The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle reports that the NYS Senate and Assembly want to wait before acting on Governor Patterson's request to cut an additional $2 billion from the State's budget. Apparently, they want to see the most accurate revenue projections before deciding on further cuts. They also refuse to talk about cuts in education funding. Now, with the Dow going under 8600 today, isn't it time to start looking for additional cuts to the state budget?
Unfortunately, we're talking about cutting education. But then again, there aren't that many areas that we can cut. Health care is generally off the table too. And, while now would seem to be the time to pull together some real structural reforms to these various systems, state government just kind of moves along as if everything is dandy. Maybe I'm just ignorant, and unaware of some very hard work to reform medicaid, the welfare system, education, and a host of other state supported functions. But my guess is they're not really tackling these issues.
And on the local level, whatever happened to the ongoing discussions around government consolidations? I'm not necessarily talking about the very politically unpopular idea of merging City and County governments, but what about those areas that are not political hot potatoes? Like lighting, water, snow plowing, and some other "low hanging fruit"? The problem with consolidation, though, is that no one is willing to give up power, and that's what consolidation is.
If I'm running Environmental Services for the City, am I willing to give up power to the County to manage things like dog licenses, dead animal removal, street sweeping, underpass cleaning, and a host of other functions? Am I willing to lay off government workers, and thus decrease my sphere of influence? If our leaders really wanted to make a difference, the conversation on government consolidation would be restarted, especially now.
The fact is that the economy may be in the doldrums for the next few years. Why not start the process of making government more efficient today, so that when the economy is growing again, the government entities that are left prosper even more? Do the City or the County really relish the annual announcements of budget deficits, cuts to essential services, and political wrangling to suggest that if only the Dem's or the Repub's were in control of things, we wouldn't be in this mess?
We have an opportunity in New York State and the Rochester region (obviously, Syracuse, Buffalo, et al do as well) to significantly improve the efficiency of government, laying the groundwork for successful government, and maybe even State, County and City budget surpluses when times are good again. Imagine if we were to improve the efficiency of City and County government by, oh, let's just pick a number... 22%. When the economy is roaring again, this more efficient government would see significant increases in tax revenues (sales tax, hotel/motel tax, property tax, etc.) that, if managed properly, could be set aside to make up for shortfalls in bad times. Granted, you'd have to legislate so that surpluses had to go into the equivalent of an endowment - as we all know government likes nothing more than to spend spend spend.
Sure, my IRA has seen it's value drop by nearly 50% over the last 6 months... but this is also an opportunity to invest more in quality stocks and mutual funds so that I can reap the benefits when the economy is strong again. Similarly, let's take this as an opportunity to increase the quality of government through enhanced efficiency. The opportunity is real, and the degree of urgency is high!
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Last Night's Debate
So, last night was Round 2 of the Obama/McCain debates and what have we learned? Well, we've learned that John McCain supports the Treasury buying up bad mortgages from people too stupid to not buy homes that fall within their means (potentially a $300 billion bailout), and we've learned that Barrack Obama supports nuclear energy "as one component" of an overall energy independence program. See, I had to stretch with what we learned about Obama, because there was little, if any, new information provided. I'm not saying that McCain was overflowing with answers either, but there was something about his answers that seemed better informed than Mr. Obama's.
I did think Obama did an excellent job of answering the question of how the bailout will affect the average American. He's hit a home run linking businesses (large or small) ability to survive without access to cash. According to Mr. Obama, businesses risk not making payroll and thus potentially laying people off. Now, whether or not that's a totally accurate portrayal of the bailout is kind of irrelevant to me. It was a good answer and it's an answer that most people can understand.
I'll also admit that I didn't focus 100% on the debate last night. I was also surfing the web, going on Ebay and winebid.com, and checking my Facebook account. As Drudgereport is blasting this morning, "B O R I N G," I have to agree. However, I was impressed with Mr. McCain's overall demeanor last night, and give him a B+. I wish he would stop saying "my friends." It bugs me, and it's condescending. I'm not his friend, and the average American out there is not his friend. To me it feels insincere, even if he truly is being sincere. Please, stop saying "my friends."
