I wish I could take credit for the idea of Sarah Palin running for President in 2012 with Paul LePage as her running mate, but I can't. I actually first read of the concept in the comments section of a story published at MaineToday.com. The news article that generated the comment had to do with newly elected Maine Governor Paul LePage saying, on camera no less, that the NCAAP could "kiss my butt". The news story has been extensively covered so I won't belabor the point here.
The reason I think a Palin/LePage ticket would be so awesome is that I cannot think of two politicians more alike in their ability to divide the electorate into starkly partisan camps. Sarah Palin is ardently adored by her supporters; the rest of us pretty much think she is a joke.
So it is with Paul LePage. He was elected governor of the state of Maine with a plurality of 38% of the votes cast, which of course means that the other 62% of the voters cast their votes for someone else. It has been reported that almost all recent gubanatorial races in Maine have been won by candidates who received less than a majority of the votes cast. In this light, LePage's 38% plurality does not seem to be out of line with other elections, but I think in this case there is a difference: those that voted for Paul LePage love him, but those who did not would have preferred to see ANYONE but him elected. He's a man the Tea Party loves and everybody else doesn't. He was nobody's second (or even third) choice - those that didn't vote for him voted AGAINST him. Like Sarah Palin, he's that devisive.
When the election results were final and it was determined that LePage was Maine's new Governor I, and I think most Mainers, wished him well and hoped for his success in guiding Maine into the future. Now less than two weeks into his administration I have grave doubts about his ability to unite us and move the State forward. The opposite is true, it seems. Paul LePage seems to have no regard for any interests other than his own and no respect for any person or group that would advance a point of view contrary to his.
The Tea Party has it seems to me a "my way or the highway" mentality - either you agree with them or you are wrong. There can be no middle ground, and therefore no basis for compromise. Sarah Palin and Paul LePage both seem to embody this spirit and that's why I think they would make an ideal ticket for the Presidential election in 2012. And hopefully no strong third party candidate will emerge to create a scenario where they could actually win the election with less than 50% of the popular vote.
PALIN/LEPAGE 2012 - I may have a bumper sticker made up so I can promote the idea. And I hope that the vast majority of citizens who are NOT Tea Partiers will be sufficiently afraid of the prospect to vote for their opponents.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The Governor's Daughter
Much has been written elsewhere about the decision to hire newly inaugerated Governor Paul LePage's 22 year-old daughter for a staff position in the executive office. The job, which pays $41,000 per year, is Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff, or something like that.
Criticism of the hiring has ranged from complaints of her apparent lack of any particular qualifications to do the job, to charges of outright nepotism. Some analysts have determined that the action would be illegal in most states but apparently is not in Maine. While I do have some opinions on these issues I will leave the debate of them to others more knowledgeable than I.
My problem with the decision to hire Ms. LePage, or anyone else for that matter, is that there does not seem to have been any consideration whatsoever as to whether the position needed to be filled to begin with. Governor LePage ran on a promise to shrink the bloated State government and it seems to me that the easiest, quickest way to start the process would be to analyze every staff position in his own office to determine if it is critical, or even necessary, to the efficient operation of the office. If a position is not necessary, and I suspect there are lots of them that are not, then don't fill it.
This approach to filling vacancies on the Governor's staff would accomplish a couple of things: it would reduce spending, which he promised to do; and, more importantly, it would send the signal that the Governor is serious about austerity and he is willing to share the pain that budget cuts will entail. Sure, his Chief of Staff may have to get his own coffee but, hey - everbody has to suffer in the face of a budget crisis, right?
I'm not one of those who believe that the State can eliminate its deficit solely through budget cuts, but where cuts make sense they should be made and the Governor and his Chief of Staff should look at the Executive Office organization chart to see if there is any "bloat" there to be excised. Perhaps the savings would be small in relation to the overall deficit but this symbolic act would send the message that Governor LePage is not going to conduct "business as usual" even with his own immediate staff.
Or maybe all that tough campaign rhetoric about eliminating wasteful programs and expenses was just empty talk to get his supporters (38% of the electorate, as it turns out) excited. One thing I know for sure, after any election campaign workers and financial supporters (and maybe family members) of the winning candidate are frequently rewarded with staff positions and other appointed jobs. Perhaps we were expecting too much to think it would be any different this time.
