Archive for October, 2011

« Older Entries  |  
October 30, 2011

Occupy Pennsylvania Avenue!

by Steve Dana

After watching the Occupy Wall Street protests for a couple weeks I really hoped the protester would do their thing for a while and then go home.  Not so surprisingly the protesters are still at it.

Since I’ve confessed before to listening to Glenn Beck, I look for George Soros under every rock.  And since Beck warned us many months ago this type of protest was coming, driven by left wing organizations funded by Soros it’s only disappointing that Beck was right. Craig’s List ads recruiting folks to be paid protesters is a good indicator they’re not there on principle; paid bail and legal aid for protesters who are arrested, who are encouraged to do illegal acts so they will be arrested and food brought in to feed the protesters paid for by someone else are a few examples.

As I watch it happening, listening to the television interviews of some of the protesters it’s clear many of them are there just for the experience; not because of anything specific but because they want to be a part of it.  Who can blame young folks for following a pied piper who promises a good time if they will just join the crowd?

At the same time I’m also hearing folks complaining to Wall Street about the lack of jobs; or that Capitalism is the root of all evil.  On the one hand they blame business for not creating a job for them then they demonize the system that can create jobs.  It’s clear that Economics 101 was not one of the classes they took in college.

And since a goodly number of the protesters are unemployed recent college graduates angry and afraid because life is not fair they are looking for someone to blame.  It’s unfortunate that American History and Government weren’t classes they took either since then they might understand the role of government in our economic system.

I’m disappointed that college educated young people, out of ignorance, are focusing their anger on the system that could be their salvation.  I’m disappointed that these kids are paying for an education but getting a meaningless diploma; and pay they will even if there are no jobs.

Which brings me to…

Many of the protesters didn’t pay for their educations yet, they borrowed the money to go to college and now that they are out, their lenders are expecting to be repaid.

The economy has been in the tank for three or four years now so these recent graduates should’ve had an inkling that the competition for jobs would be fierce yet they still went heavily into debt to get an education with little likelihood of getting a job when they graduated.  And now, they are angry?  Help me understand, what job you are hoping to land when you get your degree in Women’s Studies or Art History?  Shouldn’t a job or career be a consideration for students if their “education” requires they take on so much debt?

Nobody forced them to borrow the money and maybe prudence might have suggested that in a recession they might choose a more conservative strategy but like some of their career choices poor judgment was wide spread and now they want to blame someone else.

It’s time for these kids to understand that the crappy economy has been crappy for all of us. You don’t have to be unemployed to understand the plight of Americans today, young and old. Many of us have learned the brutal lesson that when we make bad choices there is a reckoning; but we step up, we take our medicine and we move on.

If the protesters are serious about changing things so they will have jobs in the future they need to ask the companies they hoped would hire them why they don’t have jobs for them and listen carefully to their answers.  More likely than not, the culprit will be too much government.  Then the protesters can decide whether they are protesting in the right places.  If you can’t figure out which companies to ask, you probably got your degree in the wrong field!

American businesses would like nothing better than to have jobs for every young person graduating from college today because that would signal that our government has gotten off their backs and the economy is moving productively again.  If only we could convince the government to get with the program.

Posted in Political commentary, Regulatory Reform | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , ,
October 27, 2011

Flat Tax – No Chance

by Steve Dana

If 51% of our population is currently not paying Federal Income Tax, what reason would they have for supporting a flat tax candidate?

If you are not currently paying Federal Income Tax because of the quirks of the code, why would you support a candidate espousing a plan for a flat tax that would suddenly shift any tax burden to you?

How does the President justify saying everyone should pay their fair share but half the people in our country pay nothing?  If he thinks folks who pay nothing are paying more than their fair share, how can he say that those who pay everything don’t pay enough? What should a fair share be?  How does he quantify what a fair share should be?

Having said all of that;

The chances of the US Congress passing a Flat Tax in place of the current system is zero so I would suggest we focus on “reforming” the current law to eliminate the special interest deductions everyone seems to detest and adjust tax rates so lower income folks start paying something. 

