The show of tears by Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire will be remembered for decades to come as the determining moment that saved her primary campaign for president. The conventional wisdom is that woman came out in droves and voted for her out of sympathy and put her over the top against the insurging Barak Obama. Some observations on that moment. 1. Was it fake? It may have not been but Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. makes the observation that no tears were shed during the Oklahoma bombing, 9/11, her husbands cheating, war in Iraq or Katrina. Why now with a seemingly innocuous question of "how you holding up?"? 2.To further the point, it worked which adds to the calculating nature of the Clinton mystique. 3.The crying moment came when she talked about how she didn't want to see the country "go backwards" and that she cared sooo much. Surly going backwards is an abstract idea about, what? Deficit spending, funding education, solving health care? Hardly nothing to get choked up about especially when you compare them to real tragedies that afflicted her and the country which not just hurt American pocket books but cost thousands of lives plus the public humiliation of her family.
But it may not have been. To this it can be said that the difference between this moment and other more dire events is that this affected her. After all it was a question about her and when it comes to Hillary Clinton she is suppose to win, it's her turn to be president, its suppose to be a democrat year, she was the front runner with little serious competition and after losing Iowa and being very much behind in New Hampshire it looked like it was all over. Sure her words initially were about the country and her concerns but what do we expect her to say? After the litany about going backwards she charged into the other candidates lack of experience. To be really cynical about the matter it could be said that what was really on her mind is that she wasn't getting what she wanted and that it was all no fair, why, these other guys don't deserve it, dam it why not me. So other historic considerations aside this time it was about her and her alone. Why shed tears for others when something really bad is happening such as the loss of power.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Monday, December 10, 2007
Berger At His Word
State Representative Jeff Berger doesn't know it but he's on to something. For reasons that are lost to us he's become aware that the motion picture industry produces no tax revenue to the state. Why is that? But forget the film industry does Connecticut produce tax revenue from car manufacturing, steel, textiles, toys, computers, televisions, paper, plastic, sporting goods? Of all the things a government can get tax revenue from, well what'ya know we don't produce films in Connecticut.
In his solution to rectify this there is a inking of truth. A bill was passed that gives the tried and tested "tax credit" to film makers and since then four new productions have taken place in the state. As reported in the Waterbury Observer the Connecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism "reports over $130 million in film, television and commercial production here. Connecticut film industry incentives provide a 30% tax credit on qualifying production costs exceeding $50,000."
We don't like tax credits. If someone were manufacturing plastic parts in the state and paid taxes for 20 years, that company would be paying a higher tax then the newcomer who has been given special treatment. Tax credits all but admit that taxes are too high for business, any business and that politicians use a reduction of taxes through credits only on businesses that they favor over others that they don't or have been here for decades. We consider tax laws just that, laws. When one company pays one tax and others another it smacks at equal protection of those laws. How in the world can they see that these special tax credits produce more activity in the industry but fail to see that an across the board tax cut for everyone would do the same for all industries?
Berger and the supporters of these credits have right in front of them the effects of an experiment that worked. Low taxes equals more business. That credits are necessary ought to tell them something about the tax system as a whole. For some reason though we wager that it won't and are perplexed as to why.
In his solution to rectify this there is a inking of truth. A bill was passed that gives the tried and tested "tax credit" to film makers and since then four new productions have taken place in the state. As reported in the Waterbury Observer the Connecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism "reports over $130 million in film, television and commercial production here. Connecticut film industry incentives provide a 30% tax credit on qualifying production costs exceeding $50,000."
We don't like tax credits. If someone were manufacturing plastic parts in the state and paid taxes for 20 years, that company would be paying a higher tax then the newcomer who has been given special treatment. Tax credits all but admit that taxes are too high for business, any business and that politicians use a reduction of taxes through credits only on businesses that they favor over others that they don't or have been here for decades. We consider tax laws just that, laws. When one company pays one tax and others another it smacks at equal protection of those laws. How in the world can they see that these special tax credits produce more activity in the industry but fail to see that an across the board tax cut for everyone would do the same for all industries?
