Category: Politics

The Responsibility of the Public Sector

ssegraves

As we have already seen in Greece, poor management and the continued growth of government without reigns to control spending are a dangerous combination. The question this poses then is, where do we stand? At the city level, at the state level, and at the federal level, is the public sector being a responsible spender of cash? Should they be? The fact that my wife and I both work in the public sector makes this a personal issue and though neither of us would want to lose our jobs, I think the real answer is that there is a lot of waste at all levels of government.

It is my belief that the public sector should be good stewards of our tax dollars, just like we should be good stewards of our own money. Though, that may not be the best gauge with the number of Americans in debt slowly rising. What brought me to this notion of responsibility in the public sector? Observations. It seems as though efficiencies have been lost simply because they are not needed when one is spending someone else’s money. I believe it’s endemic to the idea that funds are unlimited, therefore one can spend whatever one likes. But shouldn’t it be the opposite? Shouldn’t efficiency be the norm, not the exception? Sure, we should not skimp when it comes to things that are absolutely necessary, but to spend for the sake of spending (to seal in one’s budget) is beyond wasteful, it’s idiotic.

Instead of school districts buying iPads, focus on calculators, paper, or other necessities. Technology will come eventually, but the goal is to provide education, not the newest gear, to students. The same applies to city and state services. The budgets need to be adjusted to run lean and mean. These things do not generate revenue so why should they be treated like they do? If a private company was to come in and take over a city service, I guarantee that they could find places where there is significant, unnecessary spending taking place. Not only could that company make the spending go away but they could keep service levels the same, if not improve them.

There is no reason that our public officials cannot be good spenders of our money, it’s simply a choice. Of course there might be some downgrade in service, but the end result of keeping the service around rather than possibly losing it when the budget becomes unsustainable seems worth it. With the current way we are doing things, something has to give, the question is when. We can keep that “when” at bay and still employ people and provide services that are necessary for the general public to go about their daily lives.

So, what do you think? Should the public sector be fiscally responsible or should they be free to spend as they see fit?

Lower Taxes in 2009

ssegraves

I came across a quick linked post from John Gruber about the tax bills for 2009. He quotes a USA Today article saying this –

Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

“The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts,” says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.

First, I have to point out that I think it’s hilarious what some of these lobbying groups call themselves (Center for American Progress). Don’t get me wrong, the Republicans have some funny ones too. Maybe if we just called them what they were, lobbyists, life would be a little more drab, but at least it would be less confusing.

Now, on to the real point. I don’t disagree that tax bills were lower in 2009, but I think the idea that lower taxes are what people who are unhappy with the administration want is asinine. In the USA Today article, Dennis Cauchon actually touches on the real issue, then skims right over it; The issue of smaller government with less need for our tax dollars. If the government was to run a tighter ship then tax bills could be even lower, imagine that! The other issue that the article really doesn’t address is that of the recession. If the recession was starting or in full swing in 2008, then people surely lost their jobs in 2009, making tax bills smaller out of attrition in the workplace.

Anyway, my point in all of this is, less of a tax burden is great, but when there isn’t enough money to support the budget, we should be worried. I’m sure a few years ago Greeks were glad that their tax bills were lower, now I’m betting they would just like a job.

Arizona’s Gaffe Could be Our Gain

ssegraves

Excuse me sir, I’m going to need to see a passport or some other proof of immigration status.

That should be the last thing we ever expect to hear from a police officer on a street corner. In fact, we should never have to worry about hearing it either. The latest legislation out of Arizona allows just that type of questioning though and puts police officers on the front lines of enforcing immigration and naturalization. It is fairly obvious that the law Arizona has passed will not stand up to Constitutional scrutiny and will eventually be thrown out. However, whether or not you agree with the law, it has done one very important thing, brought an issue unfamiliar to a large portion of the population to the front page. Immigration is a subject that people hear in passing or mentioned on the news occasionally, but for those not near a border, and in particular, the Mexican border, immigration is something not to be worried about. This is the wrong attitude. Immigration issues affect jobs, healthcare, education, and just about every other aspect of life, so we should be taking interest in what is happening in Arizona.

Living in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California affords one the opportunity to see what illegal immigration in its current form is all about. You can step into an emergency room and see a number of people in this country illegally waiting for treatment, you can drive by the nearest strip center and see day laborers waiting for work, and you visit schools and talk to children who’s parents are migrant workers looking for the next employment opportunity. These scenes are around us everyday and they are becoming more common outside of border states. So how do we define “illegal immigrant”? They are someone who is in this country illegally, whether that be due to an expired visa or if they crossed the border without being documented.

