Archive for ‘Regulatory Reform’

May 15, 2014

Mukilteo Landslide Buries Amtrak Train?

by Steve Dana

In the aftermath of the Oso/Darrington land slide there has been plenty of comment about possible litigation against Snohomish County because they knew the hill side was unstable and didn’t adequately protect the property owners below. (I doubt the County is liable.)

The Snohomish County Council is trying to decide if there are changes to the development code it can enact that might prevent catastrophic loss of life incidents in the future and I would only encourage them to look west as well as east as they do their analysis.

The topic of landslides is one I’ve contemplated in the past and even wrote about on my blog several years ago but for a different reason; railroad safety and reliability.

For those Snohomish County residents that work in King County and who ride the train to work from Everett Station to King Street Station, the landslides that routinely cover the tracks along the Everett-Mukilteo-Edmonds water front are a constant reminder of the instability of the bluff overlooking the railroad tracks.

What kind of public outcry would there be if the bluff collapsed on top of an Amtrak passenger train or a commuter train? How many times during the past three winters has the railroad been closed because of landslides? How many times have we seen television pieces done regarding property owners whose yards are sloughing off, down the hillside?

When I wrote about this topic I was focused on the fact that there is only one north/south rail line through the Puget Sound corridor. A significant slide would close the line for days and maybe even weeks. Without consideration for the potential loss of life, the economic impact would be severe.

I’ve never monitored the Puget Sound Regional Council since I don’t think they have Snohomish County interests at heart so if they’ve been promoting an alternative rail corridor north, I applaud them, but I doubt they have. As a matter of fact, I don’t think anyone in the legislature, Snohomish County government or any of the city governments have spoken to the issue.

The thing I find annoying with all these real and quasi-governmental agencies is the fact that they believe they are the only smart people in the room and if they didn’t think of it, it couldn’t have merit.

Establishing a rail corridor through east King County, east Snohomish County through Skagit and Whatcom Counties to Canada should be on someone’s radar even if the only reason is rising sea levels. There are bits and pieces of rail lines that are being considered as walking trails that could be refitted for freight and passenger rail service.

For those bright planners from PSRC on down to the counties and cities, this is a topic worth pursuing. Since there hasn’t been any loss of life in a slide event it’s not a front burner issue but will it take a fatality or two or twenty to increase its profile and be a hot topic? What if it was your husband or wife who was killed on the train when the bluff collapsed? Is there a warning on your ticked that riding the train from Seattle to Everett could cost you your life?

It’s about time that our elected officials had a little foresight and a lot less hindsight. Let’s see who can come up with a workable plan to get passenger trains off the waterfront to prevent the loss of lives and freight trains onto a rail line that is safe and reliable year around.

There is no doubt that the cost will be high but we have Capital Facilities Plans that demonstrate how a project can be completed over time in phases with funding coming from many sources.

June 16, 2012

Immigration Reform as I see it!

by Steve Dana

I don’t remember a time when we haven’t been talking about Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  Both political parties use the term and at different times each party has proposed legislation that ultimately failed to pass both houses of Congress.  I don’t know whether the content of Republican sponsored reform compared favorably with Democrat sponsored reform.

The fact that both parties drafted legislation would suggest there is common ground worthy of keeping the negotiations going. So what were the sticking points that prevented completion?

Why do we call it Comprehensive Immigration Reform?  Why don’t we just call it Immigration Reform?  So what’s wrong with our existing Immigration legislation?

From my perspective there isn’t a problem with our existing policy.  There might be some issues with the number of folks we allow to emigrate from foreign lands, but the process appears sound.  That would suggest the issue isn’t immigration reform at all.

In the context of the national debate the two issues are Border Security or a lack of it on our southern border and the large number of Mexicans who have entered our country illegally and have been allowed to stay for many years with the full knowledge of the government.  The justification being the need for workers willing to do jobs “Americans” wouldn’t do.

The truth is the old system worked well for Mexican workers who came over the border to work for the season with some sort of seasonal work permit and then returned home for the winter.  The agriculture interests needed seasonal workers and the permit system was one solution that worked but was abandoned in the 1980’s.

I had personal experience in the 1970’s of working on a corporate farm in Central Oregon where there were migrant workers who started in the spring harvesting something in Arizona and worked their way to the Canadian border as the harvest progressed north.  In my case we had a couple dozen Mexicans harvesting potatoes.  The important consideration was the fact that there wouldn’t have been work for those guys before or after the harvest.  They would have been temporary hires for a couple weeks and they would have been laid off.  The temporary worker permit system worked.

For me, the bigger issue is a lack of border security.  The vast majority of illegals who cross are Mexicans but there are some folks other than Mexicans who also cross whose intentions are not just working in America but maybe harming America.  Border security is a high priority for most countries in the world.  The penalty for illegally entering many countries is incarceration for lengthy terms. 

On our southern border we don’t send you to jail when you enter America illegally, we send you to college.