Berger and the supporters of these credits have right in front of them the effects of an experiment that worked. Low taxes equals more business. That credits are necessary ought to tell them something about the tax system as a whole. For some reason though we wager that it won't and are perplexed as to why.
Republican Amnesia
The big story in Waterbury politics is the disintegration of the Republican party. Now at third party status right behind the independent party it has lost yet another election and in grand fashion. What happened?
Let's eliminate the obvious. The last two Republican mayors ended up in prison. That they were Italian ought to be and is irrelevant but not when yet another Italian runs this time around. Anthony D'ameilo as far as we're concerned is a good man, successful, intelligent and serves his community well in Hartford. But unless he could give the electorate a reason to vote for him, a platform that transcends stereotypes and party affiliation he would be dead in the water and he was.
But barring the ethnic factor or even if D'ameilo didn't run altogether and the party had Dennis Odle instead it's not likely that we would have seen the party win against the incumbent. The Republican party in the last 27 years has won the important debates nationwide in the all areas of domestic policy from favoring free markets, low taxation, an understanding of welfare and regulatory shortcomings and the importance of family and individual virtue. On the foreign policy side there was the recognition that the Soviet Union was not just a different system but an evil one and nothing short of defeat of that system was acceptable. Almost nothing in the platform of either D'ameilo or Odle ran on principles that put Republicans in office ie: conservative. Odle's plan of a strict accounting system seemed to him to do just fine but on the growth side a weak plan of marketing the town to business and a revamping, from what we can tell, of a hapless quasi-government development corporation and the ever so bad idea of tax abatement is just not enough. D'ameilo's platform, if we can call it that, was far worse advocating a stronger lobbying structure in Hartford for state funds to do whatever. Have these candidates any awareness of just what makes Republicans win in the first place?
Waterbury is not an ideological town, politically. Just like it doesn't have firebrand conservatives it also doesn't have strident liberalism as well and perhaps in some way we could count ourselves lucky. We place religious symbols in the town green on Christmas with no objections, there aren't groups looking to institute school prayer and the like. Indeed there is no liberal/conservative solution to fixing pot holes and getting rid of trash. But there is some efficacy to the argument of economic growth, why it's a good thing and how it's achieved. The destruction of the welfare system on its recipients and the town as a whole. It's in these areas that Waterbury needs solutions and ideas. It used to come from Republicans and if they don't produce them good riddance to them and for whatever it is they stand for, if anything at all, in its place.
Let's eliminate the obvious. The last two Republican mayors ended up in prison. That they were Italian ought to be and is irrelevant but not when yet another Italian runs this time around. Anthony D'ameilo as far as we're concerned is a good man, successful, intelligent and serves his community well in Hartford. But unless he could give the electorate a reason to vote for him, a platform that transcends stereotypes and party affiliation he would be dead in the water and he was.
But barring the ethnic factor or even if D'ameilo didn't run altogether and the party had Dennis Odle instead it's not likely that we would have seen the party win against the incumbent. The Republican party in the last 27 years has won the important debates nationwide in the all areas of domestic policy from favoring free markets, low taxation, an understanding of welfare and regulatory shortcomings and the importance of family and individual virtue. On the foreign policy side there was the recognition that the Soviet Union was not just a different system but an evil one and nothing short of defeat of that system was acceptable. Almost nothing in the platform of either D'ameilo or Odle ran on principles that put Republicans in office ie: conservative. Odle's plan of a strict accounting system seemed to him to do just fine but on the growth side a weak plan of marketing the town to business and a revamping, from what we can tell, of a hapless quasi-government development corporation and the ever so bad idea of tax abatement is just not enough. D'ameilo's platform, if we can call it that, was far worse advocating a stronger lobbying structure in Hartford for state funds to do whatever. Have these candidates any awareness of just what makes Republicans win in the first place?
