Things that make me nervous
I like the goals Ted Strickland has set for the state and his administration. I like the fact that things are actually getting done. I don't have a substantive problem with any of the following changes:
Governor-appointed Chancellor of Regents
Governor Appointed Oversight Board and Administrator for BWC
Potentially increased role for State Board of Education (42% appointed by Governor)
Having a Governor-Appointed board suggest judges
His ideas have a tendency to be lumped together as "more government control" or "more state control," but in general, most of Ted's proposals only seem to shift control within the State Government apparatus to create a larger role for the executive branch generally, and the governor's office in particular (A possible exception is the hospital construction proposal which was apparently floated but has failed to generate much press).
I don't tend to be a fan of strengthening executive branches. Even when I like the Executive and am not such a big fan of the legislature. I'm glad that Ted's not afraid to wield the power of the office, and one can't have things multiple ways, so as I said, I have no real problem with any individual shift. It's the pattern that makes me a tad uncomfortable. Hopefully, I'll look back at this post someday and mock myself.
1 comment:
I listened to a speech from a former congressman where he preached how bad the Republicans are in communicating there message to their base and to the public, and how the public does not know anything about what the republicans got done in the 109th congress. And while he was going on about the issues that the Republicans got done, he was also talking about the "earmarks". He explained to the conservative crowd, that "earmarks are les than one tenth of a percent of the federal budget" witch is a stunning fact that makes me wonder why this is the concern of our time in the conservative community.
As he finished his speech, I walked up to him and told him "Mr. Congressman, I might be wrong but I recall reading an article in the Wall St. Journal, about an official in CO criticizing an earmark that Sen. Allard (R-CO) inserted in a spending bill, saying that it takes away the money the State gets from the federal government." So I asked the Hon. Congressman "Is it true that when a congressman or senator inserts an earmark in a spending bill, he does not raise spending? That he just takes away the liberty from one bureaucrat to decide how to spend the money and decides himself where the money should go?"
The answer was yes.
So if earmarks do not raise spending and it's not more then one tenth of one percent of the budget, why is there so much noise about it?
Because we do not communicate, and nobody amongst us is aware of the facts. We have to start communicating, and shouldn't be afraid that someone will slam us, because if you fight back, you have a chance of winning, and if you don’t fight you don’t even have a chance of winning.
Post a Comment