Changes affecting deductions may change more quickly, but changes increasing tax rates on lower income “tax payers” should take place more gradually.  Big changes coming too quickly cause big protests.

I think we all agree that the current tax code is too complex and unwieldy.  But if the existing progressive system is so much more desirable, what has Congress done or what are they doing to strip away the exemptions that allow a company like GE to pay no Federal Income Tax? 

Americans are upset, but it’s likely that inaction by Congress is the most frustrating reason.  Let’s get the Super Committee working on deleting 2/3 of the 71,000 pages of the tax code for starters.  When the Simpson-Boles Report suggested a few changes, neither side of the political aisle stepped up and agreed because of their own sacred cows; that has to change.

In my view, our government uses the tax code to shape public behavior.  We create incentives for behaviors we like and penalties for behaviors we dislike. 

As an example, we want folks to buy homes so we give generous deductions for mortgage interest.  But, what happens to the housing industry in our country if that cash cow dries up?  So is that one is a keeper; if it is, then how about the next one and the next one?  

The Progressive Tax system is not an equal treatment system but it’s characterized as being more “fair” because it shifts a higher burden to folks who have been successful and a lesser burden on everyone else.  I don’t understand how the more you make the higher the rate is fair!  If we have to accept that application of the word “fair” as the true definition of fair, maybe that is part of the problem.

Posted in Federal Government, Partisan Politics, Regulatory Reform | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , ,
October 16, 2011

MIKE HOPE Without Reservations!

by Steve Dana

To start with, let me say I’m not surprised the Herald editorial board endorsed Aaron Reardon for County Executive.  They couldn’t abandon their guy after making excuses for him and fawning over him his whole “career” even after citing a lengthy list of his weaknesses and failures in their endorsement editorial.  After all, next to Scoop Jackson, Aaron is the Everett Herald’s Favorite Son.  Abandoning him now would only demonstrate their own poor judgment in the past.

The problem is the editorial board underestimates the importance of those “management lapses” to the rest of us.  According to their own editorial “…we think (Hope’s points) are valid and are disappointed that Reardon has been unwilling to accept personal responsibility for allowing standards inside his own office to fall unacceptably low.”

Add to that the antagonistic relationship between Reardon and the County Council. For years, Reardon didn’t bother to communicate with them face to face even though they were of his own party and only 300 feet away.  Now that’s leadership for you!  Sign that guy up for another term! 

Since the County Executive is the highest elective office in the county with management oversight over hundreds of workers it’s important that the guy at the top set the example for everyone else; something his predecessor Bob Drewell did very well. If the past eight years sets the example for the next four years, I’m afraid for Snohomish County.

According to the Herald they decided on Reardon because Mike Hope has limited experience in government and no management experience.

Where it’s true that Mike Hope has been a private business owner and a Seattle Police Officer for more than twelve years and only served in the legislature for three years, he does have a Master’s Degree in Public Policy Study from the U of W and he’s demonstrated leadership in every job he ever held.  Yes it’s true, Mike Hope has not managed a venture as large as the county in the past, but neither had candidate Reardon when he was first elected, but that fact doesn’t suggest he’ isn’t capable.  Another underestimation by the Herald.

Mike’s success as a minority party representative in passing important legislation during the past three years is astounding and his repeated success working across party lines give us all insight into how Mike Hope would manage Snohomish County.

It appears the Herald is willing to retain a guy who has demonstrated time and again that he fails to manage and oversee his appointed managers; something that demonstrates to me both poor management oversight and poor management judgment in appointing people of questionable character to positions of highest authority in the county.  

A guy who himself came to the executive job after two terms in the House of Representatives and part of a term in the State Senate but no meaningful experience managing anything or working in the private sector.  A guy most of us characterize as a professional politician; but a guy who even today aspires to higher political office.

And finally, in light of the disclosure that Kevin Hulton was on the clock, working for Aaron Reardon’s office while he was campaigning for Reardon’s re-election suggests that Reardon’s management style hasn’t changed much in spite of the addition Gary Haakenson as his deputy.  In light of all his publicly disclosed failings the Herald still endorses him.  My goodness!

