Chet Culver Needs to Get Out More

While out of state in Ohio this past weekend, I felt badly for missing Gov. Culver's visit to the Hamburg Inn for a chat with The People. Having not supported the Big Lug when he ran against Ed Fallon in the last go round, I am not particularly surprised at the way his first term has gone. When I attended the Labor Day picnic and watched him spend most of his time pitching E-85 to members of local unions, I thought, this guy really doesn't care about his audience much. And, given his insular behaviors as Governor, it should not be surprising that he is likely going to be fighting the campaign of his life, if he is to be re-elected--and this is sort of sad with the stellar group he is up against.
But, as a Democrat in a state that needs to create and save jobs, Culver has been remarkably disappointing. First, because he has bitten the hand of labor that helped elect him (though very recently threw them a bone)and, second, by a lack of creativity to use the resources he has at his disposal to improve the welfare of the state. For instance, why has the "reinvention" of state government not been a "day one" priority? Why did he call for 10% across the board cuts to agencies when some agencies are of higher priority than others (e.g., anything having to do with human services)? Why hasn't the Governor negotiated with AFSME for salary cuts in lieu of forced-retirement? And in offering incentives for retirement, why hasn't the state at least required retirees to live in Iowa for the 5 years that the state is paying their health benefits?
And I won't go into the failures on agriculture, the environment, but to say that Culver hasn't lived up to his campaign promises on these two fronts. Iowa has massive potential to feed and fuel itself, but to do it sustainably has been the trick. Monsanto and ADM have done well for themselves under Culver, but not the local family farmer or those who would grow organics. Part of this, of course, is in part because of Secretary of Agriculture, Bill Northey, but the Chief Executive of the state has a lot to say about policy.

Johnson County: Let Voters Fill in the Blank

There is no good way to say this, but Johnson County, we have a problem. When Larry Meyers passed away after his long battle with cancer, he inconveniently did it with nine months before the next Board of Supervisor's primary. But wait, the special commission that is made up of elected leaders (read: Democrats)decided not to hold a special election citing the cost of holding the special election is not worth the 11 months the person would actually hold the seat and invite people to apply for the job.

With an applicant pool that turned up sixteen potential candidates of various political persuasions, that is a heck of a lot more than usually run for the office if the normal campaign rules applied. The special commission then magically whittled down the field to eight (perhaps using the irrefutable "eenie-meenie-minie-moe" method?).

Now the special commission is going to select that special somebody to fill the seat by next Friday. If people don't like the commissions choice, they have two weeks to turn up about 7,000 people's signatures who are qualified to vote and call for a special election. And here's the thing--someone is going to object because it is likely that the kinds of people who want a special election have a history of being soundly trounced when they occur.

All frivolity aside, we have elections that turn out less than 5% of the public out and, yet we still have those elections. Is it fair for three people to decide who will be the potentially tie breaking vote on the BOS for even 11 months? No. Would it be nice to combine the special election with the regular election and elect someone for one term and 11 months? Yes, but it violates state election laws.

Because I value transparency in elective government, I believe that we need to suck it up and have a special election. Doing so has a financial cost, but to not do so has a higher cost--the suspicion that democracy is being usurped or, more simply, we are being cheated.

Do I believe that it will change the dynamics of the county government? No. I suspect a Democrat would be elected based on the usual voting patterns of the county. But do I think that all Democrats (or Republicans) are the same? No. I'd like the choice to vote for the person I feel is best qualified. One of the reasons I voted for Larry was he was part of a group of people who said "Don't Tread on Me" when they felt they didn't have the BOS's ear. Well guess what--our elected officials are treading on us again.

No matter who the commission selects, I hope people will support a special election. Democracy is a good thing.

How to Right-Size Government

Government is necessary, really it is. Can you imagine what life would be like if people did whatever they liked, whenever they liked? Those folks who don't believe in evolution would get a big taste of "survival of the fittest" if there weren't rules in place and a body to enforce those rules--and history bears this out. However, the real issue is how big is big enough where governments are concerned?

Clearly there is a wide divergence of opinion on this subject from anarchy to dictatorship, but even toward the relative middle, there is a gulf between what is "fair" government. For some, the totality of government worth is tied to the amount of taxes that are extracted from them. For others, it is the perception of how safe their government makes them feel. For others, it is the use of government policies and their taxes to do the things that the private sector is unwilling or unable to do that produces equity or fairness.

