In what is suppose to be the year of the Democrats it is now turning out to be one of the most disastrous presidential campaigns not see since, well, probably ever. Why is this so? 1. the rules that give most states proportional delegation has prolonged the race to where no clear winner could ever emerge. 2. super delegates are party insiders that will determine the ultimate winner thereby rendering the whole process meaningless not to mention the specter of disenfranchising the voting of all the state primaries and Caucasus. 3. since there is virtually no philosophical difference in governing between Obama and Clinton the campaigns are stuck defending and making charges of racism, experience, lies and guilt by association and if this is not indicative of the campaigns themselves, campaign aids, surrogates and media pundits are making these issues front and center.
While either of the Democratic candidates has not gained much of an edge nationwide throughout this mess John McCain has been gaining when matched against both in nationwide polls. These sort of polls are meaningless this early on since there is a lot of campaigning to do between now and November but time is not on the side of the Democrats if no clear winner emerges by convention time. No sooner has Obama's pastor debacle ended, Hillary Clinton is caught in yet another lie, this one about evading gunfire in Bosnia as first lady when news footage shows that this simply wasn't true, an ongoing trait of Ms. Clinton. In fact the Democratic electorate has as much culpability in all this since it has given Ms. Clinton a free pass whenever these untruths are uttered. To give one example during the 9/11 atrocity Clinton stated that her daughter Chealsea was jogging in and around the Trade Center when they collapsed and was scrambling for cover all the while she was home in bed. Another example was lying about her name saying her parents named her after Sir Edmund Hillary the man who climbed Mt Everest when the climb happened years after Hillary was born. That she is immune to discredit within her own party (until now, presumably) it only enhances her negative ratings with the general population which hovers around 49%. She probably never should have gone this far to begin with.
But the same could be said of Barak Obama. Of the entire field of candidates before the primaries kicked in Governor Bill Richardson, senator Joe Biden, former VP candidate John Edwards or even Connecticut's Christopher Dodd had more knowledge and experience in Washington and governing. Why none had gained much traction could be attributed to the parties infatuation with race and gender as though these are defining attributes of character. It is abhorrent to judge a person on such criteria in a negative sense since it is racist and sexist, but isn't it equally wrong to judge positively because in both judgement is based on what a person is and not who?
Unless there is a resolution between now and convention time dark days lie ahead. Both candidates have little reason to drop out and so the circus will continue much to the delight of the media and Republicans. The downside is that McCain could win as the default candidate when victory could've been determined on the merits of party differences. Even after the convention is over and super delegates have had their say Obama and Clinton could split the party even further by not bowing out gracefully and making the case that a loss for either was hatched through non democratic means. After all that has happened till now far more trouble is yet to come.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Downtown Economics
Previously we opined about a plan by representative Jeff Berger to lure the film industry to make movies in Connecticut (Dec 10 07). In his plan we found a grain of truth. An idea within the idea that has escaped the planners. According to reports the idea had worked with movie and TV production increasing and thereby adding tax revenues to Hartford from those industries.
The truth within the idea was that tax revenues gathered from a business could be reaped by lowering taxes. When taxes are lowered a government will yield more of the stuff they are trying to get more revenues from. This ought to offset the initial lowering of taxes because not only will revenue be collected from the company doing business it will also produce more tax payers. Why is it that politicians realize that the idea of tax abatement will help and build an industry but an across the board tax cut or the outright elimination of certain taxes won't do the same for all industries doing business in the state?
What is objectionable about abatement plans is that those who are doing business in the state for many years have to pay the same old high tax while a new guy gets rewarded because politicians favor their business over others. We commented that this smacks at the principle of equal protection of the law because after all, tax laws are laws and the new guy pays one rate while the veteran pays another.
But Connecticut politicians must know that taxes are the solution to economic development because whenever all the hearings and committees are done with their analysis and speeches the solution is always the same, tax abatement. They look at the terrain, find out why there is no activity, talk to business. Hey what do you know, their paying too much in taxes.
This is the state of affairs with downtown Waterbury. For months and years city officials and property owners, Chamber of Commerce and the Waterbury Development Corporation have been scratching their heads to come up with a plan to "revitalize" downtown. About 20 odd years ago one plan was to tear up Bank street and put in new sidewalks, trees and new pavement. Once the trees went from saplings to beautiful green canopy's it was time to do it all over again, ripping out the sidewalks, repave the streets and taking out all the trees. In between all this the Palace theater was renovated, a college was added, Magnet school, ramp garages and once the last brick and sidewalk was installed planners, politicians and property owners are still scratching their heads holding meetings because downtown needs a revitalization plan.
