The D&C has been very disciplined and consistent in maintaining its agenda for 2007. If you don't recall, that would be support of metro/regional government at the expense of local government (except for the City government) combined with criticism of Maggie Brooks and the County GOP.
The D&C editorial page ripping the planned Taxpayer Protection Act is another installment in that effort. The editorial criticises the plan as "political pablum", apparently because the editorial board does not think it's a meaningful effort. They can't come up with any problem caused by limiting spending to inflation; they just don't like it because it might be popular among voters who might then be "fooled" into voting for Republicans.
Instead of limiting County spending, the D&C restates its old argument that we really need a regional solution. They also threw in a gratuitous attack on Maggie's Sales Tax Plan. The D&C referred, once again, to a study that showed that government spending in Northern Virginia was lower than that of a part of Long Island that was deemed "similar".
I have a few questions about the differences. First, what services were provide to residents in each area? Did each have local police and fire? Did the VA residents pay for privatized services that are covered by government in NY? What part of the extra expense was attributable to State government expenses? In VA, for example, are some services provided by the State, provided locally here?
I would not be surprised to learn that some of the local governments in our region could be more cost effective. I do not accept the implied premise of the D&C agenda, however. Underlying their metro/regional theory is the idea that we would have "sufficient" service levels and "large" cost savings from consolidation and regionalization. I don't believe it. The metro police will not serve Gates the way the Gates Police do. Why should we believe that other regional services will be "sufficient" and "cost-effective"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
As the campaign progresses- some thoughts:
Just as a liberal Catholic Bishop will not ever be the Pope, a socially liberal Republican will not be nominated by that Party to be President for quite some time. Is there a place for liberal Bishops in the Church?
A place for socially liberal Republicans in the Party? Yes to both, but not as standard bearer.
Fact is that the Rebublican Party some 30 years ago, represented a moderate to liberal view on social issues. Pre- RR- men like Romney, Scranton, Dirksen, Percey, Rockafeller, Michaels, Hugh Scott, Howard Baker - the list goes on- Nixon- were moderate to liberal on social issues. (George Bush #1) was the last of that type.)Beginning with RR, social conservatives became the main stream of the party. Liberals- moderates were pushed out- by those spouting "family values", and those using opposition to abortion as the foundational I-beam of what it means to be a Republican. That reality cannot be turned around easily or quickly. It will take a political generation to once again change course to a more moderate social policy. The fact is that Rudy really is not a Republican. He strongly believes in a woman's right to choose, believes in public funds being used to assist the poor with the cost of abortion, strongly suports the right of gay people to enter into civil unions. To nominate him, the Republican Party would have to engage in civil war, to turn its back on what it has spouted for the past generation. Moving forward, it will have to do that. But for now, if it moves to Rudy- it will be destroyed by the very people who have made it- the social conservatives. The party wqnted to go to bed with Phylis Schafley. Fine. Now their stuck with her and her ilk.
Anonymous:
I think we may have had this discussion before.
Clearly, Rudy is not a typical Republican as defined in the years A.R. (After Reagan). I will also confess that I grew up as a Rockefeller Republican. I admired some great moderate NY Republicans like Jacob Javits, Louis Lefkowitz, and our own, Richard Rosenbaum.
Having said that though, I still believe Rudy can win the GOP nomination and the presidency because he is one of only two candidates who really appear serious about the ongoing conflict with Islamic radicals. I believe that when people reach for the voting lever, they become serious and ask who will protect them and their families. Protecting us is, after all, the first job of government.
Moreover, the GOP is not the only party that has changed. The Democrats are also captives of their extreme interest group supporters. JFK, Scoop Jackson, Sam Nunn, and Pat Moynihan, would have a hard time accepting some of the left-wing views now deemed "mainstream" by the Dems. Let's ask Joe Lieberman!
I think that the voters who are not doctrinaire, are looking for leadership, not position papers. Its an intangible quality and I think Rudy has it. I think it is the reason that social "values voters" will accept him as their candidate despite some of his liberal policy positions.
Finally, I will reiterate a point I made some time ago; I think Rudy will ultimately have an easier road to the GOP nomination than Hillary will have for the Dems. Time will tell.
City Historian,
I realize this is a little late but I thought the recent editorial about the Rochester City Historian truly demonstrates the D&C's thoughts on Monroe County. The City of Rochester need not maintain a Historian when Monroe County could by sharing the cost with other local governments and private interests. I thought the county would only have to pay for the police. But it’s now clear from Police and Fire to Beaches and Historians, the D&C plan is the County will pay without any say!
Anonymous:
You have zeroed in on a big part of the D&C's master plan. The "Community of Monroe" that the D&C writes about is the City of Rochester in complete control of the region, able to sustain itself with the currently untapped resources of suburbanites.
As I noted in a previous post:
"You should note, however, that your view has few supporters outside the City of Rochester. Oh, yes, the other part of your agenda; save the poorly run and nearly broke City at any expense (or, more accurately, at the expense of suburban towns and residents). I can't help but notice that while you pontificate about wasteful and unnecessary town governments, special districts, and the like, the City is always exempt. No criticism about blowing millions (12, wasn't it?) on opening a polluted beach that was closed more than half the season. I don't remember reading any articles railing against the uncounted dollars spent on the High Falls Entertainment District. That was money well spent! The Ferry is too easy a target to even mention, although, it is interesting that there has been so little said about the 10 months and counting since the "sale" of same."
At least the D&C is consistent.
Post a Comment