As we are a representative democracy, it is not always practical for the electorate to vote on whether their tax dollars are being spent wisely or if laws are agreeable to the majority. In fact the way that the Constitution works assures everyone that whether they are in the majority or minority, their rights will be protected. Still, the powers that be in a locality, a state, or the federal government need to be informed by the citizenry and this is good.

To the point at hand. Do we need government to be small enough to drown in a bathtub or big enough to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool? That is and probably always will be the million dollar question. I propose some "rules" for deciding if the government that affects you most is the right size:

1) Does the government deliver what it promises? For example, if a tax referendum occurs do the items the tax is raised for actually get paid for or are other unspecified projects moved up the list after the vote?

2) Are decisions made by the body a result of a desire of efficiencies or turf protecting? For instance, if an efficiency can be created by cooperating with other governmental bodies or with private interests, does it happen?

3) Are more people helped or hurt by the decisions that the government makes? This one is a hard rule to enforce because "help" and "hurt" are in the eyes of the beholder. My thought is if the rights of all are protected by an action, then do it.

4) Is the action taken by the government beneficial to the community it serves more times than not? In this regard I don't mean that you agree with every decision they make, but merely that the decisions made are intended to support the well-being of the community.

5) Could the job be done with less governance? Does a state need to create an agency when a oversight board would be as effective?

6) Does the government get in the way of people negotiating with those they have grievance with? Labor/management relations comes to mind on this point.

Certainly there could be other rules or a different way to right-size (e.g. determined by tax-rate formula). I leave that to your comment.

The Bane of the Tax Base

Local economies thrive on property and sales tax dollars and economic development is part of the foundation for both. In Iowa City, economic development involves a love/hate relationship between the University of Iowa which takes property off the the tax rolls while bringing in sales tax and property tax dollars by the bucket full by virtue of the tens of thousands of students, parents, and visitors that the keepers of the Golden Dome bring and the contractual arrangements that the city and U of I enter into for services.

In a real sense you'd think that would be enough to to fund services for the rest of us. But, of course, you'd be wrong. The other side of a college town is the demands that are placed on its resources to serve the types of people who are needed to keep the pump primed, your medical school doctors, your business faculty, your law school faculty--and I suppose your Liberal Arts and Science profs, but its only because of the number of students that are in that college. Then there are your students from the western suburbs of Chicago, Des Moines, Davenport--really the west side of any thriving burgh. These are tough customers. They want stuff, they ask for stuff, and they get stuff: parking ramps, policing of downtown, and historic preservation (as long as it doesn't impact UIHC hospital), as well as a gagillion bars and apartments, and a smattering of restaurants, stores, and other needed things.

Then there are the rest of us who have kids in excellent local schools, parks for us and our dogs, and historic preservation (as long as it doesn't impact Mercy Hospital). We also demand curbside recycling and policing for the dangerous neighborhoods (not the ones frequented by students, the other ones).

Of course all of us want fire stations within three minutes of our homes and businesses (although the occasional "unknown cause" fire can be good for business too). We all want the arts (loosely defined from public art displays to ceramics classes at the Center [aka the Senior Center]).

Then there are those services that tend to be used by those in need and we don't like our money being wasted, but for God's sake, someones got to do something to help those people. Of course, if they would just grow a pair of bootstraps and pull themselves up, well that would be fine too.

Certainly we all believe the city government wastes our money or if not the city, certainly the county does; and if not the county, well, you know the state does or at the very least the federal government. It's this way, we like the stuff that taxes does that benefits us, but not the stuff that benefits other people.

Every so often those that govern (and the Chamber of Commerce) bring in consultants to educate the public about how we need to get behind the economic mower and help it cut a wider swath. This month's contestant: we need to make our community vibrant for the cool, trendy people who wear the rectangular glasses and favor pomegranate-flavored beverages who will flock to the frigid weather of Iowa to be with other cool, trendy people who presumably like their pomegranate stirred not shaken.

It is how we grow the tax base. But did anyone actually stop to think, how can we sustain the community we have with the resources we've got? Could we actually do more with plans that people are excited to be a partner in? Could we actually be happy with things the way they are, but with a sharper focus?