In my view the Comprehensive part of Immigration Reform is the dilemma of ten million illegal aliens who have lived here so long their kids are graduating from high school and college and who are now finding themselves in the spotlight.  What do we do with all the folks who have been well behaved illegal aliens who have become contributing members of our society? 

Once again it’s my view that people who enter this country illegally can never become citizens.  We might grant Mexicans resident alien status that allows them to live and work here but if they didn’t enter through proper channels they can never apply for citizenship.  How we might deal with foreigners of other origin is up for discussion.

And because these illegal aliens came into the country illegally they are classified similar to convicted felons in that they are never granted the right to vote or own a fire arm.  I don’t insist on calling them felons but the restrictions we put on felons should apply.

Amnesty is not an option for me.  There must be consequences for jumping the line and breaking the law which might also include a monetary penalty.

The bottom line for me is we don’t have to kick all of them out of the country but we do need to identify them and give them proper identification that includes fingerprints and or DNA so if they mysteriously disappear into the country there will be some way to identify them when they do turn up. The argument that aliens of any kind should not be required to have proper documentation on their person at all times when they are in public doesn’t work for me.  The feel good folks would have us believe that it’s inhumane to characterize illegal aliens as criminals but we don’t hesitate if the person breaks into our house or damages our property. What is breaking into our country?

If all they want to do is work and raise their families in America and give their kids the chance to realize the American Dream the restrictions I outline here shouldn’t be a problem.  The alternative is to uproot their families and go back to Mexico where the kids might be treated like foreigners.

The opportunity to become a US citizen should be a privilege reserved for aliens who entered through proper channels.

June 1, 2012

Insurance is the Devil of our Society!

by Steve Dana

I’ve come to the conclusion that INSURANCE is the root of most evil in our country today.  In my view, INSURANCE and LAWYERS together are to blame for most of what’s wrong. 

Think about how many insurance pools affect your life.  At home you have your home owner’s liability policy, your fire insurance policy and your auto policies covering your liability and your casualty loss.  If you have a mortgage, you probably have mortgage insurance.  If you are prudent you may have life insurance.

At work you are covered by Worker’s Compensation through Department of Labor and Industries and Employment Security (Unemployment Insurance) both paid mostly by your employer.

Increasingly, Health Care Insurance has come to dominate our lives.  Whether you pay for it individually or your employer pays for it, Health Care Insurance is becoming the most insidious form of insurance in our lives.

For a long time the discussion was focused on the “health care” part of the deal.  The thought was that the cost of care was driven by health care providers.  Then when we looked closer we saw that insurance companies were entrenched in the businesses of those providers it wasn’t about the quality of the care, it was only about what the insurance company would pay. 

Who hasn’t heard about Mal-Practice and Business Liability insurance for the doctors, the clinics and the hospitals?  It isn’t just the medical related businesses that are affected though; nearly every profession is impacted by Insurance policies.

The Lawyers compound the need for insurance because if someone fails to perform as they agreed in their insurance policy, an ambulance chaser, personal injury, mal-practice attorney will sue you and the insurance company for the failure.  Threatened with the loss of your stuff, you toe the line.

Insurance companies have been changing our behavior for many years.  Life insurance companies did it with smoking.  Auto insurance companies did it with seat belts and motor cycle helmets. 

If you engage in behavior they decide is “risky” your rates go up or your policy is cancelled.  And that is the central issue of this whole piece.

I guess the other component is not canceling your policy but reducing your benefits; which is happening everywhere we look.

This week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested that sugared soft drinks larger than 16 ounces should be outlawed in New York City, citing the cost of health care paid by our health insurance carriers as the justification.  Obese people who are covered get subsidized health care because they are not as healthy as skinnier folks.  (Think about how far an idiot could extend that logic.)

The mayor focuses on how your personal bad choices affect insurance premiums paid by everyone.  Last time it was trans fats in the cooking oil used by restaurants.  Can you see how INSURANCE is becoming the dominant factor in our lives?

Insurance is the binding force that the government uses to change your behavior.  By making coverage mandatory you increase the size of the money pool supposedly making the unit cost less while giving the insurance company the leverage over the service providers to reduce their reimbursement rate.

Certainly the Supreme Court’s pending decision on Obamacare will be the deciding factor in whether the government and the insurance companies can require that you buy their insurance and accept their prescribed level of care without competition in the market.  It will also determine whether a doctor can set the price for his services or whether the insurance companies will have a strangle-hold on all the actual medical providers.

Don’t get me started about Medicare.  We supposedly paid into a pool that should have compounded and grown into a huge fund that would pay for our medical costs when we retired.  Unfortunately the government raided the fund and left it with a bunch of IOU’s so the actual cost of care today has to be paid out of current revenue.

Insurance companies will be the downfall of our society if the government requires that we all be covered for all perils.

Lawyers will be the enforcers since they will either sue you or threaten to sue you for whatever meager possessions the government allows you to have.

No doubt I would be in favor of “tort reform” limiting the dollar amount that could be awarded in a mal-practice or liability trial and providing that the plaintiff be held financially liable for the cost incurred by the defendant if the defendant is found to be not guilty.