Criticism of the hiring has ranged from complaints of her apparent lack of any particular qualifications to do the job, to charges of outright nepotism. Some analysts have determined that the action would be illegal in most states but apparently is not in Maine. While I do have some opinions on these issues I will leave the debate of them to others more knowledgeable than I.
My problem with the decision to hire Ms. LePage, or anyone else for that matter, is that there does not seem to have been any consideration whatsoever as to whether the position needed to be filled to begin with. Governor LePage ran on a promise to shrink the bloated State government and it seems to me that the easiest, quickest way to start the process would be to analyze every staff position in his own office to determine if it is critical, or even necessary, to the efficient operation of the office. If a position is not necessary, and I suspect there are lots of them that are not, then don't fill it.
This approach to filling vacancies on the Governor's staff would accomplish a couple of things: it would reduce spending, which he promised to do; and, more importantly, it would send the signal that the Governor is serious about austerity and he is willing to share the pain that budget cuts will entail. Sure, his Chief of Staff may have to get his own coffee but, hey - everbody has to suffer in the face of a budget crisis, right?
I'm not one of those who believe that the State can eliminate its deficit solely through budget cuts, but where cuts make sense they should be made and the Governor and his Chief of Staff should look at the Executive Office organization chart to see if there is any "bloat" there to be excised. Perhaps the savings would be small in relation to the overall deficit but this symbolic act would send the message that Governor LePage is not going to conduct "business as usual" even with his own immediate staff.
Or maybe all that tough campaign rhetoric about eliminating wasteful programs and expenses was just empty talk to get his supporters (38% of the electorate, as it turns out) excited. One thing I know for sure, after any election campaign workers and financial supporters (and maybe family members) of the winning candidate are frequently rewarded with staff positions and other appointed jobs. Perhaps we were expecting too much to think it would be any different this time.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
My "Conspiracy Theory"
It seems like our country is in pretty rough shape - the economy is down, unemployment is up, and the general mood seems to be, "Throw the bums out." I have a theory as to how we got into this mess; technically I guess I don't think it's the result of a "conspiracy" as such, but I certainly don't think it happened by accident, mismanagement or just plain bad luck. I think it happened as a result of deliberate decisions by a very small group of instigators.
Some men - and maybe women, but I can't think of any - have enormous wealth; more money than you or I can even imagine, even more money than some pretty good-sized nations. They like to hold on to their riches and make even more, and at least a few of them, but certainly not all, view government - any government - as an obstacle to their accumulation of wealth and power. Since they have virtually unlimited financial resources they can spend obscenely huge amounts of money to influence governmental policies, especially the ones that affect their interests. But what would make them really, really happy would be to reduce the effectiveness of government to a point where it could not restrict their activities in any meaningful way.
I don't think it matters much which party is in power, as these men have enough money to influence any attempts to impair their operations either by legislation or regulation, no matter who proposes them. But they do seem to be more likely to support "small government conservative" candidates than their "progressive" opponents.
The presidential election in 2000 produced an administration which I suspect was very much to the liking of my fictional "conspirators." In George W. Bush they had a president who was very sympathic to their cause and, more importantly, was easily influenced by his vice-president, Dick Cheney. Cheney, you may remember, selected himself to be Bush's running mate, and if we are looking for the first "act in furtherance of the conspiracy", this may be it. Cheney is more than just sympathetic to the plutocrats, he is one of them. He travels in their circles, his interests are their interests. With Bush/Cheney in office, "the future was so bright, they had to wear shades." One of Cheney's first acts was to convene a group to determine the nation's energy priorities - you know how that worked out.
Then a terrible thing happened - terrible for the nation, terrible for its citizens, terrible for the world. But maybe not so terrible for my fictional conspirators, because on 9/11/2001 they were presented with a valuable commodity: a reason to take the USA to war in Afghanistan. War always benefits these men - it makes them richer, it increases their influence, and it detracts attention from their other operations. For them, one war is good, but two wars at the same time is a bonus. So they found a reason to invade Iraq. And we citizens weren't asked to make any sacrifice, unless we or our loved ones were in the armed forces - for most of us it was life as usual. (For the record, I don't subscribe to any theory that the events of 9/11 were caused by anyone other than a small group of Muslim extremists bent on destroying our way of life. I'm not saying the plutocrats were in any way responsible for events on that tragic day, but these are men who know an opportunity when one presents itself.)
