The Directionally Challenged
I've been giving a fair amount of thought to the whole two-party thing. Sometimes, I just can't believe some of the things I'm hearing...from either party. Then, a few days ago, my lovely wife just simply said, "Why does it always have to be about the 'party'? Why can't it be about what's right, and what makes sense?"
She has a great point. Let me take just a couple of issues that our state legislature and governor are batting about currently, and ask those same simple questions.
Gov. Culver's suggestion that we borrow...what was the rough figure....$700 million? $680 million?...and pay that loan off out of "future gambling revenues".
Let me throw some questions at that...
Are "gambling revenues" an assured source of income? Can we guarantee that we, the state, will always receive X-amount of dollars from that venue? What if the national economy turns even further south...will individual expenses on gambling decrease, as many other forms of entertainment have?
I have always been taught that if there's any way around it, I should not put my family further into debt. This year, we are making a concerted effort in our household to drastically reduce our indebtedness. Should we be any less careful stewards on the state level? If our household experiences a huge shortfall of income, should I go borrow money, in the hope that I win the lottery to pay it off? OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it's in the same vein.
I applaud Mr. Culver's suggestion that there is a 6.5% budget cut across the board. But as soon as it was announced, did anyone else hear the hue and cry from all the individual groups/department/special interests that said, "That's fine for everyone else, but you can't cut OUR program budget, because we're ESSENTIAL." So, instead of it really being "across the board", it became "across the board unless you can convince enough people that you're a special exemption". Soon, everyone will want to be "special".
We're facing tough economic times, folks. All of us. Because tax revenues are falling off, I would expect the State to take the same approach that our household does when money gets short. We cut back. Period. We make the adjustments we need to make. But we use common sense. We have a few non-negotiables, like the house payment. But we CAN cut back on electricity, some other things, that we have a bit of control over. We can cut down on that cup of coffee, or that dinner out. I would expect the state to approach things in a similar manner. Can there be across-the-board cuts? I don't know. Certainly not without reducing some services. Are there services that we, as a people, simply can NOT have trimmed down at all? I would think that every department would/could trim expenses at least a little bit.
Most of the people I know this year are not getting much, if any, of a raise in pay this year. The standard I've heard is 1% increase, at most. Majority of people's wages are being frozen. But the state employees' union asks for a 5% raise, both this year and next year? Aren't they living in the same economy that I am? And when "income" for the state coffers is projected to be down, is it logical to assume that there will be money available for 5% raises? When the Gov. is asking all departments to trim 6.5%? Where's the common sense in that?
That's not Republican or Democrat, that's simply common sense.
How about the "fair pay" bill? If I'm working for a company, but I'm required to pay a fee to a union that I don't want to have represent me, that is in direct contrast to the right-to-work law we currently have in place. I know...some unions are fussing that they are required by law to represent the non-members in their workplace. However, that only applies if they are the EXCLUSIVE represenatives allowed in that workplace. If they don't have exclusivity, they aren't required to represent the non-members. So, rather than insisting that every single worker pay another "tax" to unions, why not, rather, simply work to have that single piece of the law repealed. Or better yet, simply not request exclusivity at a given employer. Then, the union isn't required to represent the non-members. I mean...that IS the issue, isn't it?
At least, that is what the unions are saying. They're saying that they don't want to have to represent the non-members without them paying a "reasonable" amount for that service. OK, don't be "exclusive", and you aren't bound by law to represent them. It doesn't cost you any money, it doesn't cost the union any money (except the increase in funds that they will NOT be receiving), and it doesn't cost the company or the non-union worker any money. Sounds economically feasible to me.
Again, that's not a Democrat or Republican viewpoint...it's just plain common sense.
and that's my two cents worth for today.
--Larry Voorhees
She has a great point. Let me take just a couple of issues that our state legislature and governor are batting about currently, and ask those same simple questions.
Gov. Culver's suggestion that we borrow...what was the rough figure....$700 million? $680 million?...and pay that loan off out of "future gambling revenues".
Let me throw some questions at that...
Are "gambling revenues" an assured source of income? Can we guarantee that we, the state, will always receive X-amount of dollars from that venue? What if the national economy turns even further south...will individual expenses on gambling decrease, as many other forms of entertainment have?
I have always been taught that if there's any way around it, I should not put my family further into debt. This year, we are making a concerted effort in our household to drastically reduce our indebtedness. Should we be any less careful stewards on the state level? If our household experiences a huge shortfall of income, should I go borrow money, in the hope that I win the lottery to pay it off? OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it's in the same vein.
I applaud Mr. Culver's suggestion that there is a 6.5% budget cut across the board. But as soon as it was announced, did anyone else hear the hue and cry from all the individual groups/department/special interests that said, "That's fine for everyone else, but you can't cut OUR program budget, because we're ESSENTIAL." So, instead of it really being "across the board", it became "across the board unless you can convince enough people that you're a special exemption". Soon, everyone will want to be "special".
We're facing tough economic times, folks. All of us. Because tax revenues are falling off, I would expect the State to take the same approach that our household does when money gets short. We cut back. Period. We make the adjustments we need to make. But we use common sense. We have a few non-negotiables, like the house payment. But we CAN cut back on electricity, some other things, that we have a bit of control over. We can cut down on that cup of coffee, or that dinner out. I would expect the state to approach things in a similar manner. Can there be across-the-board cuts? I don't know. Certainly not without reducing some services. Are there services that we, as a people, simply can NOT have trimmed down at all? I would think that every department would/could trim expenses at least a little bit.
Most of the people I know this year are not getting much, if any, of a raise in pay this year. The standard I've heard is 1% increase, at most. Majority of people's wages are being frozen. But the state employees' union asks for a 5% raise, both this year and next year? Aren't they living in the same economy that I am? And when "income" for the state coffers is projected to be down, is it logical to assume that there will be money available for 5% raises? When the Gov. is asking all departments to trim 6.5%? Where's the common sense in that?
That's not Republican or Democrat, that's simply common sense.
How about the "fair pay" bill? If I'm working for a company, but I'm required to pay a fee to a union that I don't want to have represent me, that is in direct contrast to the right-to-work law we currently have in place. I know...some unions are fussing that they are required by law to represent the non-members in their workplace. However, that only applies if they are the EXCLUSIVE represenatives allowed in that workplace. If they don't have exclusivity, they aren't required to represent the non-members. So, rather than insisting that every single worker pay another "tax" to unions, why not, rather, simply work to have that single piece of the law repealed. Or better yet, simply not request exclusivity at a given employer. Then, the union isn't required to represent the non-members. I mean...that IS the issue, isn't it?
At least, that is what the unions are saying. They're saying that they don't want to have to represent the non-members without them paying a "reasonable" amount for that service. OK, don't be "exclusive", and you aren't bound by law to represent them. It doesn't cost you any money, it doesn't cost the union any money (except the increase in funds that they will NOT be receiving), and it doesn't cost the company or the non-union worker any money. Sounds economically feasible to me.
Again, that's not a Democrat or Republican viewpoint...it's just plain common sense.
and that's my two cents worth for today.
--Larry Voorhees
Comments