Waterbury is not an ideological town, politically. Just like it doesn't have firebrand conservatives it also doesn't have strident liberalism as well and perhaps in some way we could count ourselves lucky. We place religious symbols in the town green on Christmas with no objections, there aren't groups looking to institute school prayer and the like. Indeed there is no liberal/conservative solution to fixing pot holes and getting rid of trash. But there is some efficacy to the argument of economic growth, why it's a good thing and how it's achieved. The destruction of the welfare system on its recipients and the town as a whole. It's in these areas that Waterbury needs solutions and ideas. It used to come from Republicans and if they don't produce them good riddance to them and for whatever it is they stand for, if anything at all, in its place.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Election Day
There was nothing more reliable then the old voting booths with its curtain and levers. When the 2000 election became a major mess due to paper punch out cards with "chads" the problem was the voters in Florida weren't up with the times, they were using a system whereby the local government would spend money on paper every election day and voters had to punch out who they wanted elected (then punch them again once in office, literally!). But kidding aside the times they weren't up to was a system of booths with curtains and levers that never seemed to be a problem with anyone anywhere.
But since the mess in Florida calls for reform was in order including Connecticut. In meeting the challenge of reform we now have paper ballots, just like in Florida, replacing a system that was full proof with a tried and potentially failed system of paper ballots with marker pens instead of punch out chads.
Its reform for reform sake. It is not fixing what is broken its fixing what is, well, fixed. The old system was mechanical the new system is paper that is scanned in an electric scanner. What could go wrong we don't know yet. If there is a power outage then we would think that the paper could be scanned at a later date. Then we have to trust a system where someone has a thick envelope of votes in his car transporting them to a location where there is power to another scanner. We trust that this is what would happen, we also trust that there will be enough marker pens if they become dry, we also trust that enough paper would be printed up so that the voting place doesn't run out. In all this we trust. But what is trust if there is a system in place that is rigged? If you wanted to rig the old system it would be difficult if not impossible. The mechanical machines were simple devices with no electrical or computer hardrive components, no paper to run out of, no markers to replace, scanners, nothing. We replaced a one step process in a more vulnerable system that could conceivable become manipulated. But in won't be, right? In Waterbury we could always trust our mayor whomever holds the office at anytime, are you worried?
But since the mess in Florida calls for reform was in order including Connecticut. In meeting the challenge of reform we now have paper ballots, just like in Florida, replacing a system that was full proof with a tried and potentially failed system of paper ballots with marker pens instead of punch out chads.
Its reform for reform sake. It is not fixing what is broken its fixing what is, well, fixed. The old system was mechanical the new system is paper that is scanned in an electric scanner. What could go wrong we don't know yet. If there is a power outage then we would think that the paper could be scanned at a later date. Then we have to trust a system where someone has a thick envelope of votes in his car transporting them to a location where there is power to another scanner. We trust that this is what would happen, we also trust that there will be enough marker pens if they become dry, we also trust that enough paper would be printed up so that the voting place doesn't run out. In all this we trust. But what is trust if there is a system in place that is rigged? If you wanted to rig the old system it would be difficult if not impossible. The mechanical machines were simple devices with no electrical or computer hardrive components, no paper to run out of, no markers to replace, scanners, nothing. We replaced a one step process in a more vulnerable system that could conceivable become manipulated. But in won't be, right? In Waterbury we could always trust our mayor whomever holds the office at anytime, are you worried?
Monday, October 15, 2007
Run Waterbury Like a Business?
Waterbury has a large tax rate that drives businesses away. Waterbury has the largest unemployment rate in the state. So this is easy. Get rid of the high tax so businesses could move in and employ people. WS mentioned before that city government cannot just sign a lower tax bill it has to budget for less. Business tax revenue hover above seven percent of the budget. Even if the budget were brought down, say to a surplus, which it has, it won't make too much of a difference to the business tax end of it.
There is a simple dynamic here, high taxes, high unemployment. No mayoral candidate makes this connection but in all fairness, with the mindset that permeates between all three parties, there is little they can do about it. You need revenues to run the city, if you cut taxes you won't pay the bills.
But the mindset is wrong. The archaic tax system lends itself to business moving to low mill rate towns. Mill rates are lower in small towns because they have smaller budgets. Companies want to move to Cheshire, Prospect, Watertown because they have lower mill rates. They don't have superior quasi government run development corporations, they don't have a marketing plan and go to trade show or offer tax "incentives" (that all but admits taxes are too high), no, they have a number and a small one or smaller then ours. The mindset is that lower taxes or the elimination of certain taxes will bring about less revenue. We say that's not true. Just the opposite. The idea is not to get as much as you can from your customer (tax payers) its to get more customers, lower taxes do just that. Just ask the small towns or states with growing populations or countries that are modern and industrious.
