U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley from Oregon has decided he knows best when it comes to financing houses — especially those properties that are underwater (the value of the home on the open market is worth less than what remains on the mortgage). His vast experiencing in the banking industry has led him to propose a fantastic plan requiring lending institutions to refinance any underwater mortgage at 4%. Apparently Senator Merkely's compassion from running Habitat for Humanity in Portland is now the principle value he is using to craft legislation.
However, once again, a liberal legislator is attacking the problem from the wrong end. Instead of finding ways to help businesses become more profitable (like lending institutions), therefore increase job opportunities and therefore increasing demand for housing, Senator Merkley is proposing even more burdens and further regulation on the banking industry.
Doesn't the Senator think that if mortgage companies found it in their best interest to offer current underwater home owners a 4% mortgage that would already be happening? But therein lies the rub: who is more important — the private industry or the collective (the banks or the State)? In Senator Merkley's view the State knows far better than the banking industry how to issue loans and stay in business, even though the Senator is void of any real world banking experience.
We were called "crazy right-wing conspiracy theorists" for even suggesting the idea that someday local, state and federal institutions could go bankrupt. That will never happen. It never could happen. Who would be so irresponsible to let it happen?
Well, it's happening. And we knew it was possible. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see the signs of organizations out of control. Any business person worth their weight in salt (or gold for that matter) could tell you when costs continue to increase year over year faster than the rate of inflation and at a rate that revenue could only hope to see, doom was a certain future.
The U.S. Postal Service looks to default on a $5 billion payment due in just 11 days — August 1, 2012. To make matters worse, there is another $5 billion payment due around September 1st. And guess what? The Post Office doesn't have this cash available to make either. That is what is called default and without a fix, then it becomes bankruptcy — unable to pay creditors. But what in the world costs so much and is due on these dates?
If you haven't noticed, a reoccurring theme has permeated this blog by various writers: Public Unions. The writers at KlamathNews.net have been very careful to make the clear distinction between public and private unions. We believe there can be a place for unions in the private sector. However the public sector is completely different. The public sector is a monopoly on a particular set of services for the community. It is this very fact that because governments hold monopolies on particular services that employees of the government should not be able to unionize.
Why? We'll let's look at an illustration. Suppose the union that manages the District Attorneys office think the DA and his crew aren't getting a good deal and decide to strike. Who else can prosecute a criminal case? No one. The DA's office owns a monopoly on that activity. Because this has the potential to do great public harm, Oregon law doesn't allow a public union to strike. Instead Oregon law states that if the county and a public union can't agree on a compensation package the matter goes to mediation. Almost always the mediator will rule somewhere in the middle. While that might seem fair, it isn't. What if the county doesn't have another nickel to spare? What if the voters want the commissioners is to cut costs? Does the mediator take these factors into consideration? Of course not. At best the mediator looks at the two proposals and picks something in the middle. But that is not what the voters may have wanted, so the public union process has subverted the people's will on the county controlling costs.
You've probably heard the phrase, "A government of the people, by the people and for the people." It is the last part of this phrase that public unions totally destroy. Public unions only represent the government employee's best interest, not the public at large.
Sometimes when I hear liberals talk, there is angst against corporations, and sometimes individuals, who make too much money. (First I wonder what their definition of "too much" is. Second I wonder why liberals get to determine any amount at all.) This type of discussion usually arises when trying to figure out how to raise more money for government. According to liberals, the best way to achieve this goal is by raising taxes on the wealthy — people and businesses alike.
Taxes are a penalty on productivity. If you don't think so, just look around at the wide offering of tax accountants available to help figure out how to pay fewer taxes. I have yet to hear of an individual or company that hires a tax accountant to help them pay more taxes. People and businesses alike do as much as they legally can not to pay taxes. Why? Because, taxes are a penalty on productivity.
Question: If you want to encourage more of a particular activity, would it be wise to penalize that activity more or to reward it more? Obviously the right answer is to reward the activity you desire. This simple logic is found in training a dog, raising children or coaching a sports team. Discipline and correction follow activities that are undesirable, but rewards and praises follow activities that are wanted. Therefore, if taxing is a penalty on productivity, then what does raising taxes do? Does it increase productivity or decrease it? Answer: Raising taxes decreases productivity.
How much should one be paid to be an office secretary? How much should one be paid to be road maintenance worker? How much should one be paid to be a health inspector, bus driver, school teacher, building inspector, mental health counselor or an attorney? As with all organizations, government is no different in that a large portion of its cost structure is found in employee compensation. To reduce expenses often means reducing head count. A department can delay capital expenses for a year or two, but it is unrealistic to ever imagine delaying employee compensation.
In the free market, the answer to the questions above are quickly found by the laws of supply and demand. Suppose I own a coffee shop. How much should I pay my employees to make espressos for customers? I would quickly figure this out by posting my job description with a wage and benefits package. If the compensation is too low, no one will apply or those who do are likely to be less skilled than I may need. If the compensation is too high then I will have more than enough qualified applicants to chose from but it will destroy my ability to make a profit and pay myself. Over time I will find the right balance between compensation and the skill set required to serve my coffee customers well and still make a profit.
