Consolidation = Redistribution

I can only marvel at the growing array of editorialists and pundits who are working towards the elimination of smaller municipal governments. The Democrat & Chronicle used most of its editorial page on Thursday to explain, once again, that consolidation is the only way to cut the cost of government and that anyone who doesn't agree is a self-serving politico or a fool who just won't face reality.

I wish a real debate and discussion of the hidden agenda behind the consolidation drive could be had. The D&C, the Center for Governmental Research and countless other experts, keep telling us that consolidation and regionalism are the only smart ways to go.

Why?

The "obvious" reason is that there would be "great" cost savings from the elimination of duplicative services. Certainly, there is some truth to that. I am sure that there are administrative expenses that could be eliminated by consolidation. I would, however, like someone to at least offer us some numbers. I question whether the amount of savings would justify the loss of "self-determination" that we have in our own localities.

Further, there is never any discussion about the reduction in services that would come from consolidation. During a recent blog post on this topic, consolidation supporters criticized a fire district in Greece for building a new station. The argument that there were enough stations in the general vicinity, so that the residents in that area could have had sufficient service if a regional approach was used. A similar point was made about how "everybody understands" that the Brighton Police Department is unneeded with a Sheriff's Department available for the entire county.

Really? So who gets to decide how many police we have protecting us, or how many fire halls serve us or how often the streets are plowed or our debris is picked up? Today, in Gates, the residents of Gates decide. In the consolidation scenario, someone else will.

This brings me to the hidden agenda. The real reason for consolidation and regionalism is so that the productive, successful and viable parts of the region can subsidize the broken, failing parts. For example, today there are 4 or 5 cars patrolling Gates on an average shift. If we go to metro police, will we still have 4 or 5 cars in Gates? Of course not! The former Gates officers will be working their metro duties in the high crime areas of the City of Rochester.

You see, when consolidation supporters say the cost of local government is too high, they don't mean you will save a lot of money under a regional government. They mean that YOU spend too much money on "lavish" services you really DON'T NEED. That money should be spent where its really needed. Its just not fair that Gates has its own police or that the Brighton schools spend extra money on pupils, when there's more crime in the City and RCSD students aren't doing well on their tests.

I wrote about this previously here and here. The supporters of metro are really supporters of saving and expanding the power base of failed policies and politicians. Little more needs to be said than to point out that ex-mayor Bill Johnson has a prominent place on Gov. Spitzer's Commission looking into consolidation. We ought to let him have another crack at our money, right?

Seriously, though, get ready for a big consolidation push. Be ready for it. Ask the right questions. How much will local services be cut (my guess, a lot)? How much will total taxes be reduced(me again, not much, I'd bet)? Ask why we can't decide to have an extra cop, fireman, or teacher in our town, if we are willing to pay for it. Ask what percentage of our total taxes are town taxes versus state and county taxes. Ask why we aren't first doing something about the real problem with over-taxation, which is our State Government.

The reason is that consolidation supporters don't really think you PAY too much; they think you HAVE too much. They want to spread the wealth to those who NEED it, and that isn't YOU, if you live in the suburbs.

Wishful Thinking

According to IMAO, if Fred Thompson was President of the U.S., terrorists would not have to travel to visit "ground zero". Ground zero would be wherever the terrorists were.

If so, Fred's got my vote!

Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire

I read two columns in the past week which touched on a point I've wanted to blog about. That is the current tendency to brand our opponents as liars, or evil incarnate.

It is no longer possible to simply disagree with our opponents, we must castigate and destroy them. The MoveOn.org ad slandering Gen. Petraeus is perhaps the pinnacle of this phenomenon. Or maybe that was Hillary calling Dick Cheney "Darth Vader".

Bush lied to get us into Iraq. He wasn't merely wrong about WMD, he made it all up. Gen. Petraeus knows Iraq is hopeless; he's just shilling for Bush, the way Colin Powell did.