I’ve been a fan of Mike Hope since he first ran for public office because of the personal qualities he brings to the table. He conducts himself in an honorable manner in private just like he does in public.  He’s street smart and well educated.  He works hard and works well with others.  Mike has both common sense and good judgment.

I’m proud to support Mike Hope for Snohomish County Executive and I encourage everyone to do the same.  Tell your friends and relatives “Mike Hope is our man!”

Posted in Snohomish County Political Commentary | Leave a Comment »

Tags: ,
October 12, 2011

CAIN, a Candidate with a Plan

by Steve Dana

After the Republican “debate” last night everyone was piling on Herman Cain because he offered his 999 Plan but just like the Democrats in the Senate, none of the other candidates besides Gingrich have offered a plan of their own.

As soon as the other candidates roll out their own plans we can compare them and maybe pick and choose the best parts of each that we may or may not adopt.  What’s important is that the other candidates get a plan out there for the same level of scrutiny as the 999 Plan.  In the mean time, I like the fact that Cain had the courage to put a plan on the table recognizing that it would put a target on his back.

When the President’s Boles-Simpson Committee unveiled their plan it was panned too.  Every plan will be panned by someone.  Our country faces tough problems so the solutions aren’t likely to be easy, but solutions don’t come from hand wringing.

So how do we move forward in the selection process?

Newt Gingrich offers a very comprehensive plan to address the issues in the campaign, but I doubt Newt will be the candidate.  I like Newt, but that won’t get him elected.  Just because Newt can’t be elected doesn’t mean his ideas can’t be used.

Mitt Romney needs to offer his plan if he doesn’t like Herman Cain’s.  I can’t recall anything specific he’s put on the table to address any of the marquee issues other than his experience in both government and private sector business.  Where I certainly acknowledge that he is more qualified to manage the Federal Government than Obama, I’m not so sure he is much of a leader.  I don’t have much confidence in a guy that has switched sides on so many issues.  To me, that suggests either poor judgment or he has no core principles.

Rick Perry suggested that he has been successful in Texas, but can’t articulate the “plan” he used to achieve that success.  That troubles me a little.  If he’s claiming credit for creating economic prosperity in Texas it shouldn’t be hard to at least show us an outline.  

Then with the border security issue so high on our list, Perry’s answers don’t build confidence that he would do any better than Bush or Obama in dealing with ILLEGAL Immigration.  If National Security is important; border security in necessary.  Once we secure the border we can talk about other issues like paths to citizenship for current illegals.

(American consumers will have to adjust to the changes in food cost if farmers can’t plant or harvest without the Hispanic workers that appear to do the bulk of that work.  That will be one of those trade-offs we make for National Security.  Or there will be additional negotiation to re-establish a guest worker program.)

In spite of the fact that Herman Cain has no experience as an elected official I don’t necessarily view that as a negative.  The government experiences of some of the candidates on both sides of the aisle do not inspire confidence in their ability to lead. 

Herman Cain has extensive experience in managing a large bureaucracy and being accountable to shareholders and customers is a skill none of the other candidates can match.  The thing that differentiates Cain from Romney is the fact that he has been the same guy as he is today for his whole career.  That instills confidence that he will be the same guy tomorrow. 

Obama ran for President on a platform significantly different than his previous record would suggest.  Voters chose a guy with slick words but got a President whose record in office reflected his past performance in previous public office.  In Romney I see another candidate saying what he needs to say to get elected without previous public record to support his claim.

Few elected officials ever come to the presidency with foreign policy experience.  If the knock on Cain is that he doesn’t have foreign policy experience then let’s compare his record to the rest of the field.  Bill Clinton certainly didn’t come to the job with foreign policy experience unless working with illegal aliens counts.  I’m still waiting for those foreign policy résumés from the other candidates.

I’m looking for a candidate who can inspire people to follow him or her and have demonstrated the ability to recruit capable staff to manage a huge bureaucracy.  For me that person is Herman Cain in spite of his shortcomings.  I will know who he is and what he stands for after we elect him.

Posted in Partisan Politics, Political commentary | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , ,
« Older Entries  |