So with the nation at war on two fronts, at a cost of billions and billions of dollars per month, it seemed like there was just one more thing to do to ensure government's effectiveness would be severely diminished for generations to come: enact a tax cut. And with that simple act, our fate was sealed. With our nation hemmoraging resources on two wars and with less tax revenue coming in, the government would not have enough money to fund all of its programs, let alone enact any new ones, without running huge deficits, and that's exactly what has come to pass. It did not matter who won the election in 2008; economic woes were assured for everybody except the very, very rich who of course just got richer. I don't think anybody could have changed the course of events after the second Bush/Cheney term.
So let me be clear: I think it's possible, maybe even probable, that the current economic and political state of our nation is the intended consequence of policies enacted by Bush/Cheney at the behest of a small but powerful group of wealthy individuals to advance an agenda that served their interests. Someone (Reagan maybe?) said he wanted to reduce government to a size so small that he could put it in the bathtub and drown it. The plutocrats, I think, have another plan to achieve the same result: starve government of the funds it needs for all of its programs, and the electorate will throw it out in protest. A government in turmoil is almost as good as no government at all.
Just so you know, this is my opinion only. I do not have any facts, other than generally available news accounts, to support my "conspiracy theory" and I am not accusing anyone of illegal acts. But still, when I ask myself, "how did we get in this fix, anyway?" this seems as plausible as any other explanation. So take it for what it's worth, or leave it.
Today is October 17, the date my late father was born in 1907. So Happy Birthday, Dad - I hope you are in a happy place.
Some men - and maybe women, but I can't think of any - have enormous wealth; more money than you or I can even imagine, even more money than some pretty good-sized nations. They like to hold on to their riches and make even more, and at least a few of them, but certainly not all, view government - any government - as an obstacle to their accumulation of wealth and power. Since they have virtually unlimited financial resources they can spend obscenely huge amounts of money to influence governmental policies, especially the ones that affect their interests. But what would make them really, really happy would be to reduce the effectiveness of government to a point where it could not restrict their activities in any meaningful way.
I don't think it matters much which party is in power, as these men have enough money to influence any attempts to impair their operations either by legislation or regulation, no matter who proposes them. But they do seem to be more likely to support "small government conservative" candidates than their "progressive" opponents.
The presidential election in 2000 produced an administration which I suspect was very much to the liking of my fictional "conspirators." In George W. Bush they had a president who was very sympathic to their cause and, more importantly, was easily influenced by his vice-president, Dick Cheney. Cheney, you may remember, selected himself to be Bush's running mate, and if we are looking for the first "act in furtherance of the conspiracy", this may be it. Cheney is more than just sympathetic to the plutocrats, he is one of them. He travels in their circles, his interests are their interests. With Bush/Cheney in office, "the future was so bright, they had to wear shades." One of Cheney's first acts was to convene a group to determine the nation's energy priorities - you know how that worked out.
Then a terrible thing happened - terrible for the nation, terrible for its citizens, terrible for the world. But maybe not so terrible for my fictional conspirators, because on 9/11/2001 they were presented with a valuable commodity: a reason to take the USA to war in Afghanistan. War always benefits these men - it makes them richer, it increases their influence, and it detracts attention from their other operations. For them, one war is good, but two wars at the same time is a bonus. So they found a reason to invade Iraq. And we citizens weren't asked to make any sacrifice, unless we or our loved ones were in the armed forces - for most of us it was life as usual. (For the record, I don't subscribe to any theory that the events of 9/11 were caused by anyone other than a small group of Muslim extremists bent on destroying our way of life. I'm not saying the plutocrats were in any way responsible for events on that tragic day, but these are men who know an opportunity when one presents itself.)
So with the nation at war on two fronts, at a cost of billions and billions of dollars per month, it seemed like there was just one more thing to do to ensure government's effectiveness would be severely diminished for generations to come: enact a tax cut. And with that simple act, our fate was sealed. With our nation hemmoraging resources on two wars and with less tax revenue coming in, the government would not have enough money to fund all of its programs, let alone enact any new ones, without running huge deficits, and that's exactly what has come to pass. It did not matter who won the election in 2008; economic woes were assured for everybody except the very, very rich who of course just got richer. I don't think anybody could have changed the course of events after the second Bush/Cheney term.
