Dear Mr. Priebus,
This country was founded E Pluribus Unum. From many one. This is who we are.
The GOP has traditionally been the party of decency. The GOP stood for something other than politics and partisanship. The GOP has a long history of standing up for rights, freedom, and the ideals of our founding fathers. Many have complained that the founding fathers would not have, and in fact did not, end slavery. Yes, and at the same time Jefferson’s statement to the effect: we have the lion by the ears, and cannot hang on, but dare not let go, was a clear indication that he wasn’t happy about it.
This party’s inaugural President, made the decision early in his life to end slavery. Had he lived, we would live in a much greater integrated society, of that I am sure. The rhetoric of hatred against any of the “many” is not what he stood for. Neither did our Rough Rider, Ike, or Reagan. Neither have the Bushes or any of the other candidates the GOP has had in recent years.
Stand up Mr. Priebus, stand up and be counted. Declare that the GOP is not just the party of the right, but of the righteous liberty founded in the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and Madison’s Constitution including the Bill of Rights demanded by the Jeffersonians.
Recant your statement that the GOP stands with Trump. Declare with authority that in the interest of the Republic, the interest of Honor, the interest of Dignity, and with respect to your mom, Mrs. Priebus, your wife Sally Priebus, and your daughter Grace, that the GOP and RNC withdraw unequivocally all support for Mr. Trump, and encourage all Republicans and lovers of the Constitution and this Free Republic to vote for someone else.
You could even go so far as to really show chutzpah (guts) and encourage a vote for the two term Republican Governor of NM, Gary Johnson, and his running mate successful two term Republican Governor of MA, William Weld who are running on the Libertarian Party Ticket. Then demand that they, and for the sake of normalcy, even Dr. Stien, be allowed to debate in the final debate. That sir is how you win an election and possibly, though not likely, save the GOP.
To do anything less is to fail to represent the ideals for which the founders of the GOP stood.
In 2004 or 2005, crossing Bigelow at Fifth, I remember having this discussion with one of my EMBA classmates and telling him that a major shift would happen, most likely in the Republican party given the current state of affairs. The Tea Party is almost that. I am not sure it is. At one time I thought it was – until a member told me to leave the Republican party because my views on what governments should do regarding homosexual marriage were too liberal.
Perceived government abuses, and idealogical differences led to the rise of both major parties we have today. In the early days of our republic the changes were frequent. We haven’t seen a major shift since the rise of the Republican Party in the 1860s.
As David Boaz of Cato says libertarianism is on the verge of a political breakthrough. Whigs, Federalists, Anti-Federalists, Democrat-Republicans, Democrats, even independents all were elected in the early years. Then what? Republican and Democrat were elected over and over, and over and over again.
The results were of course predictable. We expanded the size, scope, and supremacy of the government in every facet of life. Rather than enforce the rule of law, and the blindness of the law to all sorts of things, we have implemented failed policies through prohibition and the ensuing “war on drugs”, poverty preservations, and government controlled retirement.
George Washington warned, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” Herein lies the reason we need a change. The rising libertarian influence, whether it leads to a strengthened Libertarian Party, a renewed vitality in the Republican Party, a more fiscally conservative Democratic Party, or something else entirely has yet to be seen. What is clear is that two things are unsustainable – uncontrolled government largess and government controlled activity.
This I can do. No weight-loss/ -gain/ -stay-the-same, reading more, watching less/ better TV or other potentially failed resolutions. But we all need one right? I have one dilemma I need to fix this year, and I am resolved to get it done.
Blue, Grey or Olive Double Breasted Suits. Love ’em. Glenn Plaid Two or Three Piece. Ditto. Traditional Blue Blazer. Wouldn’t think my wardrobe complete without it. The same goes for my traditional 120’s tab collar double cuff (French) white shirts. I can’t get by without having wing tips, cap toes, and I sure would love to include bluchers in the shoe set. White executive fold pocket squares are a daily mainstay. Certainly silk squares are great for the celebratory evening.And while they tend on the traditional side , the ties I sport and the braces I wear are heavily colored (braces from Brooks Brothers and Burberry’s; ties mostly from Paul Frederick or Macy’s).
Which altogether begs the question regarding accessories in general, more specifically socks.Why, why must socks be black, blue, brown or short? Maybe you’ve noticed it too. Maybe not. In a general sense we are captive to the overbearing regulation of the fashionistas and other experts who hawk clothing.
The socks pictured I received for a stocking stuffer.
They are mid calf. Okay. Most of my argyles are low calf and 40% of the time when I sit they show part of my leg. And no, my trousers aren’t short, they are properly tailored with a heavy break when I stand. This year I am changing the game. All the socks I buy, except white ankle length, will be both long and funky. If I have to I will do as the sailors of yore – I will knit proper length over-calf knee highs.
This is certainly a resolution I can keep. What’s yours?
So many services, so many commitments, so many costs. The only way to preserve the commitments that government has made locally, statewide, or federally is to increase tax takings. Well so the supporters of “continuance of service” would have us believe. They typically don’t say things exactly that way. They say things that sound more benign and foreboding at the same time, “If we increase taxes we won’t cut any services”.