A fact that will surprise many is that the fastest growing group of illegal immigrants is Indians, not Mexicans or Guatemalans. They are here for work and schooling and usually their illegal status is due to the overstaying of their visa. This does not make it any less of a problem, it simply means it is slightly less complicated. This leads me to my next point, which is that we have created some of this mess simply with the way our citizenship system works.

As the law stands now, a child born in the U.S. is a citizen of this country. The citizenship of the child’s parents does not come in to play at all. I am not suggesting that we change this, I just want to point out that our measure of citizenship creates a very ugly situation if we are to start deporting people left and right. Technically, the children would stay in the U.S. and would become wards of the state. We’ve now taken a slight burden of having a mom and dad illegally in the country and turned it into the state taking a child into foster care because of their parent’s immigration status. This seems to be an unsustainable way of dealing with the issue of citizenship and illegal immigration.

There has to be some way to solve this. During the large Italian emigration to the U.S. between 1870 and 1920 there was a very similar attitude toward immigrants, especially those suspected of coming here illegally, as there is today. The Italians flourished though and became a very welcome part of our country and part of that was due to their efforts to assimilate. They kept their customs but worked hard to become part of the communities that they lived in. This is a necessary step for illegal immigrants now, just as it was then. That means we need a way for those who are here illegally to become legal citizens. No, not amnesty, as that denigrates the hard work of those who have pursued legal citizenship. We need a system that allows illegal immigrants to get in line for citizenship and to begin to pay taxes, etc. My theory is that a large portion of the illegal population want to stay here and be legal citizens, they just don’t have a way to do it. If they do have that way, then we’ll have the opportunity to deport those who are here illegally by choice, who’s sole reason is criminal behavior.

While Arizona may have taken extreme steps to get a point across, it’s a point that’s necessary. Europe is struggling to handle their own illegal immigration issues and we have an opportunity to be a good example for what to do in response. People who emigrate here are the whole reason this country is great, but that does give the green light to sneaking into the country illegally. Let’s do the right thing and encourage Washington to seriously evaluate citizenship procedures and take the responsibility of enforcing the federal borders out of the state’s hands.

 

Washington D.C. – The New Elementary School Playground

ssegraves

It has been known for some time that D.C. is full of back-room politics, the occasional backstabbing, and sometimes, verbal attacks on other politicians. What I did not realize is that lately D.C. has become a reincarnation of the elementary school playground. The intellectual level of the disagreements and attacks has dropped to an all time low.

Robert Gibbs takes a jab at Sarah Palin
Robert Gibbs takes a jab at Sarah Palin

The first example (and probably the most poignant) is Rahm Emanuel’s use of “F***ing retards” in his belittlement of liberals who wanted to air ads targeting fellow Democrats who are against healthcare reform. This sounds less like a President’s Chief of Staff and more like a kid throwing around petty insults. My advice to anyone is that if these type of insults are the only thing that you can think of when responding to someone, you are much better off keeping your mouth shut. Emanuel’s choice of words was offensive at the least and downright childish at worst. Maybe his critics are right, he’s Obama’s Dick Cheney.

Scott Gibbs, the President’s Press Secretary, is the other example. During a briefing yesterday, Gibbs decided to take a jab at Sarah Palin by writing “hope and change” on his hand and pointing it out to the press.

I wrote down ‘hope’ and ‘change’ just in case I forgot that.

While this is not offensive, it is childish and in my opinion, a poor showing for the White House. Mr. Gibbs’ job is not to belittle those who are on the other side of the aisle, his job is to inform the public via the media. Taking little potshots, while somewhat funny, should be left to SNL and MAD TV.

I am sure that I will receive e-mails and comments about Republicans/Conservatives pulling similar antics and shame on them too. They should be focused on their job and save the comedy for when there is nothing to do in D.C.

The Deficit is the Work of Bush?

ssegraves

You read that title right, now the $1.3 trillion deficit is being blamed on Bush in a February 6 editorial in the New York Times. Where to begin with this notion is something I have been wrestling with all morning. The author is correct in his assertion that Bush did little to combat the deficit but misses the mark on a few, key, factual points.

What is even more breathtaking is the Republicans’ cynical refusal to acknowledge that the country would never have gotten into so deep a hole if President George W. Bush and the Republican-led Congress had not spent years slashing taxes — mainly on the wealthy — and spending with far too little restraint.

Am I the only one that sees the gigantic factual error in that sentence? A Republican-led Congress? The 110th Congress was a Democratic majority with the only Republican leadership being Dick Cheney. The author is mincing words by trying to distract from the fact that it was a Democratic Congress that approved Bush’s plans. The Congress had the chance and the power to go against Bush’s wishes but instead they buried their heads and let things fall into place.