Just what is downtown suppose to look at like once it is revitalized? Isn't one of the complaints about downtown is that there isn't enough parking? Do those cars just make their way downtown without people driving them? Downtown is busy with traffic and people, businesses, restaurants, schools, banks and on and on. What is it that we are missing here?
After all the analysis the city has come to a conclusion. People in the downtown district are paying too much in taxes and so the tried and tested solution to it all is "tax abatement". Not only tax abatement but an extension of an existing enterprise zone. If a business is in an enterprise zone does that mean the area outside of it is adverse to enterprise? If what hinders businesses downtown is high taxes doesn't that stand to reason that it also affects growth outside downtown?
It is just remarkable that lawmakers will find an economic problem, study it and come up with the correct solution but confine that solution to the specific problem that they are studying. If enterprise and low taxes are the solution to downtown, doesn't it stand to reason that it could work uptown as well?
The truth within the idea was that tax revenues gathered from a business could be reaped by lowering taxes. When taxes are lowered a government will yield more of the stuff they are trying to get more revenues from. This ought to offset the initial lowering of taxes because not only will revenue be collected from the company doing business it will also produce more tax payers. Why is it that politicians realize that the idea of tax abatement will help and build an industry but an across the board tax cut or the outright elimination of certain taxes won't do the same for all industries doing business in the state?
What is objectionable about abatement plans is that those who are doing business in the state for many years have to pay the same old high tax while a new guy gets rewarded because politicians favor their business over others. We commented that this smacks at the principle of equal protection of the law because after all, tax laws are laws and the new guy pays one rate while the veteran pays another.
But Connecticut politicians must know that taxes are the solution to economic development because whenever all the hearings and committees are done with their analysis and speeches the solution is always the same, tax abatement. They look at the terrain, find out why there is no activity, talk to business. Hey what do you know, their paying too much in taxes.
This is the state of affairs with downtown Waterbury. For months and years city officials and property owners, Chamber of Commerce and the Waterbury Development Corporation have been scratching their heads to come up with a plan to "revitalize" downtown. About 20 odd years ago one plan was to tear up Bank street and put in new sidewalks, trees and new pavement. Once the trees went from saplings to beautiful green canopy's it was time to do it all over again, ripping out the sidewalks, repave the streets and taking out all the trees. In between all this the Palace theater was renovated, a college was added, Magnet school, ramp garages and once the last brick and sidewalk was installed planners, politicians and property owners are still scratching their heads holding meetings because downtown needs a revitalization plan.
Just what is downtown suppose to look at like once it is revitalized? Isn't one of the complaints about downtown is that there isn't enough parking? Do those cars just make their way downtown without people driving them? Downtown is busy with traffic and people, businesses, restaurants, schools, banks and on and on. What is it that we are missing here?
After all the analysis the city has come to a conclusion. People in the downtown district are paying too much in taxes and so the tried and tested solution to it all is "tax abatement". Not only tax abatement but an extension of an existing enterprise zone. If a business is in an enterprise zone does that mean the area outside of it is adverse to enterprise? If what hinders businesses downtown is high taxes doesn't that stand to reason that it also affects growth outside downtown?
It is just remarkable that lawmakers will find an economic problem, study it and come up with the correct solution but confine that solution to the specific problem that they are studying. If enterprise and low taxes are the solution to downtown, doesn't it stand to reason that it could work uptown as well?
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Clinton Legacy
It comes as a big surprise that Hillary Clinton is about to be defeated in her quest for becoming the presidential nominee. Just as vice president Al Gore should have been a shoe-in in 2000 when the country was at peace and enjoyed prolonged prosperity and lost, Hillary is meeting the same fate. What happened?
The obvious common denominator in both is of course Bill Clinton. There are two narratives of his presidency one being the democratic success story serving two terms and leaving the ship of state in good working order and all that mess with Ken Starr the independent counsel investigating Clinton, well, that was all partisan Republican sour grapes who didn't "get it" that lying about sex is something understandable and Republicans found a reason to ostracize a popular democrat they hated for being successful.
The other narrative is that of the electorate. Since they have the final say on matters it could be that it wasn't just lying about sex. In fact the story was much more involved. Clinton didn't just lie under oath he tried to fix a civil action in the Paula Jones case by sojourning perjury. So not only was it perjury but also obstruction of justice. After all the fuss over impeachment was done Clinton still faced legal action in the whole mess once his term ended. It was then that Clinton struck a deal whereby he would forfeit his law license, admit guilt and quietly move on.
