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!”

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.

October 11, 2011

JOBS: Our First Priority

by Steve Dana

I was listening to the television as I was working today and a commercial came on advertising how Toyota built a factory in Mississippi employing American workers manufacturing sophisticated consumer products.  That would be cars. 

It hit me that everyone in Washington D.C. is struggling to identify how we create family wage jobs in American today and the model that worked successfully in Mississippi was the one we all should be studying.

I don’t know all the particulars about how that factory was located where it was, but I would speculate that it had to do with a favorable regulatory climate in Mississippi coupled with a favorable tax environment.  Who woulda thought?  What did Mississippi offer to get Toyota to build their plant there?

Still speculating, I suspect that Toyota was looking for a community that would appreciate the investment they were making and the jobs they were creating and not view the company as either an enemy or exploiter but maybe as a partner. 

Successful businesses recognize the importance of worker satisfaction within the company.  Putting people to work in states that have suffered from long term under-employment can make a company somewhat popular.

I suspect that those workers in that plant in Mississippi appreciate the opportunity for long term prosperity that came to their town when Toyota could have gone almost anywhere else; but I bet it was the prosperity for their families they appreciate the most.

In addition, I suspect it will be cheaper for Toyota to operate a factory in Mississippi rather than Michigan or California for a variety of reasons?  Wouldn’t that be a Win/Win?

The amazing thing about this example of a Toyota plant in Mississippi is that if our priority for government is to create jobs and put Americans back to work, all we have to do is create a friendlier regulatory environment and start viewing job creators as allies rather than adversaries.  Instead of government listing all the requirements a company will have to comply with talk about how we can overcome the obstacles together to save time and money and get Americans working faster.

Boeing chose North Charleston, South Carolina to build the second assembly line for the Dreamliner because government in that state and county recognized the valuable partnership Boeing was offering to the region.  Will it be cheaper for Boeing to build airplanes in South Carolina than in Washington State; probably.

Who can remember when the Seattle Super Sonics were playing in the Seattle Center rather than Oklahoma City?  Team owners tried to make a deal that could keep the team in Seattle but the city council didn’t view the team as a valuable enough economic asset to put aside their personal views and keep the team in town.  Now when investors talk about bringing a team back to the Puget Sound region, Seattle gets upset when Bellevue or Renton are suggested as being friendlier hosts.  There is no doubt that Oklahoma City saw value where Seattle didn’t until the team was gone, then it was too late.

That old adage that it takes five times the effort to win a new customer as it does to keep an old one would suggest that we need to take a good hard look at why companies with good jobs are choosing Oklahoma, South Carolina, Mississippi, Nevada and Texas rather than Western Washington.

I’m not saying that there won’t be challenges, but if the goal is to create jobs that pay family wages then we need to focus on ways to make our community more attractive by stripping away some of the regulatory burden so companies like Boeing or Toyota will view us more favorably.

The key will be to stay focused on family wage jobs and the prosperity they bring to the community rather than fixating on a successful business ripe for the plucking.

August 8, 2011

Only in Government is Cutting Spending Increasing Spending

by Steve Dana

In the course of the lengthy discussion regarding the national debt and deficits I couldn’t help but wonder if we all understood the accepted definitions of terms.  In so many cases the same terms were used in different contexts. 

For example; the term “budget cuts”?  For you and me, a cut to my budget is spending less in the next cycle than I did in the current cycle.  For the government cutting the budget is not spending less, it’s cutting the rate of growth of government spending.  You and I would spend less, they would spend more, but supposedly decrease the year over year rate of growth.  Where did they learn their math?

How about “tax reform”? Is “tax reform” raising rates or changing structure?  Republicans tried to focus on cutting spending to reduce current deficits while Democrats wanted to incorporate “tax reform” into the debate to achieve the desired outcome.  They seem to think that if a guy can afford a jet he isn’t paying enough tax.  According to Democrats, balancing the budget must include both cuts in spending and tax reform.  I could go along with that if “reform” meant addressing the tax code in total rather than just raising the rates higher on the folks who are already paying the lion’s share of the taxes already.

In a perverted way, I’ve been amused about the characterization by the “left” that the country is being screwed by the nation’s high earners because they aren’t paying their fair share of taxes; yet according to the Congressional Budget Office 51% of Americans pay no Federal Income Taxes at all.  That is Zero Federal Income Tax paid by 51% of Americans but according to the Democrats in Congress, they’re over taxed. 

While the top 5% of American earners pay 40% of the Federal Income Tax collected and the top 15% of American earners pay 75% of the Federal Income Tax but according to Democrats in Congress they aren’t paying their fair share.  What am I missing?  One side pays no tax but is over taxed and the other side pays all the tax but is not paying their fair share.

I think most Americans agree the Tax Code is too complex to be fair.  And “fair” is variable that moves back and forth depending on your personal interests.  I suspect that if we were given a choice of keeping the current federal income tax system or dumping it all for a flat tax of maybe 8%, most Americans would opt for a flat tax that treats everyone the same.  If you earn $100,000 you pay $8,000; if you earn a million bucks you would pay $80,000 and if you earned $25,000 you would pay $2,000.  Everyone would pay based upon what they earned (at the same rate).  Everyone pays the same rate but based upon their earnings they pay more or less.  That sounds like tax reform.

And finally, this agreement between the parties regarding raising the debt limit; the Democrats didn’t get tax increases, but the Republicans didn’t get any meaningful cuts and the President got an agreement to increase the national debt by 20% over the next 18 months.  That is another increase of the debt from $14.2 Trillion to $16.4 trillion by election day in 2012. Then factor in the 12 person committee that will either cut a trillion or so in government spending or cut the Defense budget by another $800 Billion.  How could Republicans view any of this as a victory?  As far as I can tell, this was another huge giveaway to the Democrats.  I am baffled how we let this happen.