Archive for ‘Political commentary’

March 7, 2011

What Does a Legislator Cost These Days?

by Steve Dana

Even after a couple of weeks, the stalemate in Wisconsin persists.  Government is at a stand still.  Patience is wearing thin.  So what is next?

I am surprised that Republicans and the independents in Wisconsin have been as patient as they have.  I’m not sure I would have been so restrained.

The issues haven’t changed a bit so what is changing?

The unions are working overtime to tie the governor’s actions to private sector business owners who may have contributed to his campaign.  When you don’t have anything substantial to add to the debate, you attack your opponent.  Where else have we seen that tactic?

But since they brought it up, what’s the connection between public employee unions and private sector contributors?  Or maybe more important yet, what are the implications of public employee unions contributing to elected officials.

When the unions contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Democrats don’t they have expectations that something will be delivered?  Who advocates for the taxpayers when the unions elect the guys that negotiate their contracts?

I heard Governor Walker talk about contributors to his campaign and he acknowledged receiving contributions from business owners, but he received most of his money from citizens who may or may not have been big business in any way.  Take a look at the Public Disclosure documents if you really want to know.  Rules for individuals and businesses are different for unions and PAC’s

Check the PDC’s for almost any Democrat in the land and you will see the majority of the money comes from either unions or political action committees because rules allow unions and PAC’s to give in greater amounts.  I wonder who negotiated that advantage?

What is so surprising to the Democrats in the Mid-West is the stunning upset they suffered in the 2010 elections and they are still reeling from it.  It has to be a bitter pill after all their years in the drivers’ seat to see everything they worked for come crashing down because of their failure to properly read the sentiment of the people.

In Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio, the legislatures and governors have changed because voters in those states realized that union sponsored candidates were serving the unions and not the citizens of their states.  And that is really the issue here. 

Taxpayers in these states and others are finding that they have been used by entrenched Democrats to serve unions and their special interests and they’re finally getting wise.  The problems being exposed by the bad economy are shining a really bright light on the Democrats and they are uncomfortable.

While I have been critical of Democrats I’m not suggesting that Republicans are always straight shooters because they have been just as greedy and/or corrupt as Democrats at times.

A lesson for voters everywhere might be that we have an obligation to be vigilant, to watch our elected officials and make sure that when they make promises in their campaign they deliver or are held accountable in the next election. Elected officials are called public servants for a reason.  Let’s make sure ours serve the public and not the special interests.

We can only hope that voters in our state will begin to see the parallels between these mid-West states and our own and dump the liberal progressive tax and spenders from our legislature.

So what camp are you in?

March 5, 2011

Leadership Happens at the Front

by Steve Dana

So I am watching The O’Reilly Factor and Bill is interviewing Sarah Palin, talking about Social Security and Medicare Reform.  He asks her what specifically she proposes to modify the system and she launches into some spiel about everyone having to shoulder some of the burden which didn’t even partially answer Bill’s question.  He tried to get her back on track and she continued to evade his questions until she finally had to offer something.

Sarah Palin isn’t likely to get an easier questioner than Bill O’Reilly and she couldn’t come up with better responses than “nothing speak”.

If Sarah Palin (or anyone else for that matter) expects to be taken seriously as a candidate, it will be necessary for her to come up with better answers than that lame drivel.

If Sarah Palin has any chance of being elected president, it will slip away quickly if she isn’t prepared to address issues like O’Reilly’s with answers that speak to the issues.  Governor Palin is entitled to act like a politician, but our country needs a leader.  The reason Americans should support her is because she has good ideas she can articulate to solve problems plaguing our country.  So is she just a politician or a leader?

The double speak of politicians who are afraid to tell the truth because they are afraid of losing votes make them losers from the get go.

Governor Chris Christie isn’t running but he has ideas he is willing to share.  All Governor Palin would have to do is echo Christie’s comments.  Something like:  “I think Governor Christie made some good suggestions the other day; raising the retirement age to 65 for early retirement and 67 for full retirement for folks who are younger than 57 today and to 67 and 70 for folks who are 47 or younger today.  I could support a solution that included those changes, recognizing that means testing and payroll contributions might also be on the table.”

Leadership happens at the front of the formation.  The person who ultimately is nominated to run against Obama must take on the problems in the public debate with decisive answers to the questions and clear plans to address the problems.  If they are afraid to offer their solutions as a candidate there is little chance they have any.  Period!

I question whether Sarah Palin can be elected.  I appreciate her passion in addressing Conservative issues many of us support and she connects really well with common folks who have been out in the cold for a long while so I want her to be a part of the process, but I think her best contribution would be as a GOTV operative.

Chris Christie is popular with Republicans and Democrats because he addresses problems head-on with solutions that are painful but that make sense.  He has consistently been honest with his constituents and the rest of us at times when he addressed national issues; unlike the too many to list here who are always testing the wind (or the water) before offering their thoughts.  In the vernacular, he “Walks the Walk!”

If Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are the entitlement programs with the greatest impact to the budget drain then that is where the spotlight needs to be.

Since we know that elected officials tend to want to be re-elected, they seldom take big chances that might endanger re-election. 