This is the bane of our tax base, the need for it to grow so that we don't really have to think so much about why we are spending what we spend and/or to what end. It takes money to make money--at the end of the day its our money that is taken to make the city some money.

Paying Taxes Worse Than Investing in the Stock Market?

The stock market is predicated by the idea that, for most of us, good investments come from patiently riding out waves of the market and, of course, buying stock at low prices and selling it when the price is high. This is a voluntary activity, though, in fairness, more and more employment retirement programs are being tied to it

Paying taxes, on the other hand, is not a voluntary activity. In fairness, we get a lot of good stuff from our taxes: schools, medical research, streets and highways, mass transit, and, oh, a social safety net, to name a few. However, it also pays for weapons of mass destruction, bailing out corporations, rewarding the richest of us, and more.

The say we have in this is limited to voting for (and cajoling thereafter) candidates who best represent our views. Note that investing in the stock market is participating in a lightly (apparently) regulated free market, while paying taxes is a result of representative democracy. In both cases, the outcomes of choices we make leave no one to blame but ourselves.

If you invest in stock, you are given a prospectus, a document that outlines the background and performance of what you are about to invest in. When choosing a candidate, you are given puffed up ads, platforms, and their word--pretty thin stuff, comparatively.

When you invest, you can pull your money out, if you don't like the direction the stock is going (at some cost, to be sure), in a democracy, you have to wait between 2 and 4 years and continue to pay taxes regardless.

If the stock market gets into trouble, one of two things happens--it "corrects" itself or it gets "bailed out". When the government gets into trouble, we foot the bill.

In the final tally, if the stock market fails, we would be seriously hurting, but the "investor class" more than others. If our government fails us by using our taxes unwisely, we all are cooked.

Different Question: What Kind of Government Do We Need?

A week ago or so I wrote an article called Do we need Government? Thanks to John Neff who offered a comment, I realize now that it was a goofy question. We have a government, we are going to have a government, but reading Frances Moore Lappe's book "Getting a Grip" made me think: How can we use government more effectively?

We know that government is widely lambasted for wasting our money, wasting the lives of our children (e.g., war), and not being responsive to the people so much as to corporate interests. However, what if government just was in the bar setting business? We want to eliminate poverty in 10 years--go to it people. We want to provide housing for everybody--sure, figure it out.

Lappe describes that we are living in a "Thin Democracy" --we vote, we let the market do its thing--that's democracy. The democracy she describes alternately as a "Living Democracy" or a "Learning Democracy" has five qualities:
1) It is dynamic
2) It is guided by values rather than dogma
3) It is learned
4) It is power-creating not controlling
5) It is not limited to government.

In application, it is a community that says, for instance, we have a problem with our kids not graduating from our schools. And, instead of blaming the schools, looks at their the community, brings people together to problem-solve and propose solutions which the school board helps to implement.

Typically this type of governance takes time to organize, requires patience, and is ultimately messy, but the end result, is positive, real change.

So, do we want a government that "represents us" or one that is a "partner" with us?

And John, yes, kids can participate in this too (although, you're right, we might want to keep firearms away from the kiddos).

Do We Need Government?

In browsing through the usual Press-Citizen comment fodder, it appears that a handful of people are very vocal about their distain and distrust of government at all levels. Being a civil liberterian, of sorts, I am more concerned by the government doing things like tapping our phones or reading our e-mail than whether it codifies the width of a stairwell for fire safety purposes. However, each of us has our own dissatisfactions with what government looks like, what it does, and how we are affected by it.

Do we really need government? Certainly there were periods of human history where governments did not exist. But for basic protection from other people who would harm us, to make rules so that the common good was served, and to keep the peace by having a code of laws, governments were formed and don't seem to be going anywhere.

Seemingly the problem of government stems from whose running it, what it does, and how it impacts our daily lives. Clearly the best sort of government has not been devised yet--otherwise folks wouldn't be as bent out of shape about government's shortcomings. So what would a better government look like? Here are some quick thoughts.

1) Everyone would have an equal say, kids too.
2) Government would be local rather than global.
3) Government would be a community service rather than a vocation and everyone would have to take their turn.
4) Law making would be limited to things affecting the common good.
5) Decisions would be made via concensus.
6) Taxes would be based on a community agreed upon budget and would be based on the person's ability to contribute.
7) Public/Government services would be decided on by the community.

What else?