Did you notice the letter to the editor in this morning's Democrat & Chronicle criticising the "Gang of 41"? The author of the LTE complained about these GOP Senators who sit around and do nothing but "say no" to everything.
I realize that the Democrats intend to paint the GOP as "the party of no", but isn't a little quick to go after the "Gang of 41"? The gang has only existed for about a month. I don't think there have been any major votes in the Senate since Senator Brown was sworn in.
Maybe when Democrat operatives distribute talking points to their minions, they ought to put dates on them so that the criticism doesn't come before the conduct being complained of.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Consolidation Panacea
This week's Messenger Post newspapers contained an editorial that lauded the consolidation of Nazareth Academy and Aquinas schools and indicated the belief that consolidation of schools and churches, like that of government, was a wise and good thing. This view is shared by the Democrat & Chronicle editorial board which last week had its own editorial in support of the Rochester Catholic Diocese's decision to consolidate schools. The D&C similarly noted that the school consolidation was a good example for local governments to follow.
The missing fact from these stories is that the reason for consolidation of churches and schools in the the Catholic Diocese is declining enrollment. There are too many churches and schools for the community that wants them. The consolidations in the Diocese include the closure of unneeded or under-utilized schools and churches. The analogy to government is not clear.
Is there really a decline in the need for public services? Not really. The impetus behind consolidation efforts in our area has been, and remains, the fact that the City of Rochester is a failing (failed?) entity that cannot afford the services (most notably, police services) that it wants to provide to its citizens. Consolidation is a way to capture the tax revenues of suburban communities and transfer those revenues to the City.
How will this be accomplished? Very simply. The public services now enjoyed by those suburban communities will be reduced. In my Town of Gates, for example, the 4-5 police cars which currently patrol Gates 24/7, will be reduced to 1 or 2 per shift under consolidated government. Those other cars will be moved to parts of the community which have a "greater need". Unfortunately, the savings which are promised by consolidation advocates will be negligible, because, unlike the Diocese example, services and personnel are not being cut; for the most part, they will be shifted.
Don't misunderstand me. I believe there are many opportunities for consolidation of municipal governments. I can think of little reason for the existence of certain special districts which encompass entire towns. It is likely that water, sewer and lighting districts could be absorbed by town or county governments and some administrative savings might result. Fire and ambulance districts often overlap and some duplicate services. Where there are obvious duplications, consolidation may be warranted.
My problem with consolidation advocates is that they imply that New Yorkers will no longer be over-taxed if we just got rid of these unneeded local goverments. That's nonsense! We are overtaxed because of our bloated, inefficient, partisan and self-interested State government. Moreover, the proponents of consolidation never admit that they have the ulterior motive of transferring tax revenues and services to the failing entities (usually cities) and away from largely successful and prosperous ones (usually towns and villages). Further, people have the right to as much service as they are willing to pay for. Consolidation advocates want to take that right away from people and create larger regional governments that will "do what's best" for a greater number of people. That's code for taking my money and giving it to someone else.
I wish the consolidation debate was an honest one. Let people understand that the choice is somewhat lower costs along with a greater loss of services. More than that, I wish consolidation advocates could acknowledge that as long as there is no reform in Albany, New York's taxation and spending problems will remain serious and that the savings from the merger of a couple of municpal governments will be a drop in the bucket.
The missing fact from these stories is that the reason for consolidation of churches and schools in the the Catholic Diocese is declining enrollment. There are too many churches and schools for the community that wants them. The consolidations in the Diocese include the closure of unneeded or under-utilized schools and churches. The analogy to government is not clear.
Is there really a decline in the need for public services? Not really. The impetus behind consolidation efforts in our area has been, and remains, the fact that the City of Rochester is a failing (failed?) entity that cannot afford the services (most notably, police services) that it wants to provide to its citizens. Consolidation is a way to capture the tax revenues of suburban communities and transfer those revenues to the City.
How will this be accomplished? Very simply. The public services now enjoyed by those suburban communities will be reduced. In my Town of Gates, for example, the 4-5 police cars which currently patrol Gates 24/7, will be reduced to 1 or 2 per shift under consolidated government. Those other cars will be moved to parts of the community which have a "greater need". Unfortunately, the savings which are promised by consolidation advocates will be negligible, because, unlike the Diocese example, services and personnel are not being cut; for the most part, they will be shifted.
Don't misunderstand me. I believe there are many opportunities for consolidation of municipal governments. I can think of little reason for the existence of certain special districts which encompass entire towns. It is likely that water, sewer and lighting districts could be absorbed by town or county governments and some administrative savings might result. Fire and ambulance districts often overlap and some duplicate services. Where there are obvious duplications, consolidation may be warranted.
