Archive for ‘Partisan Politics’

February 23, 2011

Government Ponzi Robs Peter to Pay Paul!

by Steve Dana

It’s unfortunate that what we see happening in Wisconsin may well be the beginning of a national movement.  The fight in Wisconsin is similar to fights that will be taking place in state legislatures across the land.  On the surface it is about balancing the current budgets, but the reality is it’s about the power of public employee labor unions to cripple local governments.  Republican elected officials are talking about the impossible task of  funding employee benefits and pension plans for the long term that must be paid with current general fund dollars.  Today we are finding that we made promises previously we can’t keep.  And there’s the rub!

The current recession and economic crisis in our country is exposing the weakness of a system very much a Ponzi Scheme.  We pay yesterday’s promises with today’s dollars knowing that eventually the payouts will be greater than the income and the system will collapse.

The Democrats want to talk about the cost as a percentage of unknown growth in the economy.  If you can be sure that there will be inflated revenue streams down the road then they believe it’s worth the risk.

So what strategy should we employ when every budget scenario we try produces the same general result? 

Elected Officials today can’t make promises to employees that create unfunded liabilities to successors down the road.  And that is the solution if there is one.  If benefit and pension obligations for the future are set aside today from current revenues then there is a better chance that money will actually be available when retiring employees are ready.

The down side is that there is no money left for programs and projects that benefit the public today.  The money is all tied up in employee overhead.

Elected officials in every jurisdiction in our country should be huddling with their managers and finance people to assess their long term commitments and their ability to fund them.  Every time a labor contract comes up for negotiation unfunded obligations have to be considered.

If voters and taxpayers express their willingness to have their taxes raised year after year by electing council members, commissioners and legislators who solve the problem by tapping taxpayers then there should be no complaints.  If my councilmember comes out in a hearing and tells the public that we need to raise taxes because we agreed to benefits and pensions we can’t afford I might think about who I elect.  So those elected officials are more likely to tell you they need to raise taxes for books, fire trucks or pothole repair.

In Wisconsin the Democratic Senators fled from the capitol to prevent a vote on an issue they are sure to lose.  They are saying that they won’t return unless the Governor agrees to talk about it and be prepared to compromise.  They are outraged that the Republicans are taking advantage of the power they won in the last election.

Do we need to be reminded of that day not too long ago when President Obama turned to Senator John McCain and said quite pointedly “There are consequences of elections.  We won!”

Who could argue that there weren’t consequences of the 2008 elections any more than anyone could argue that after the 2010 elections there might also be consequences?

I don’t remember too much compromising in either house of the Congress when the Health Care Reform Act was approved without any hearings.  I don’t even remember too much outcry from the media when Speaker Pelosi stood there and told us that we needed to approve it before we found out what was in it.

I am sure that teachers, firefighters, police and other state workers in Wisconsin are fine people just like they are here in Washington, but I also know that the leverage they have from their collective bargaining agreements puts the taxpayers in that state and every other state in peril not commensurate with the private sector.

Voters sent a strong message in the last election cycle.  They said they wanted to reverse the course set by Democrats to increase the size and power of government to take our dwindling resources to pay for commitments out of line with trends in the private sector.

Voters were clear that if what President Obama delivered after promising a change for the better, they wanted no part of it.

Republicans were elected to return our government to a path of long term fiscal solvency.  It is our jobs as citizens to be as vigilant in holding their feet to the fire as we were in campaigning for their election.

February 17, 2011

How can CPAC Pick Ron Paul?

by Steve Dana

How is it that Ron Paul who runs as a Republican, but is thought of as a Libertarian could win the Presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for the second year in a row last week?

What does that say about the attendees of the conference?  Even though I agree with some of what Ron Paul says, I wouldn’t want him to be our President.  I suspect that all the individuals who were contemplating a run said some things I might agree with but most probably wouldn’t get my vote either.  The candidates who are thought to have a chance in the real world finished up the track in the straw poll.  The talking heads in the Republican Party give some chance to Mitt Romney but I doubt many would bet any money on him.  The problem with the straw poll is that the viable candidates fared so poorly.

I guess my concern about CPAC is the fact that there is clearly a disconnect between the attendees and the mainstream conservative voters so why should we care what happens there?  If I were a serious candidate, I might pass on an event that didn’t reflect what is happening in the real world.

If the American Conservative Union expects to be relevant to Conservatives they need to clarify the mission of the conference.  If Ron Paul supporters can skew the straw poll two years in a row, the conference is either not drawing real conservative attendees or Ron Paul is an authentic conservative and those other guys are pretenders.