We'll say it again. A low tax brings in more business that highers people who pay taxes who then buy things from other businesses that expand and higher more people. The city grows and when a city grows so does its tax base and so does revenue.
It has to start at the business end. They cannot just pay whatever the mill rate is and have it subject to inventory and equipment. That can't happen, it just can't. The outright elimination of business from this system is what's needed. The solution could be that business pay the tax on property that they reside only and forget the tax on equipment and inventory. That would be the start in the right direction. There's one candidate that goes over the usual laundry list of ideas (old ones) of bringing in business and then adds that he would actively look for locations, as in, in his car driving around. Ridiculous. Other candidates have simular ideas and they all seem to harp on the necessity of getting money from state government to make improvements, that is continue to be a government on state welfare.
If Waterbury were friendly to commerce then it wouldn't penalize it in the form of high taxes, it would then maybe grow with a healthy revenue stream and we wouldn't have to go to Hartford with our hand out. There's always talk about running the city as a business and it always refres to the internal workings of the city, or with marketing stradegies, never has it been used in reference to price point, that is, taxes.
There is a simple dynamic here, high taxes, high unemployment. No mayoral candidate makes this connection but in all fairness, with the mindset that permeates between all three parties, there is little they can do about it. You need revenues to run the city, if you cut taxes you won't pay the bills.
But the mindset is wrong. The archaic tax system lends itself to business moving to low mill rate towns. Mill rates are lower in small towns because they have smaller budgets. Companies want to move to Cheshire, Prospect, Watertown because they have lower mill rates. They don't have superior quasi government run development corporations, they don't have a marketing plan and go to trade show or offer tax "incentives" (that all but admits taxes are too high), no, they have a number and a small one or smaller then ours. The mindset is that lower taxes or the elimination of certain taxes will bring about less revenue. We say that's not true. Just the opposite. The idea is not to get as much as you can from your customer (tax payers) its to get more customers, lower taxes do just that. Just ask the small towns or states with growing populations or countries that are modern and industrious.
We'll say it again. A low tax brings in more business that highers people who pay taxes who then buy things from other businesses that expand and higher more people. The city grows and when a city grows so does its tax base and so does revenue.
It has to start at the business end. They cannot just pay whatever the mill rate is and have it subject to inventory and equipment. That can't happen, it just can't. The outright elimination of business from this system is what's needed. The solution could be that business pay the tax on property that they reside only and forget the tax on equipment and inventory. That would be the start in the right direction. There's one candidate that goes over the usual laundry list of ideas (old ones) of bringing in business and then adds that he would actively look for locations, as in, in his car driving around. Ridiculous. Other candidates have simular ideas and they all seem to harp on the necessity of getting money from state government to make improvements, that is continue to be a government on state welfare.
If Waterbury were friendly to commerce then it wouldn't penalize it in the form of high taxes, it would then maybe grow with a healthy revenue stream and we wouldn't have to go to Hartford with our hand out. There's always talk about running the city as a business and it always refres to the internal workings of the city, or with marketing stradegies, never has it been used in reference to price point, that is, taxes.
Monday, October 8, 2007
War and Peace
Before the Bosnian evasion there was little drumbeat, alliance building, UN coddling or any public relations maneuvers that led up to war. In fact during the invasion and subsequent troop installment there was little opposition. Sure the president said that this would be a quick incursion and the troops would be home but it didn't happen. If the US erred in the campaign, who cared. Milosevic was a genocidal creep. The racial killings ended and troops are still there keeping the peace. It may not be good policy to invade a country when we have little to no strategic interest. We can assume that since the Democrats are fine with the Bosnian campaign then we can infer they feel war is necessary if a countries leader commits ethnic cleansing.
So here we go years later into Iraq with a president of a different party. Lets say that there were no weapons of mass destruction, or state sponsored terrorism. Would the left be content that we at least stopped a leader that committed ethnic cleansing of its Kurdish and Shia citizens? Democrats are not the bad guy here but there is a matter of inconsistency if one were to say on the one hand Bosnia was okay but Iraq is not even brazen to suggest, as the New York Times editorial and Barak Obama have, that if genocide ensures if we leave, that's okay.