My problem with consolidation advocates is that they imply that New Yorkers will no longer be over-taxed if we just got rid of these unneeded local goverments. That's nonsense! We are overtaxed because of our bloated, inefficient, partisan and self-interested State government. Moreover, the proponents of consolidation never admit that they have the ulterior motive of transferring tax revenues and services to the failing entities (usually cities) and away from largely successful and prosperous ones (usually towns and villages). Further, people have the right to as much service as they are willing to pay for. Consolidation advocates want to take that right away from people and create larger regional governments that will "do what's best" for a greater number of people. That's code for taking my money and giving it to someone else.
I wish the consolidation debate was an honest one. Let people understand that the choice is somewhat lower costs along with a greater loss of services. More than that, I wish consolidation advocates could acknowledge that as long as there is no reform in Albany, New York's taxation and spending problems will remain serious and that the savings from the merger of a couple of municpal governments will be a drop in the bucket.
Friday, February 12, 2010
When Will We Ever Learn?
Have you seen the report that President Obama is now "agnostic" regarding taxing incomes under $250,000?
Has there ever been a presidential candidate who promised to cut or restrain taxes who did not break that promise due to "the realities" of being President? George H.W. Bush told us "read my lips, no new taxes"; two years later he was "forced" to raise taxes to reduce deficits. Bill Clinton said that he'd give a "middle class tax cut"; he wasn't in office three months before he told us that despite trying as hard as he could, he just could not find a way to keep that promise.
Candidate Obama repeatedly and adamantly promised no taxes on incomes under $250,000. Instapundit has video of the pledge here. Now, President Obama is appointing a "blue-ribbon" panel to deal with the budget. "Everything has to be on the table", according to the President, so apparently, if his panel tells him he must raise taxes across the board, he will be compelled to do so.
In the future, I certainly hope that no one casts his/her vote on the basis of a tax promise, unless, that is, the promise is like the one Walter Mondale made, to raise taxes. That's a promise that would have been kept!
Has there ever been a presidential candidate who promised to cut or restrain taxes who did not break that promise due to "the realities" of being President? George H.W. Bush told us "read my lips, no new taxes"; two years later he was "forced" to raise taxes to reduce deficits. Bill Clinton said that he'd give a "middle class tax cut"; he wasn't in office three months before he told us that despite trying as hard as he could, he just could not find a way to keep that promise.
Candidate Obama repeatedly and adamantly promised no taxes on incomes under $250,000. Instapundit has video of the pledge here. Now, President Obama is appointing a "blue-ribbon" panel to deal with the budget. "Everything has to be on the table", according to the President, so apparently, if his panel tells him he must raise taxes across the board, he will be compelled to do so.
In the future, I certainly hope that no one casts his/her vote on the basis of a tax promise, unless, that is, the promise is like the one Walter Mondale made, to raise taxes. That's a promise that would have been kept!
The Kennedy Seat
This morning's Democrat & Chronicle contains a report that Patrick Kennedy won't run for re-election to his Rhode Island House seat. Kennedy said "his life is taking a new direction" outside of politics.
Philbrick at Mustard Street has what I think is an accurate take on the story here. He thinks Kennedy knows Democrats are going to be vulnerable everywhere, even in Rhode Island, come this Fall. By dropping out, he can avoid a difficult and costly (and possibly losing) race and he can move back to Massachusetts and position himself for a run at Scott Brown in 2012.
I don't think the Kennedy's were happy to see a Republican replace Teddy. Trying to retake the seat held by his father has to be too big a pull for Patrick to ignore.
Philbrick at Mustard Street has what I think is an accurate take on the story here. He thinks Kennedy knows Democrats are going to be vulnerable everywhere, even in Rhode Island, come this Fall. By dropping out, he can avoid a difficult and costly (and possibly losing) race and he can move back to Massachusetts and position himself for a run at Scott Brown in 2012.
I don't think the Kennedy's were happy to see a Republican replace Teddy. Trying to retake the seat held by his father has to be too big a pull for Patrick to ignore.
Real World Hard on Repoman
I'm sorry that I haven't posted much over the past month. Work has been very busy and I think I was burned out after our tough local election campaign in the Fall.
I appreciate the fact that a couple of people actually miss reading my ramblings (I know, hard to believe). I really enjoy blogging so I'm going to make more time for it.
Don't give up on me yet!
I appreciate the fact that a couple of people actually miss reading my ramblings (I know, hard to believe). I really enjoy blogging so I'm going to make more time for it.
Don't give up on me yet!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