I am not a member of the American Conservative Union, but I agree 100% with their stated Principles and the supplementary Sharon Statement.  So I am a little disappointed that a renowned event like CPAC even bothers with a straw poll.  Maybe a better idea would be to let the speakers have their say and just leave it at that.

January 25, 2011

Obama the Moderate? NOT!

by Steve Dana

I don’t understand how folks in our country can expect the President to suddenly change his spots.  If there was ever a politician that was predictable when he was elected, this one was that one.  I think Obama is more committed to being a liberal progressive than being an effective politician.  The impact of this president will be viewed by historians as the most crippling for our country twenty years down the road.  We could not have elected a more committed liberal than we did with Obama.

The Democrats had a lot to say about Barack Obama when he was a candidate.  Not a one ever characterized him as a moderate.  He has always been on the left side of his own party.

During the first two years of his presidency he continually demonstrated his liberal intent.  Combined with the overwhelming majorities and most liberal leadership in both houses of the congress President Obama trampled on the Constitution and the rights of most Americans without a lick of resistance.  Two years of the perfect storm.

Remember when he reminded John McCain that he had won the election.

Even now, following the election, the balance of power has shifted in the House to the Republicans and nearly balanced the vote in the Senate but the President and his management team who run the bureaucracies continue to march with regulatory changes that will cripple efforts to create jobs for many years to come.

By itself the EPA will dictate our National Energy Policy by preventing our domestic energy resources from being exploited through lawsuits by watchdogs at every critical point in the permitting processes.

We won’t build any oil refineries or nuclear power plants or hydroelectric dams. Period.

They won’t even let some of the preferred Green Energy sources be developed with federal subsidies because of the lawsuits.  Their campaign is to cripple, not develop better policies.

The Congress gave up closer oversight because it was easy.  It takes a lot of effort to do your job and hold the President’s bureaucrats accountable.  The Checks and Balances laid out in the Constitution were set up to prevent one branch from gaining too much power.

Having so many liberal judges in the Federal Court System, the courts have taken a more aggressive approach to legislation than we should be comfortable with.  That would leave us with the weakest Congress in the history of our country.

Americans cannot be hoodwinked by a President who is trying to re-spin himself into a moderate.  If the Republicans fall for any of his spiel, it will give him breathing space to regroup.  The stakes are too high for America to lose our momentum now.  Keep the heat on!

January 12, 2011

Is Bi-Partisanship achievable in 2011

by Steve Dana

The headline of the editorial in the Everett Herald on Wednesday January 12, 2011 says

“A chance for bipartisanship”

 http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110112/OPINION01/701129975/-1/OPINION  

then it goes on to say that eliminating the supermajority requirement for amendments to budget bills passed by the Senate Ways and Means Committee would now only require a simple majority rather than the supermajority required for nearly a hundred years.

It is the Herald’s view that even though budget bills coming out of the Ways and Means Committee would still be controlled by the majority party being able to amend them with a simple majority would encourage bipartisanship because the vote threshold for passage would be lower. But the amendments would not address core problems, they would be window dressing on a bad bill to buy votes.

The reason the Democrats want to create the appearance of easy bipartisanship is to spread the blame when the legislature has to eventually balance their budget.

In my view, the differences between the core values of the parties makes it difficult to propose solutions at the amendment level. I believe that solutions Republicans might offer would probably require that the state step back to core services. How well we fund education, public safety and transportation will be determined by how many other pools of money we have to create for (perhaps) non-essential services.

In order to adequately fund essential state services we need to first identify those that are mandated by the constitution and those that are not. Then prioritize those departments or programs that are not mandated so we can begin eliminating whole departments and bureaucracies so there is funding for the services remaining.

Under-funding all existing departments just means we’re spending money to maintain management structures without fulfilling a mission. Maintaining a department that cannot deliver the product is just wasting money. These are our likely candidates for elimination. With these departments on chopping block, we need to have a vigorous debate about the cost/benefit of each then decide. If we are looking for bipartisanship, this is the level where it should come into play.

Certainly there will be Washington citizens that will be adversely impacted for the long term by this plan. Democrats object to this strategy since the “nanny state” promises they make require that citizens have something to hang their hope on. If you eliminate a whole department, the expectation of restoration is reduced and hope is lost.

It is not that I don’t have feelings for those folks, I do, but it has to do with fairness for everyone in our state.

If the Herald editorial board wants to encourage bipartisanship, they need to recognize the basis for compromise between the two parties won’t happen at the superficial amendment level on Ways and Means budget bills.