The Iraq war has a lot to be critical of but the end result is that it is a democracy. The country is a mess but seems to be on the mend, is the campaign worth it? If we look at the map we can see that Afghanistan and Iraq are big countries and that if there is stability in these places it would be a lot easier to contain Iran, whom, by all accounts, is a complete menace to the region and the rest of the world.
If the Iraq war is bad policy to the leading Democratic contenders is it only so because it wasn't executed correctly due to, as they say, an incompetent president? If so then this is an opposition of the means, are they in agreement with the ends which is a stable and free Iraq? Or in the very least, an Iraq that doesn't anymore ethnically cleans its citizens. In short is the opposition to Iraq by Democrats have less to do with mistakes and more to do with the fact that George Bush is running the war?
So here we go years later into Iraq with a president of a different party. Lets say that there were no weapons of mass destruction, or state sponsored terrorism. Would the left be content that we at least stopped a leader that committed ethnic cleansing of its Kurdish and Shia citizens? Democrats are not the bad guy here but there is a matter of inconsistency if one were to say on the one hand Bosnia was okay but Iraq is not even brazen to suggest, as the New York Times editorial and Barak Obama have, that if genocide ensures if we leave, that's okay.
The Iraq war has a lot to be critical of but the end result is that it is a democracy. The country is a mess but seems to be on the mend, is the campaign worth it? If we look at the map we can see that Afghanistan and Iraq are big countries and that if there is stability in these places it would be a lot easier to contain Iran, whom, by all accounts, is a complete menace to the region and the rest of the world.
If the Iraq war is bad policy to the leading Democratic contenders is it only so because it wasn't executed correctly due to, as they say, an incompetent president? If so then this is an opposition of the means, are they in agreement with the ends which is a stable and free Iraq? Or in the very least, an Iraq that doesn't anymore ethnically cleans its citizens. In short is the opposition to Iraq by Democrats have less to do with mistakes and more to do with the fact that George Bush is running the war?
Monday, October 1, 2007
Met Melt Down
The Mets are done for the season choking in historic proportions. Its one thing to lose a game that a team should have won but to lose in clumps a whole month long is rare. And it is unlike the Mets to do so, traditionally they were a come back by surprise team, unlikely hero's hence the tag "miracle" Mets or Met "magic", "you gotta believe", "amazins" and on and on. The implied pretext to all of this is "we stink and it would take a miracle, magic, faith..." and so the team has turned the corner and now magically lost. They've become the boys of spring-early summer the Aprilmayzins.
And since they've turned the corner then maybe its time to change the image as well. Its time perhaps to shed they're 40 plus year expansion team reputation. They're building a new stadium moving out of horrible Shea which is situated practically on an airport tarmac. They should also ditch their uniform and name. Uniform because by design the orange represents the long gone Giants and blue for the Dodgers. This team has to have its own colors and stop paying homage to they're opponents for the sake of fans long gone. Then there is the name Mets. Maybe not as pressing to change as the colors are but the name is synonymous with their underdog past and degrading nicknames to go with it.
The team needs a fresh start, a re-launch. They won when they weren't suppose to and lost when they shouldn't, both in a big way. The team is not horrible as it stands for the next year it would be a good time to forget all of it and start fresh.
And since they've turned the corner then maybe its time to change the image as well. Its time perhaps to shed they're 40 plus year expansion team reputation. They're building a new stadium moving out of horrible Shea which is situated practically on an airport tarmac. They should also ditch their uniform and name. Uniform because by design the orange represents the long gone Giants and blue for the Dodgers. This team has to have its own colors and stop paying homage to they're opponents for the sake of fans long gone. Then there is the name Mets. Maybe not as pressing to change as the colors are but the name is synonymous with their underdog past and degrading nicknames to go with it.
The team needs a fresh start, a re-launch. They won when they weren't suppose to and lost when they shouldn't, both in a big way. The team is not horrible as it stands for the next year it would be a good time to forget all of it and start fresh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)