In contrast, these market forces are completely absent from pubic union employee compensation. Public unions have "negotiated" with the government what each job is worth based on the previous negotiation — plus more. Built into the public union contract is better pay for those who have worked longer in the union. Also built into the contract is a very difficult process for dismissing a public union employee unless they commit an egregious act. So when comparing which system best reflects reality, the free market wins hands down. It pays employees what they are worth based on their skill and based on the supply and demand of the surrounding marketplace. On the other hand public employee compensation is based on tables, charts and lawyers that have no idea (and no care) what a particular job should cost.
Whenever the topic of unions arise, some people's feathers are ruffled in a hurry. To avoid hypertension and emotional outbursts, this blog will narrow its focus to discuss public unions. Public unions are unions that represent public (government) employees.
However, public unions create an inherent problem in government — a conflict of interest if you will: on one hand public unions are to represent the best interest of the government employees they serve. Public unions are to negotiate for the best wages, the best benefits and the best retirement package possible. On the other hand, the employees are employed by the government for the sole purpose to serve the citizens of their jurisdiction. So what happens when the wage, benefit and retirement package of public unions put at risk the government's ability to fulfill its obligations to the citizens? The answer is that the citizens are told that the government has a "shortfall in revenue" to meet its obligations and therefore the only answers are to increase revenue by raising taxes or to provide less service. The public union doesn't care which as long as they get their demands met.
Is it in the citizen's best interest that government continually cost more because public unions demand more for the government employees they represent? Is it in the citizen's best interest that government spend the same amount of money for few services because the public unions make each employee more expensive to employ? The obvious answer to both questions is no.
Tuesday night was a big night for Tom Mallams, Jim Bellet, Gail Whitsett and Doug Whitsett. All of these candidates won their respective primaries and are highly likely to see victory in the general election come November. In addition all of these candidate share something else in common — their public stance against the KBRA. Another way of looking at it is all of the candidates who favored the KBRA lost on Tuesday night.
This isn't a coincidence. This was almost predictable with a level of certainly close to 100%. The foundation for such a bold claim is the fact that time after time, when people are asked directly or are to choose candidates for or against KBRA, KBRA ends up on the losing side.
State Representative Girrard and Senator Whitsett's conducted a telephone poll in 2009 which showed under whelming support for the agreement. Dennis LInthicum's defeat of John Elliott in 2010 was based around whether KBRA was a good idea or not (Linthicum, against the KBRA, won). In 2011 there was the public hearing on the KHSA and KBRA where a margin of 3:1 were against both agreements. Finally, this year four more elections, with KBRA being a front-and-center issue, show us winners who believe that the KBRA is a bad idea.
As I've listened to various candidates, heard their radio ads, received their direct mail pieces and read their opt-ed pieces there is one item that defines them all — whether they believe the KBRA is a good or bad idea.
If a candidate is in favor of the KBRA, then you can pretty well bet that candidate is also for increasing the size and scope of government to solve problems. In order to meet this objective they will need to raise more revenue and that will come at the expense of the tax payer.
If a candidate is against the KBRA, then you can pretty well bet they are for limited government. They probably are more fiscally conservative want to spend tax dollars on fewer programs but do them well.
You know you must be making headway when:
If you are a registered Republican in Klamath County, you probably got one of these warm and fuzzy postcards over the weekend. The assertion made by this piece is that Tom Mallams is against agriculture in the Basin. Now anyone who knows or has ever heard Tom speak for more than two minutes would know how silly that idea is — if not laughable. Tom has been a rancher himself for many years. Before that he was a retail manager in Klamath Falls. Tom has enemies not because he is anti-business or anti-rancher, but because he is anti-KBRA.
In last Sunday's Herald and News, the Editorial Board picked their candidates: Kelley Minty Morris for Commissioner Position #1 and Todd Kellstrom for Commissioner Position #3. While we think it is fine for an editorial board to endorse candidates, the reasons why they chose these two is somewhat odd.
Apparently the Herald and News editorial board is hip on glitz and glamor and not so much on substance. The editorial board said their choices were filtered using the metrics of leadership and vision. Unfortunately the Herald and News didn't define what they meant by these terms. To me, someone showing these qualities would first understand government has no cost-containment structure. Matter of fact it's just the opposite. By its nature government is set up to always cost more each year for the same or fewer services. And those costs never align with inflation or tax receipts. Government wages, benefits and costs are in their own little world. Real leadership would involve fixing that problem whether people on the receiving end like it or not. Vision would involve making county government efficient and affordable for the people who live here, rather than giving businesses more and more reasons to leave.
The Herald and News only left us with this description to define their meaning, "Kelley Minty Morris, a hardworking campaigner with plenty of ideas, for Position #1..." Morris' web site explains how she is a former television broadcaster and manager for a well respected charity. Both of these are supposed to demonstrate qualities of leadership and vision.