Whatever happened to the idea that "reasonable people of goodwill may differ". I think it is our current brand of hyper-partisan, win at all costs politics. If you can't use reasoned argument to defeat someone, attack his motives, his background, his family. Call him names, call him a liar. The Clintons named this "the politics of personal destruction". They coined the phrase in self-defense; they became its best practitioners.

Kathleen Parker and Suzanne Fields both wrote columns on this point. Read them in full if you can. Here are a couple key points, first from Parker:

"Politics is ever the enemy of judgment, and perspective gets lost in the hysteria that inevitably builds when large numbers of politicians and media gather too tightly in a room. The whir of cameras and the flash of bulbs alter the human ecosystem somehow and interfere with the brain's circuitry, it would seem."

Fields was even more direct:

"There is no greater lie than to falsely accuse a person of being a liar. The slander by MoveOn.org, the smearing machine of the Democratic lunatic left, rises to the highest office of the land, falsely accusing the president of lying about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which was not a lie but a mistake based on the intelligence gathered by several nations of the coalition. A mistake is not a lie; an accusation of mistake has no power to destroy a reputation.
Lying in politics is not new, but what is new is the thundering silence from critics of policy who know better and who say nothing. In time truth generally wills out, but when media is instantaneously ubiquitous, a lie, in the words of a senator of the previous century, runs halfway around the world before truth can get its boots on. A lie distracts debate, inhibits rational discussion, curtails the free expression of ideas and reduces honest differences of opinion to vicious tirades. And it lives forever in the infinity of the Internet, even after exposed as a lie."

On the blogs, Fields last point is very evident. George W. Bush is not just a bad President who bungled Iraq, he is the worst, criminal, lying President in American history. People like me who supported him in any way are fools, morons, or worse.

I wonder what it will take to restore a modicum of civility and honor to politics?

Thompson Is In: Update

There is an interesting piece on Fred Thompson written by Tom Bevan in Real Clear Politics. It is a nice assessment of Thompson's appeal and chances.

Read the whole thing but Bevan concludes with a few words on why it isn't too late for Fred:

"The other good news for Thompson is that right now his show is the only new one around, while the other candidates have long since gone into reruns.
Just after Thompson finished speaking in Mason City, I asked a group of people attending the event whether they felt Thompson waited too long to run and "missed his moment." Not a single one felt he had, and one man opined that the problem wasn't that Thompson had gotten in too late but that the other candidates had gotten in too early. "We're bored to death of those guys," the man said, while the others nodded in agreement.Thompson may be playing catch up from a fundraising and organization standpoint, but as far as voters are concerned there is plenty of room for - and interest in - adding another show to the Republican line up. We'll know soon enough whether Thompson can keep them tuned in."

This Just In!

In a surprise development, Congressman Jim Walsh has changed his position and decided he is against the War in Iraq. Reports from Washington indicate that Walsh (RINO-26th Dist. NY) will also announce that he will oppose any further funding for the War.

This position switch marks the 27th or 28th surprising about-face for Walsh since his electoral "near death" experience last November. Sources close to Walsh say that his re-election chances are the furthest thing from his mind and that this decision resulted from many sleepless nights poring over opinion polls while pondering what courageous stance would be most popular in his district.

Thompson Is In. Is It Too Late?

Former Sen. Fred Thompson has finally thrown his hat in the ring. He has a lot of things going for him, particularly a really down-home manner and resonant voice. When he articulates his views, he sounds confident, forthright, and reassuring.

The big question, as noted in the accompanying cartoon, is whether he has waited too long. Winning primaries takes grass-roots organization as well as money. Fred may be able to raise money, but its not clear he can put together a deep campaign organization fast enough.

Pinched Nerve Checks Blogger

My "pain in the neck" has proved to be a real impediment to blogging. I just wanted you two or three faithful readers to know I haven't quit, I'm just on a medical hiatus.