this opportunity to offer my thoughts on Bill 102, Draft 2. <br />Idly name is Albert Nakaji, and I am a life-long resident of Hawaii, currently' <br />residing in Papaikou, where I have been since about 1960. 1 am currently t <br />retired and on fixed income. <br />Since I have spoken on this matter in the past, instead of repeating myse <br />opposition to the proposed .5% GET increase, I will add one more thought fore <br />your consideration. I _urge you to carefully consider this as you think about the <br />consequences of the subject bill. <br />Simply put, government, whether it's County, State, or Federal, cannot and <br />should not be all things to all people,' nor should it try to be. To attempt to do so <br />is an exercise in futility and, more importantly, counterproductive in many <br />aspects, albeit well -intended. <br />Consider California: It is considered by many to be the most liberal (some say <br />"progressive") state in the Union.. The LA Times, on January 14, 2018, r <br />published a piece written by Kerry Jackson, the Pacific Research Institute's <br />fellow in California studies, entitled, "Why is liberal California the poverty dal pal <br />of America?". Without going into the details, he stated, "California, -with 12% cf <br />the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation's <br />welfare recipients. The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease <br />poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse". Well intended? Certainly. <br />Effective? No. Socio-economic ills cannot be solved simply by throwing money <br />at the issues. This truth is timeless and is reflected in even modern society, <br />including Hawaii. R <br />Comm. No. <br />Ref. To: El COCK - <br />Ref. Date Pv1�iY <br />