It could be that the public didn't quite grasp all the nuances of the legal entanglements but simply thought that no it's not okay to lie about sex and forget the lying but the act of adultery itself. Lewinski wasn't some contemporary of his but a intern young enough to be his daughter. Certainly this is a narrative that didn't escape the minds of what was once called the silent majority particularly in the bible belt. This moral backlash could have been a reason for denying Al Gore the presidency we may never know, but just two years after in the 2002 mid-term elections when a sitting president ought to lose seats for his party in congress actually gained seats and become the majority party in the senate. In the aftermath of that electoral trouncing it came as a surprise that what concerned the electorate most were "moral" issues. So the immediate legacy of Bill Clinton was the loss of the presidency and a majority of congress, if the later is attributed to morality (as a reaction to immorality) then it could be assumed that the presidency was lost for the same reason two years previous.
In hindsight for the good of the country and the democratic party the best course of action would have been resignation once all the facts were in. Al Gore would have taken over and more than likely defeated the Republicans in 2000. Not knowing how he would have handled post 9/11, if for the sake of argument he had toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan at a minimum then Hillary would have a better chance as a successor. Why? Because a resignation would have given the country a sense of closure to husband Bills actions. Without it there is a perception of getting away with it. Martha Stewart could be sent to prison for lying under oath but the president of the United States who ought to be held to a higher standard shouldn't simply skate by because he's a big lovable lug of a guy.
As of this writing votes in Ohio, Texas and Vermont are being cast. The outcome looks grim for Hillary and to make matters worse she may never drop out of the race unless she is beaten by big margins and even then she may not leave. Democrats had defended Bill Clinton perhaps because it was a defense against Republicans whom they could not concede an upper hand. But Hillary is not up against a Republican this time around and it may be time for the Democrats to shed the excuses and once and for all not turn a blind eye.
The obvious common denominator in both is of course Bill Clinton. There are two narratives of his presidency one being the democratic success story serving two terms and leaving the ship of state in good working order and all that mess with Ken Starr the independent counsel investigating Clinton, well, that was all partisan Republican sour grapes who didn't "get it" that lying about sex is something understandable and Republicans found a reason to ostracize a popular democrat they hated for being successful.
The other narrative is that of the electorate. Since they have the final say on matters it could be that it wasn't just lying about sex. In fact the story was much more involved. Clinton didn't just lie under oath he tried to fix a civil action in the Paula Jones case by sojourning perjury. So not only was it perjury but also obstruction of justice. After all the fuss over impeachment was done Clinton still faced legal action in the whole mess once his term ended. It was then that Clinton struck a deal whereby he would forfeit his law license, admit guilt and quietly move on.
It could be that the public didn't quite grasp all the nuances of the legal entanglements but simply thought that no it's not okay to lie about sex and forget the lying but the act of adultery itself. Lewinski wasn't some contemporary of his but a intern young enough to be his daughter. Certainly this is a narrative that didn't escape the minds of what was once called the silent majority particularly in the bible belt. This moral backlash could have been a reason for denying Al Gore the presidency we may never know, but just two years after in the 2002 mid-term elections when a sitting president ought to lose seats for his party in congress actually gained seats and become the majority party in the senate. In the aftermath of that electoral trouncing it came as a surprise that what concerned the electorate most were "moral" issues. So the immediate legacy of Bill Clinton was the loss of the presidency and a majority of congress, if the later is attributed to morality (as a reaction to immorality) then it could be assumed that the presidency was lost for the same reason two years previous.
In hindsight for the good of the country and the democratic party the best course of action would have been resignation once all the facts were in. Al Gore would have taken over and more than likely defeated the Republicans in 2000. Not knowing how he would have handled post 9/11, if for the sake of argument he had toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan at a minimum then Hillary would have a better chance as a successor. Why? Because a resignation would have given the country a sense of closure to husband Bills actions. Without it there is a perception of getting away with it. Martha Stewart could be sent to prison for lying under oath but the president of the United States who ought to be held to a higher standard shouldn't simply skate by because he's a big lovable lug of a guy.
As of this writing votes in Ohio, Texas and Vermont are being cast. The outcome looks grim for Hillary and to make matters worse she may never drop out of the race unless she is beaten by big margins and even then she may not leave. Democrats had defended Bill Clinton perhaps because it was a defense against Republicans whom they could not concede an upper hand. But Hillary is not up against a Republican this time around and it may be time for the Democrats to shed the excuses and once and for all not turn a blind eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)