These are classic discussions published back in May 2009
Lt. Governor David Clark
That does have a nice ring to it. The speculation continues regarding the next Lt. Governor. Here is a snippet on House Speaker David Clark.
Speaker Clark would be an outstanding choice (as would be President Waddoups, Sen. Bell and SL County Council Member Michael Jensen, who also were mentioned in the article). The key is to get someone who is proven. Rather than base the decision on superficial concerns about the 2010 election, I am rooting for (soon-to-be) Gov. Gary Herbert to pick someone who has proven himself/herself to be superlative at governing or something that immediately translates to governing. The economy and issues we face in the next 18 months are far more important than political positioning for a 2010 campaign. Let’s get a proven hand.
Speaking of 2010 concerns, though, (sorry, I am a politician) an added value of having Dave Clark on the ticket is that Dave stands at the head of... (read more)
California, Initiatives, and Referenda
Responding to my post about California, State Bailouts and Term Limits, “just me” opines that California’s woes relate to the State’s initiative and referendum system. He writes:
I don’t think it’s the specific issue of term limits so much as the general abuse of the initiative system that has made the legislature ineffective. California voters over the last 30 years have passed referenda that basically locked in a governing plan based on limited taxes, unlimited spending, and a balanced budget. At this point, I don’t think it even matters who is in the legislature or the governor’s chair, which party they belong to, or how much experience they have. These three things the voters want are not possible simultaneously. It’s possible to be low tax/low spend/balanced budget (Utah) or high tax/high spend/balanced budget. (Massachusetts) It’s also possible to do what DC does and cut taxes on 95% of the population, increase spending to obsene levels and not care about the... (read more)
California, State Bailouts, and Term Limits
The federal government should not bail out California. In the long-run, a bailout would be very harmful.
States have always balanced their budgets. When they have dug holes for themselves, they have been forced to pull themselves out. If California now is bailed out of a bad situation, that practice will end. Because states legally are on an equal footing with each other, a bailout for California would have to mean a bailout for each state when it foolishly overspends and lacks the will/talent to cut.
The time for sound fiscal planning in case of downturns is before the downturn hits. States get themselves in trouble during the good times, by funding everything, as if economic downturns have been outlawed. Foolishness should not be rewarded. (But, past being prologue, I’m not about to bet it won’t be; lots of electoral votes at stake).
Each state is a laboratory, largely free to pass laws and... (read more)
We Have Met the Speculators . . .
. . . and they are us. As this article describes, when the Administration ignored the rule of law in the Chrysler takeover, to show favoritism to the United Auto Workers over secured creditors — who were derided as “speculators” — the people who got the shaft are normal people. Police and teacher pension funds paid a premium to be secured creditors, with superior payment rights in bankruptcy proceedings, only to be pushed to the back of the bus by the Administration.
Regarding the Indiana Treasurer, the article says: We’ve worried that the Chrysler sandbagging would discourage bond investment. And, sure enough, Mr. Mourdock says that from now on no funds under his control will invest in the secured debt of “General Motors, other manufacturing companies, or those insurance companies who have or will be receiving bailout funds.” Given the recent actions by the feds, he adds, “the risk is too great for any prudent investor to accept.”
No matter... (read more)
Rule of Law: Good Thing
In my last post, I mentioned good things about America that shouldn’t be destroyed. I’ll add the Rule of Law to that list (meaning that we are governed by laws — not trends, opinions, dictates, etc.).
Here is a very well-written article that fleshes out my point number 3 (capitalism) from that previous post. The article highlights the beating that the rule of law is taking in the auto bailouts.
Bill Frezza asks, “Has it dawned on you what the consequences will be if the President gets his way and consideration is given to creditors not according to contracts, rules, and established legal precedents but according to which group is most politically favored?” According to Frezza, the consequences are:
troubled companies will be unable to raise capital;everyone will pay higher interest rates;heavily-unionized companies might not attract outside capital;TARP-backed companies might not attract outside capital;Foreign capital could dry up; andPrivate credit markets will go sideways.
The federal government, of course, can do many things to... (read more)
Governing Ain’t Easy
It looks like President Obama is considering reversing course on Guantanamo. Representative Don Ipson and I were together when we heard President Obama announce that he was closing Gitmo. We wondered whether he had an alternative. The answer seems to be “no.”
I actually am greatly encouraged by the fact that President Obama is willing to take a deeper look at the issues, and, if necessary, change course. He has little governing experience, and, no doubt, he will discover that many things are more complex than originally thought. Republicans will skewer him for any change – because that’s what happens in the tribal warfare we call politics; but I hope Democrats will give him some room to learn and adapt.
I have no idea what the answer is to Gitmo, but I agree with the President that it is complex.
I’ve mentioned before some of the instruction I received 9 years ago at legislative orientation. Representative Kevin Garn also said in that orientation,... (read more)
GM Deal: Our Socialist Experiment