My sense is that Americans are looking for leadership in dealing with the big gorillas and evading the issues just serves to identify those potential candidates who aren’t leaders.

Tags:
March 4, 2011

Illegal Guns across the Border

by Steve Dana

I watched the press conference yesterday where Presidents Obama and Calderone from Mexico talked about the substance of talks between our two countries.

They were proud of the fact that they had worked out some compromise that would allow Mexican truck drivers to cross the border with their cargo and deliver it to locations in the States.  Currently, Mexican truckers are not allowed to deliver their cargo, they drop their loads at the border and American truck drivers pick them up and proceed to their destination.

I’m not sure how American truck drivers will feel about the loss of work, but the Teamsters must be okay with it since Obama is their guy and he wouldn’t sell their jobs down the river, would he?

Another issue talked about during the press conference was the issue of American guns illegally crossing the border into Mexico.  I think it was a Mexican reporter that asked about what our country was planning to do to prevent those guns from entering Mexico since the drug cartels use the guns to fight the government.

I find it ironic that the Mexicans blame Americans for their problems since it is the insatiable appetite for drugs of Americans that drives the drug trade in their country.  And now they blame us for not protecting their country from the lawless cartels by not preventing guns from entering Mexico.

How could we possibly argue with that logic?

So, our neighbors to the south are complaining about non-existent border security because it is harming Mexico?  Wouldn’t that be even more ironic if the impetus for border security came from what is escaping from our country rather than from what is illegally coming in?

Everyone recognizes the fact that securing the border will be difficult, but now that the Mexicans are on board maybe we can get on with it.

February 28, 2011

Is This Really About Labor Unions?

by Steve Dana

So what’s the deal with these union guys?  Or what’s the deal with these wise guys in the Wisconsin Senate who have stuck it to their Republican colleagues in the past because they had the power to do who now have resorted to fleeing the state to prevent the Senate from taking action on the budget bill?

In all fairness, I don’t hold the union guys responsible for the trouble either Wisconsin faces or the rest of the country.  That responsibility falls on the elected representatives in both the executive branch (who negotiated the contracts) and the legislative branches for approving the contracts.

And that holds true for every level of government from the smallest to the largest.

I know from experience that the union reps sit down to the bargaining table with a list of “demands” for the upcoming contract.  The government side responds with a pitch counter-offering something less.  They dance back and forth a little and come to agreement.  The contract goes back to the union membership for approval and to the legislative branch for theirs and the deal is done.

So how tough can that be?

On the union side, things don’t get tough unless management refuses to budge on an important issue.  They have to decide how hard they want to fight for each issue.  Get the easy ones settled first then squeeze later for the harder ones.  Sometimes the parties are not able to come together and the union members exercise their rights under collective bargaining rules and stop work.  They are calculating that by stopping or slowing their work management will cave and agree to their demands.  Maybe, maybe not!

The rules of the game for the union are pretty much the same in both the private sector and the public sector with a few exceptions.

The difference between union negotiations with a public agency and a private company is the person negotiating on the private sector side is always a staunch advocate for the company shareholders and the company’s bottom line whereas on the public side, the person negotiating for the taxpayers may well be a union member themselves and not an advocate for the taxpayers at all.  You can imagine how some of those contracts might end up.

The negotiations in public sector contracts often are not negotiations at all.  The union puts their demands on the table and the government guy agrees then goes back to his legislative body and cries about how hard the negotiations were and how he got the best deal he could and we need to approve it.

As an elected official in my city, I was never allowed to sit in on union negotiations with my city manager.  Our council was only given limited details of the contract until it was voted on by the union.  We never had fiscal impact analyses prepared in advance so we could see how our long term liabilities were altered by the changing labor contract.

We were never actually allowed to see any of the details of the contracts until after we had approved them.

I understand that the union members are feeling Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is attacking them because this change will affect them personally.  And I feel for them in that regard.

But I also know what it feels like to be an elected official with a budget to balance and lots of folks with their hand out.  It’s a no win situation.

For years I have been talking about the ticking time bomb with our government pension system.  The issue came up in about 1991 when I served on the Joint Fire Board as one of the representatives for the city.  A fire department in California had been run by Commissioners who were retired fire fighters.  Whenever the contracts came up for renegotiation, they got great settlements with the expectation that when the cash flow got tight, they would just go to the voters to lift the levy lid.  If you present fire department money requests in such a way that failing to approve might result in a family member not making it in an emergency, voters approve.

So when pension commitments started coming due, they had to come out of current revenues since the fire district didn’t put any of that money away as the commitments accumulated.  When voters didn’t go along with raising taxes again, a crisis arose.

So was that a spending crisis or a revenue crisis?

Now take that scenario and apply it to nearly every government agency you can think of and imagine how large the crisis really is.

Sadly, the elected officials who negotiated these sweetheart contracts are long gone and the union leaders only did what they always do in advocating for their members.

Unfortunately the rank and file union members will be the ones that have to bear the brunt of the correction that must take place in order to get government back on a sound fiscal footing.

Elected officials in every district, council and legislature facing budget emergencies now have to figure out how to work around a problem that’s been accumulating for decades. 

I don’t envy them a bit.