But otherwise, he did do a good job. I thought that he took on energy independence well - stating a need for more investment in alternative energy sources including nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, etc. I thought he was strong on the message of reining in government spending. I may personally want to see federal earmarks for projects that I support, but Mr. McCain has a track record of trying to reduce frivolous spending. He also does have a track record of working both sides of the aisle. We have to remember one fundamental thing about John McCain - he truly is this maverick that SNL has been parodying. He's a maverick in the sense that he's willing to go outside the Big R political ideology, work with Democrats, compromise when it's needed, and stick to his guns when he feels he's right. He really DID work with Senator's Feingold, Leiberman, and Kennedy on joint legislation.
I just get the sense that Mr. Obama, on the other hand, is too conciliatory and lacks the ability to make a decision when things get difficult. Where are the Obama-"Insert Republican Senator's Name Here" co-sponsored bills? I certainly haven't heard about them, though I suppose they may exist. Of course, you would think Mr. Obama would want to diffuse McCain's "maverick" label by showing that he too is a maverick, or at the very least bipartisan. But my guess is that Obama's record doesn't support a bipartisan label.
Last night may have been an exhibition of talking points, personal attacks (albeit, not very vigorous ones), and light-weight answers to difficult problems, but it was still a good illustration of the difference between the two candidates. I'm not about ready to stand from the rooftops proclaiming, "Vote for John McCain!" quite yet, but unless I see some spark out of the Obama campaign, I have to stick with my political leanings and vote R.
I did think Obama did an excellent job of answering the question of how the bailout will affect the average American. He's hit a home run linking businesses (large or small) ability to survive without access to cash. According to Mr. Obama, businesses risk not making payroll and thus potentially laying people off. Now, whether or not that's a totally accurate portrayal of the bailout is kind of irrelevant to me. It was a good answer and it's an answer that most people can understand.
I'll also admit that I didn't focus 100% on the debate last night. I was also surfing the web, going on Ebay and winebid.com, and checking my Facebook account. As Drudgereport is blasting this morning, "B O R I N G," I have to agree. However, I was impressed with Mr. McCain's overall demeanor last night, and give him a B+. I wish he would stop saying "my friends." It bugs me, and it's condescending. I'm not his friend, and the average American out there is not his friend. To me it feels insincere, even if he truly is being sincere. Please, stop saying "my friends."
But otherwise, he did do a good job. I thought that he took on energy independence well - stating a need for more investment in alternative energy sources including nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, etc. I thought he was strong on the message of reining in government spending. I may personally want to see federal earmarks for projects that I support, but Mr. McCain has a track record of trying to reduce frivolous spending. He also does have a track record of working both sides of the aisle. We have to remember one fundamental thing about John McCain - he truly is this maverick that SNL has been parodying. He's a maverick in the sense that he's willing to go outside the Big R political ideology, work with Democrats, compromise when it's needed, and stick to his guns when he feels he's right. He really DID work with Senator's Feingold, Leiberman, and Kennedy on joint legislation.
I just get the sense that Mr. Obama, on the other hand, is too conciliatory and lacks the ability to make a decision when things get difficult. Where are the Obama-"Insert Republican Senator's Name Here" co-sponsored bills? I certainly haven't heard about them, though I suppose they may exist. Of course, you would think Mr. Obama would want to diffuse McCain's "maverick" label by showing that he too is a maverick, or at the very least bipartisan. But my guess is that Obama's record doesn't support a bipartisan label.
Last night may have been an exhibition of talking points, personal attacks (albeit, not very vigorous ones), and light-weight answers to difficult problems, but it was still a good illustration of the difference between the two candidates. I'm not about ready to stand from the rooftops proclaiming, "Vote for John McCain!" quite yet, but unless I see some spark out of the Obama campaign, I have to stick with my political leanings and vote R.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)