Posts tagged ‘Political commentary’

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.

March 8, 2011

Squishy or Slippery, That is our President!

by Steve Dana

I was listening to Dave Ross this morning as I was driving on the highway.  Since Dave added Luke Burbank to his show, the content of that 9am to Noon time slot has gotten even more liberal.  I would not characterize the change as a positive one.

Dave and Luke were talking about how disappointed they were that President Obama has decided to move forward with military tribunals at Gitmo even though in the campaign he was clear about closing the prison and trying the inmates in civilian courts.  Rather than being upset that he made a commitment to voters and reneged like he has done on about every important issue in the election Dave and Luke were talking about how much they admired the President for being flexible when presented with information that led to a different action.

Luke Burbank characterized Obama as being squishy.  He like the fact that the President was squishy.

There have been a number of times when the President has “realized the error” of his campaign  rhetoric and directed his administration to act 180 degrees different from the promises in the campaign.

If you didn’t know enough about his record or his political leanings before the election in 2008 to vote for him you were looking for a reason to choose one candidate over the other.  You were listening to the words he was speaking so eloquently and were convinced he was your guy because of those words.  When he said he would close Gitmo and that was your issue, you decided to vote for him.

So how do you feel now?

The reason Dave and Luke characterize Obama as squishy is because he is not afraid to say what you want to hear but act completely different when a decision has to be made.  Think about how many times he promised to act if you voted for him but when push came to shove, he flip-flopped.  Is that the president you thought we elected?  Is that the kind of man we want leading our country?

If there was ever a “bait and switch” president, this is him.

We have a huge task before us to hinder him from delivering any more of his true agenda during the remainder of this term of office; and to replace him with a candidate who stands behind his words.  Where I am more likely to support conservative candidates, some of you might just want a candidate of your own persuasion that is not a prevaricator.

In the remaining months of his presidency Barak Obama will make every effort to convince voters that he is a moderate with his words like he does so well.  What will be important is to watch what he does.  His actions are a much better indicator of his political agenda than his words.

If he has any leadership he should be showing it now.  Skyrocketing fuel prices caused by the crisis in the Arab world; two significant issues requiring leadership.  What is he doing to address either?

In the State of the Union speech he talked about cutting the deficit.  The Republicans in the House sent a bill to the Senate addressing last year’s budget with 60 billion in cuts.  If the President is serious about his words in the speech, he works to get the Democratic Senate to approve the House Bill.  Let’s see what kind of leadership he has with his own party?

During his campaign, he talked about putting on a comfortable pair of shoes to walk the picket line with union members because everyone is entitled to union representation.  State Budgets are hemorrhaging red ink because of commitments to made to unions and the President is more concerned about the workers.

Leadership is what we need and this guy doesn’t appear to have any.  He is a good looking smooth talking politician but a leader he is not.

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?

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.