This leads to the other issue, the tax cuts on the wealthy. I am not even sure why this is an issue anymore, if we continue to think that taxing people who make a large amount of money a lot more than those who are in the middle class, we’ll do nothing but discourage the wealthy to keep their money here. I would argue it is more harmful to the funding of projects, to philanthropy, and to business in general to tax the wealthy a great sum more than everyone else.

You can read the article yourself and come to your own conclusions but it seems that the author is gripping at straws to try and push blame to the past for something that is a very real-time indicator of the present.

Health Insurance Bill Passes in the Senate

ssegraves

This morning the health insurance legislation that has been on the table in the Senate passed with a 60-39 vote. Now the legislation must be merged with the bill that passed in the House in November. In reality, this is when the real “fun” begins.

For the most part, I do not think that most Americans understand the legislation or what it means for the government to provide health insurance to millions of its citizens. There is also a lack of understanding of the difference between healthcare and health insurance. Americans are not lacking healthcare, a number lack health insurance. Sure, it is semantics, but it is meaningful semantics. Stating that Americans lack healthcare, is making it sound like the states lack hospitals and we get our medical care from shaman hanging out in a forest.

My biggest hang-up with the legislation that passed actually has nothing to do with health part of the bill, but instead some of the provisions regarding how states will be allocated money and the inability to repeal the Medicare Advisory Board by a future Congress.

I will not go into the details about these things because they are complicated and I am not sure they will even make it into the merged bill. What I think people need to understand is that there has never been a guarantee on one’s health or on the ability to receive medical care on the cheap. Is the healthcare system broken? Yes. Can the healthcare system be fixed by having the government mandate changes and pass out cash? I highly doubt it. I would love to be proven wrong, but I just don’t see it happening.

Let’s remember that these are politicians at work. No matter what side of the argument that you are on, can we agree that most politicians do what they do to get reelected? Or that they want to stick to the party “line”? What this amounts to then is asking men, who have been self-serving for the most part, to start serving the people that they represent.

When we elect a Congressman we are electing someone that serves the people of that district. This doesn’t mean that the elected official has to do everything the people say, it means that the official needs to do what’s in the best interest of the people while listening to their constituents. So if a Congressman wants to vote for legislation but is getting loud opposition from their constituents, they shouldn’t vote for it. That was the way the system was meant to work but I am afraid it has fallen away from that into personal gain.

Have a Merry Christmas!

Keeping an Infamous Day, Infamous

ssegraves

A military man can scarcely pride himself on having ‘smitten a sleeping enemy’; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack.

– Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Those words, spoken after the attack 68 years ago today, marked the beginning of the end of World War II. Yamamoto knew that even though he had partially disabled the naval fleet at Pearl Harbor, the resolve of the American people would strengthen their willingness to fight. Rather than relying on his advisor’s quick assessment from a strategic point of view, Yamomoto remembered his time at Harvard University to understand what was to come.

Pearl Harbor War Widows Go Into Military Work
Hollem, Howard R.,, photographer. Pearl Harbor widows have gone into war work to carry on the fight with a personal vengeance, Corpus Christi, Texas. Mrs. Virginia Young (right) whose husband was one of the first casualties of World War II, is a supervisor in the Assembly and Repairs Department of the Naval Air Base. Her job is to find convenient and comfortable living quarters for women workers from out of the state, like Ethel Mann, who operates an electric drill.

The ultimate sacrifice of 2,345 military personnel and 57 civilians would not be in vain.

Today is a day that our service men and women from World War II should be remembered, thanked, and admired. If you have children, teach them about today and the great sacrifice of a generation to insure that the United States prevailed and lived on.

Someone Donate a Dictionary to NBC

ssegraves

Apparently the economy has hurt the folks at NBC so much that they cannot afford a dictionary. Or maybe their time is too valuable to actually look up a definition before speaking complete fallacies.

During a report on the recent ACORN scandal Norah O’Donnell of NBC News stated that the sting videos “might be viewed as entrapment”.

No, Norah, it can’t be because as the definition states, entrapment is when a law enforcement officer or government agent induces or encourages a person to commit a crime when that person expresses that they do not want to do so. Entrapment is based on who caused the encouragement for the act.

In these ACORN tapes it is clear that the encouragement was not by the “government agents” but instead with the ACORN volunteers.

What makes this wordplay even funnier is that NBC is also the producing network of the entrapment trainwreck called To Catch a Predator. There have been numerous claims of the show’s decoys being the first to suggest sex, meaning that a show acting in conjunction with the government crossed into the fuzzy area of entrapment.

[flash flashvars=”v=GdkUpruzSU”]http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf[/flash]