As a professed Republican, I have to admit that our party has been at times rabidly pro-business without articulating a proper regulatory role for government. The impression we leave is that we don’t either believe government has a role or that we don’t trust government to be fair.
Then we have a disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Like most right wingers, I listen to FOX News and I have say, their constant attack on President Obama suggests that his administration is responsible for the catastrophe. Their fervor is going way over the top. I am a little uncomfortable with the rhetoric.
I didn’t approve of the left wing attack on President Bush for his alleged failure in coming to the rescue of New Orleans and the surrounding area in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I believe there was a protocol for getting the federal government involved and mobilized to help in that emergency just like there is a “plan” in the FEMA handbook for the current one.
The problem is that the scope of an emergency is not always evident in the first days following an accident. Then, amassing the resources to remedy a problem takes additional time. The result in both disasters was the perception that the government failed to act in a timely manner.
There is no denying that I believe Obama is not a president that will be good for our country. His vision for our country is opposite my own in almost every instance.
But I am certain that every party involved in the Gulf oil well disaster (including President Obama) is doing everything they can to stop the carnage. This is not a partisan political disaster.
The attacks on the President need to stop!
Let’s solve the immediate problem first and stop the oil from gushing into the Gulf, then develop a plan to mitigate the damage while we sort out the blame. Finally, we can grade the participants on their performance.
The time for sniping will come, but this is not that time.
For me, the issue of “Regulatory Role for Government” is a huge one that needs the scrutiny of the Congress, state legislatures, the press and the pundits. The past two years have exposed the failure of regulators in too many sectors. We need to take the regulatory agencies to task for their failures and hold their feet to the fire. If anyone needs to have a “boot on their neck” it is the regulators charged with enforcing existing rules that have failed so miserably. Extending the metaphor, I wouldn’t advocate that regulators adopt that strategy with regard to their clients.
In light of the volume of existing government regulation, I doubt that we need more, but we should evaluate the efficacy of the current body and go from there.
The disaster in the Gulf may have started out as an accident, but the finger pointing in the aftermath exposed a failure of the government regulators to provide adequate oversight. We probably don’t need more regulations; we do need confidence that the ones in place are followed.
If folks want to be angry at the President for failing to adequately protect Americans, it’s clear that the Gulf oil disaster is just the tip of the ice berg. The question is whether we can raise the alarm before the next disaster so we can prevent it from happening rather than wringing our hands in the aftermath.
Let’s be proactive!
No Loss for Words 
Is Bi-Partisanship achievable in 2011
by Steve DanaThe 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.
Posted in Legislature, Partisan Politics, Political commentary | Leave a Comment »