So let me be clear: I think it's possible, maybe even probable, that the current economic and political state of our nation is the intended consequence of policies enacted by Bush/Cheney at the behest of a small but powerful group of wealthy individuals to advance an agenda that served their interests. Someone (Reagan maybe?) said he wanted to reduce government to a size so small that he could put it in the bathtub and drown it. The plutocrats, I think, have another plan to achieve the same result: starve government of the funds it needs for all of its programs, and the electorate will throw it out in protest. A government in turmoil is almost as good as no government at all.
Just so you know, this is my opinion only. I do not have any facts, other than generally available news accounts, to support my "conspiracy theory" and I am not accusing anyone of illegal acts. But still, when I ask myself, "how did we get in this fix, anyway?" this seems as plausible as any other explanation. So take it for what it's worth, or leave it.
Today is October 17, the date my late father was born in 1907. So Happy Birthday, Dad - I hope you are in a happy place.
Friday, October 8, 2010
What is Government Good For?
Maybe I'm mellowing in my old age, or maybe the Apocalypse is closer than I thought, but today I read and agreed with an Op-Ed piece by a writer whose columns usually leave me incensed, enraged, or both. He wrote, "I'm a small-government conservative, but society exists so we can live in peace together and not just to enable individuals to take actions that might benefit themselves but harm the community around them." Well, nothing to disagree with there as far as I am concerned.
But a recent news item from Tennessee got me thinking about what I think is the proper role of government in our lives. The story, in case you missed it, was about a local vounteer fire company that had allowed a residence to be totally destroyed by fire because the owners had not paid a $75.00 fee for fire protection. The fire-fighters were on hand, but only to keep the fire from spreading to other homes for which the fee had been paid. This really upset me.
If I were to make a prioritized list of the services I want government to provide, public safety (including fire protection) would be pretty near the top of the list. National defense, public safety, public education, these seem to me to be "core" responsibilites of government. In our society we pay for these services with our tax dollars, and we, or at least I, expect the government to provide the services without exception. And if I haven't paid my taxes, well, I still expect the fire department to show up and put out the fire. Delivery of government services is not dependent on tax payments being up to date, nor should they be. Tax collection is a totally separate matter, and maybe that's a subject for another post (I know quite a lot about the topic), but even a tax scofflaw can expect the cops or fire department to show up when he calls 911.
If government doesn't provide the services, or they get "privitized", then scenarios like the one described above become possible. To me, this is totally unacceptable - we shouldn't have to buy "protection" to keep ourselves safe from crime or natural disaster. In fact, government should protect us from those who sell "protection" - maybe in this instance that includes the Tennessee fire company that watched that residence burn while they stood by and did nothing. How can anybody even do that?
That's what I think government is good for.
But a recent news item from Tennessee got me thinking about what I think is the proper role of government in our lives. The story, in case you missed it, was about a local vounteer fire company that had allowed a residence to be totally destroyed by fire because the owners had not paid a $75.00 fee for fire protection. The fire-fighters were on hand, but only to keep the fire from spreading to other homes for which the fee had been paid. This really upset me.
If I were to make a prioritized list of the services I want government to provide, public safety (including fire protection) would be pretty near the top of the list. National defense, public safety, public education, these seem to me to be "core" responsibilites of government. In our society we pay for these services with our tax dollars, and we, or at least I, expect the government to provide the services without exception. And if I haven't paid my taxes, well, I still expect the fire department to show up and put out the fire. Delivery of government services is not dependent on tax payments being up to date, nor should they be. Tax collection is a totally separate matter, and maybe that's a subject for another post (I know quite a lot about the topic), but even a tax scofflaw can expect the cops or fire department to show up when he calls 911.
If government doesn't provide the services, or they get "privitized", then scenarios like the one described above become possible. To me, this is totally unacceptable - we shouldn't have to buy "protection" to keep ourselves safe from crime or natural disaster. In fact, government should protect us from those who sell "protection" - maybe in this instance that includes the Tennessee fire company that watched that residence burn while they stood by and did nothing. How can anybody even do that?
That's what I think government is good for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)