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 6, 2011

No Urban Center at Point Wells

by Steve Dana

The decision by Snohomish County to approve the development plan for the Point Wells project is another example of government out of touch.  The hunger for construction related sales tax dollars must have blinded the county to the failings of this plan.  Designating this area an Urban Center is absurd.  There is only one two lane road providing access to the land.

It’s understandable why Shoreline is upset; access to this project is through their city streets and neighborhoods.  It’s hard to imagine how Shoreline will not be adversely impacted by the traffic generated by this development.  Even if this land was just developed into neighborhoods similar to what exists in Shoreline already there would be adverse impacts to Richmond Beach. 

Increasing density and intensity of use beyond anything that already exists in our county anywhere will create significant adverse impacts Snohomish County will never have to deal with, but Shoreline will.

The land included in this project is part of Woodway’s Urban Growth Area.  So doesn’t Woodway have a say in how Snohomish County implements a plan that’s inconsistent with their own?  These cities are being trampled on by Snohomish County only because they have the power to do so, rather than the wisdom not to.

I know I didn’t win the County Council election in 2009 so I don’t get to inflict my will upon taxpayers in Snohomish County like Dave Somers is with this project.  I suspect that I would have voted different than Councilmember Somers.

This project is another example of why county government should not be allowed to be in the urban development business.  It violates the spirit and intent of the Growth Management Act if not the actual language of the act.

I still believe and I am certain that every city in the county would agree that urban development should be planned and executed by cities.  The Growth Management Act was clear in its desire for Cities to be the Urban Service providers.  Snohomish County continually substitutes its own poor judgment for the judgment of the communities that will be left to accommodate the development.  Their disregard for the adverse impacts to neighboring communities is inexcusable.

The greed and arrogance of our Snohomish County government is palpable.

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.