This fallacy is too fraught with problems to address adequately. But three points bear listing. First, it is not axiomatic that taking more from people means services remain. Insolvency is a growing option for many governments. SW PA is filled with communities that could be midwestern ghost towns, often due to ever-increasing taxes that produced destitution for residents who stayed. Second, it is not axiomatic that cutting costs reduces services. Third, it is not axiomatic that all government services are worth keeping by the government at least. Regarding the first point understand this – taxes are exercising of the power governments have to legally hold up their residents and citizens, and sometimes simply people who work in a location. Taxes are not voluntary.
The second and third points are somewhat related to each other. Too many times governments take on roles that have nothing to do with the scope of government. This contributes to untoward costs from commitments related mostly to retirement commitments governments make to employees (see earlier blog: Why Unions aren’t the solution – Employees aren’t the Problem). Private entities, whether for or non-profit, typically deliver offer expertise, efficiency, and economies of scale that governments often don’t have otherwise. This stems from the first point – taxes are taken not voluntarily given. Third parties have the market to contend with – deliver value or get no donations or customers. Thus by taking strategic steps governments can cut costs and guarantee sustainable services, often better services than the government can provide alone.
Still wish to preserve every service?
Interestingly, Private Public Partnerships are mostly used for what they should be used for least, economic and real estate development or redevelopment, and often propounded by the keep-current-services crowd. Economic development is served by strong policies that support growth, at the lowest feasible tax rates. Austin’s evidence is that services can be performed better by third parties and for less. It’s time to make American style privatization and outsourcing the public norm as the way to improve, not preserve, the commitments made to citizens. Infrastructure projects to save the failing infrastructure of the USA governments is one key area that has proven more than successful.
San Bernardino has led the way showing ethics can be improved by eliminating nepotism. Maywood, CA outsourced in order to avoid the plight of Stockton, CA and forced outsourcing. Sandy Springs incorporated without incurring the infrastructure and costs of personnel. With the proper will, lots of effort, and clear direction, the evidence shows through these communities that vibrant important and even vital services can and must be outsourced if governments are going to deliver on the promises made.
We can and must improve services, and this points the way, but I ask again, still wish to preserve services?
For the Monroeville 2013 budget, on Tuesday I made a balanced budget amendment using recommendations from the manager which is also posted in excel 2007.
The budget was calculated based on a fiction of a tax millage increase that has not been voted on or approved. In order to effectively determine a spending level, the first thing that must be done is correct the expected tax receipts by reducing the total expected income from roughly 27m to roughly 24m. This presents a realistic view of what we are currently able to spend. It also presents opportunities for savings since it is quite a bit less. Like many communities Monroeville has committed itself to zero based budgeting. Yet every year we fail to operate zero based, instead we have run losses for 10 years running. We raise everything across the board and use deficit spending from reserves to keep on spending willy nilly. We make commitments to our employees and to the public, but never do the hard work of reducing a penny for every penny increased in spending. The other option is only to increase what is taken from those we are to represent and whose money once taken forcibly we are morally and legally obligated to protect.
My solution to the dilemma is based on the manager’s recommendations – consolidate the dispatch to the county 911 center which is mandated by state law to run dispatch. Eliminate the ring down. Admit finally that ISO has rated the official 911 safer than our dispatch. 1.5 million People including our own residents are dependent on the county all day everyday anytime they are not in Monroeville.
The manager also recommended that the Local Services Tax and the Delinquent Earned Income Tax Collections be outsourced. Given that EIT flow has worked fine since Keystone was awarded the Eastern Area EIT collections, the additional savings are warranted.
Leave the library funded. Leave the Senior Center funded. Leave the pool. Leave refuse. With that we have adopted some of the manager’s cuts and have saved money and improved service. The manager and his employees, many of whom have told me independently that there is anywhere from 5% to 20% savings that the elected officials can never find, are left with 8% to extract out as professionals.
Austin, TX has done the work and calculated the insourcing of services. Whether due to economies of scale, focus, or an interest in turning a profit, the private sector was demonstrated to be on average six times less, excluding infrastructure and equipment startup costs. To preserve the greatness of Monroeville there currently no other way.
Ironically, the conclusion I find incorrect. Democrats are as authoritarian as most Republicans. In Fact, more so. Consider the current regulation of smoking (outdoors), transfats, sugars and a whole host of “vices”. While many of the attacks have found an unfortunate champion in Mayor Bloomberg, nationally it is the Democrats who are the driving force in eliminating our freedoms.
Regardless of the rhetoric, it was originally the GOP that drove integration. It is the GOP that has and continues to support responsibility, self-determination and economic vitality through free markets.
The LGBT community has made headway throughout the political spectrum and will continue to do so, there will be continued opposition from elitist Republicans. The recent comments about Ann Romney not having worked a day in her life are not libertarian, they are elitist Democrat. Is a woman who works for free at home for 50 – 90 hours a week any less of a person than a woman who works 50 – 90 hours a week for 30, 50, 100, or 1,000K? I think not. Is a man who stays at home any less than a man that works for money? I think not. I couldn’t do it personally whether married as I am now to my beautiful wife, who has stayed at home, gone to college and worked for pay, or as the husband of a husband who gets paid. That’s the point. Republicans by and large support freedom to make these decisions as adults.
As a nation of incalculable rights for citizens, we must examine every new law in light of rights first, and the public good second. Yes, rights come before the public good. Otherwise rights will become enumerated and we will be a nation subject to the whims of our government. And this too is a reason that while in the short term it may be expedient for libertarians to align left, it is incomprehensible in the long-term since the left will relegate “the public good” above the rights of the individual.