Do I sound a little edgy?  Good!

December 13, 2011

This President has Never been about Jobs, but what?

by Steve Dana

President Obama often talks about how everyone needs to pay their fair share and then points to successful citizens as taking advantage of the system; but in a negative way, rather than using their example of success as encouragement for others to be successful as well.  At a time when many Americans are struggling, Obama and many of his ilk are angry because some Americans are not struggling so much.

Think about all the immigrants who became the foundation of our country over the years.  When asked why they sacrificed everything to come to America, they answered with two things; liberty and economic opportunity.  They wanted to be free and have the chance to work hard and be successful in America.

Liberty and Economic Opportunity!

When the Democrats try to rationalize how folks who don’t pay a dime of federal income tax are paying more than their fair share, they compile all the increases in their cost of living as evidence supporting their case. 

So who or what is driving up the cost of living for Americans?

The short answer, your government!

Who wrote the tax code that gives General Electric the loopholes so they pay no tax?  Who wrote the regulations that told banks to make loans to folks who couldn’t afford to pay for them?  Who passed the laws that enable a single person to file a frivolous lawsuit that prevents a factory from being built without either proof or economic penalty for failing to provide proof?

Don’t get me started about why food cost has risen so much!

Once again, your government!

I remember when he was Candidate Obama he said that by necessity energy costs would have to increase.  He didn’t explain too well why it was necessary but knowing that higher energy costs would unfairly target lower income Americans he spent the past two and a half years working to raise energy costs.  I think the strategy was to raise the price on current cheap energy so the really expensive “ALTERNATIVE ENERGY” companies the President and his cronies wanted to promote appeared more competitive.  We all know how that worked out with Solyndra and others.

It appears that strategy worked as far a supporting Obama’s core supporters, but hardly Main Street Americans.  Could it be that average Americans are not his first priority?  Think about those union construction workers not going to work because of the Keystone Pipeline deal being delayed.  Could it be that the rank and file union workers are not his first priority either?

At a time when the President talks about energy independence from foreign sources, he turns his back on American energy companies and offers billions of American dollars to Brazil to develop their petroleum resources which just happen to be found in deep water off their coast. 

So the President is subsidizing oil exploration and development for Brazil so we can pay them for the foreign oil rather than Saudi Arabia or Kuwait while depriving American workers of family wage jobs on the oil rigs and in the refineries here at home.

I would think that if deep water drilling is as risky to the environment as the President suggests, then it shouldn’t matter if it’s in Louisiana or Brazil, should it?  And, maybe if we shouldn’t be subsidizing American oil companies, certainly we shouldn’t be subsidizing foreign oil companies either.  And if it’s good for the Brazilian economy to create jobs in the petroleum industry it’s got to be really good for Americans too, right?

When the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was asked in a Congressional hearing whether his folks ever considered the economic impacts of the regulations they adopted, he indicated that they did not.  So what’s so important about that?  Well, think about the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act for starters.  Your utility bills in your homes are impacted by changing standards for you local water and sewer providers.  Your PUD rates are severely impacted by regulatory changes for our hydro-electric and nuclear energy producers.

Folks in my small city experience these impacts every day.  In 1992 we built a state of the art sewage treatment plant designed to meet current and future discharge standards as outlined by the Washington State Department of Ecology but in 1993 when the plant was completed, Federal regulations had changed to the point where the plant was out of compliance before it ever processed a gallon of sewage. 

Since I was Mayor at the time, I took a lot of heat for that but we did what we were told by both the state and federal regulators at the time.  Those changes affected thousands of other small cities and millions of people; and not in a positive way.  When asked whether he was concerned about those folks who had been damaged, a DOE staffer replied that it wasn’t his job to be concerned about economic hardships.

There is no doubt that the cost of living has increased substantially, but I suspect that if you want to point fingers, the Democrats are more responsible for those increases than Republicans.

Our challenge today is to get Americans back to work at jobs that will support families.  That means the government has to roll back regulations that strangle job producers while still considering the mission of their agency.  The EPA still needs to do a job, but not at the expense of our economy.

Those Occupy Wall Street protesters may have a legitimate beef, but the culprit is not the guy that followed the rules, it’s the government for making the rules.  How many times have you yourself said “just tell me what the rules are so I can get on with my project?”

Given the choice of creating family wage jobs in the energy industries and even the financial industry or inhibiting job creation with more excessive regulation, the President and the Democrats consistently choose more regulation.  What does that tell you about their priorities?

Then take a look at their fall back position on every issue today; raising income tax rates on everyone earning more than a million dollars per year.  Even though studies show that the revenue needed to solve even one of the problems would not be collected by the increase they propose.  Remember the discussions about raising the debt ceiling, RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH!  Remember the Super Committee, cut spending by RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH!  Remember talks about Entitlement Reform, RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH!

Our problems have gotten so big even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can’t come to our rescue.

Why isn’t anyone talking about that?

Raising taxes on rich folks will not solve a problem with spending that increases 8% per year, every year while the economy only grows at 2%.