Have your kids ever asked “why” when you help them with their homework? Of course! Any problem needs to address “why” - if Johnny has 38 oranges and sells 12, he has 26 left - why? When I tutored my kids in math, I explained that this is straight-forward: pluses and minuses have strict rules, and we must obey those rules. In adulthood, we realize that if we don’t pay attention to mathematical rules, our currency, our bank accounts and our economies begin to fall apart. In a fictional word problem, it’s OK if we miss an integer and Johnny winds up with 16 oranges instead of 26. In the real world, Johnny goes bankrupt and has to close his fruit stand.
Which leads me to my point: telling Johnny that he has more oranges than he does, or letting him do fuzzy math is not good leadership. Sunday’s Klamath Falls Herald and News editorial critiqued my “lack of leadership” for opposing yet another tax in the Klamath Basin, but as a leader, I have to make those hard decisions. Their reasoning is that “leadership is more than saying no”. It certainly is, but I am not saying a simple “no” - I am saying what too many politicians don’t have the courage to say: “this doesn’t add up.”
Leadership, according to the Herald and News, is saying “yes”. It’s pleasant to hear that we can raise taxes and not affect the economy, or that the next levy, fee, tax or bond measure amounts to a good investment instead of faulty logic. So, the typical politician shuts his eyes to the real math problems we face. The progressive euphemisms: “investment,” “fair share” and “leadership” cover up faulty logic.
In a recent Letter to the Editor to The Herald and News (see clipping here...) James Finses of Copco Lake probes issues regarding the task force designed to “clean up the Klamath Basin water issues.”
Finses starts with a fair warning to taxpayers, “Voters beware. Here comes another sham...” Then he notes that, “In both Klamath and Siskiyou counties, voters elect the boards of commissioners or supervisors to represent the voters.”
Next, he asks a searching question, “Where are they on the list of invited stakeholders?” They are not there because socialists have rigged the system to circumvent our representative forms of government. The entire “consensus” effort is based upon the ideology that uses four distinct points for creating what is known as a “collaborative effort.” The “collaborative effort” is a methodology designed to usher progressive/socialistic ideas from the elites in academia into transformational public policy. It springs from the Progressive Policy Institute which is a liberal think-tank that was a project of the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization which Bill Clinton headed.
Last week, in a letter to the Herald & News editors, someone commented that:
“[Linthicum] never seems to use the word ‘we’, but generally expresses his personal feelings toward issues and starts every objection with ‘I’.”
Frankly, I find this odd, because, surely, my objections belong to me. While various individuals might agree, or disagree, with my positions, I am voicing them because they are mine. I see no problem with owning my opinions as my own.
Each of us as an Individual
We are all different and we all carry different ideas. We are different in height, weight, body-type, talent and skill. We each come from different educational backgrounds; we have different life experiences, families and, hence, different perspectives.
The Klamath County Budget Committee is getting plenty of feedback with regard to Meals on Wheels and the Senior Center. The committee is not struggling with the validity or need for the Meals on Wheels program. The issue, given the local stagnant economy and declining county revenue, is whether it would be fiscally prudent to fund these programs at current levels.
Public commentary is mixed but there is a sense that as long as the program passes the “compassion” threshold, then it should be funded.
One perspective supposedly has “compassion” and the other doesn’t. Long-term fiscal responsibility appears to show a cold-hearted mathematical meanness rather than a real heart-felt compassion for the public good.
The Following Guest Commentary was run in the Herald and News