Water For Wal Mart

At last week's Town Board meeting, Oriental Town Manager Wyatt Cutler claimed that selling Town water to customers outside the Town (i.e. Wal-Mart) is good, because we make money for the Town. Reference was also made to the fact that the Town agreed to provide water to the Dollar General store, which is also out of Town. Commissioner Venturi pushed the same line.

It is true that the Town has been providing water to Dollar General since they opened.

It is not true that the Town made money from providing water.

It's like the old joke: "we lose money on every sale, but make up for it in volume."

In fact, during the decade from 2001 to 2011, the General Fund (Oriental taxpayers) was subsidizing the Water Fund (water users, including Dollar General) an average of from $35,000 to $50,000 a year.

It could happen again if the Town isn't careful to keep rates high enough to cover ALL of the expenses of operating the water plant, including depreciation.

Town Of Oriental Municipal Elections Begin In Thirteen Days

Early one-stop voting for Oriental municipal offices begins at the County Board of Elections in Bayboro in thirteen days.

German Elections

Interesting article in Atlantic about German elections. It describes a very different form of democracy. I think it has great advantages over ours. Germany's system is one form of proportional representation, where the voters vote for the party whose candidates they wish to see in office. It isn't about individual candidates. Parties select their own candidate list. The number of candidates from each party who win office in parliament depends on how many votes each party receives. Those candidates higher on their party's list have a higher probability of gaining office.

I think there are many advantages to the proportional representation system. One advantage is that it almost inevitably creates more than two parties and to form a government requires forming a coalition. To some extent, parties have to make nice with each other.

Here is a link to the article.

There are differences from country to country in the details, but proportional representation systems have much in common. The political dynamics are very different from "first past the post" or "winner take all" systems like ours.

Economist Brad DeLong on "Three Kansases"

I'm not sure why economist Brad DeLong is writing from Kansas City, but he has posted some comments on the economics and politics of government in Kansas. I would like to say, "Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore - we're in North Carolina," but I'm not so sure.

Here is what he says:

"As best as I can see it, the majority political coalitions in these three different Kansas are as follows:

• In the Petropolis [Wichita area] right now, the majority coalition votes for lower taxes because the petrocrats have convinced the voters (correctly) that state taxes transfer money out of Greater Wichita to the Prairie and to the Blue Triangle [Kansas City area], and (incorrectly) that the citizens of Greater Wichita as a group benefit from more money in the hands of the petrocrats.
• On the Prairie right now, the majority coalition votes for lower taxes because the voters believe (incorrectly) that their state tax money goes to keep the African-American poor of Kansas City in idleness, and (correctly) that their tax money goes to support state colleges, universities, and high schools that teach evolution and "liberalism".
• In the Blue Kansas City Social-Democratic Triangle right now, the majority coalition votes for lower taxes because the voters believe (correctly) that their state tax money goes to support the Prairie, and (correctly) that they could get better value if they kept their state tax money at home, redirected it to lower levels of government to support their schools, roads, and parks, and so had social democracy in seven counties.
• Underpinning everything in all three areas, the majority coalition suffers from Fear of a Black President: Lots of people in Kansas's three regional majority coalitions appear to be thinking: "For 500 years we kept the Black Man down. Now somehow one of them is in charge. What would we do if the Black Man had kept us down for 500 years, and now one of us was in charge? That's right--we would try to disadvantage them, and so he is trying to disadvantage us, and we must oppose everything he wants to do, for if we cannot figure out how it is intended to disadvantage us that only shows that he is clever, and we must oppose everything he plans even more strongly."

I really wish I were joking. But that really appears to be how it is right now--really appears to be What Is the Matter with Kansas"

J. Bradford DeLong on October 01, 2013 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

Throw The Bums Out

The clear conclusion that any citizen of the Town of Oriental can draw from last night's Town Board meeting is that none of the incumbent candidates should be returned to office.

Not a single one has shown anything other than contempt or disdain for concerns of the citizens. None has shown any interest in seeking advice from citizens, many of whom have more knowledge and experience than those in office.

It was not always so. Those who held office from 2005 to 2009 were far more open to inputs from citizens than those currently holding office.

What can we do? A good start would be to replace the whole crew - lock, stock and barrel. In the vernacular - throw the bums out. All of them.

Elections start two weeks from tomorrow. Oriental voters begin casting early votes during one-stop on October 17 at the County Board of Elections in Bayboro.

Anarchist Extortionists Shut Down Government, Intimidate Fellow Legislators

On this day in which a handful of willful extortionists intimidated fellow party members and acted to shut down the US Government, it is worth remembering: we live in a democracy.

The government is us. We are the sovereign. The Tea Party zealots driving this action are not patriots, they are terrorists. They hate the United States. They fear and hate fellow Americans.

They despise democracy. They are having a prolonged tantrum.

Time to give them a time out.

United States Department Of Justice To Sue NC Over Voter Information Verification Act

We have known for a couple of days that the Department of Justice planned to sue North Carolina, as it has sued the state of Texas, over new voting laws. What we didn't have information on is the extent of the suit.

Here is the latest information:

"The suit, set to be filed in Greensboro, N.C., will ask that the state be barred from enforcing the new voter-ID law, the source said. However, the case will also go further, demanding that the entire state of North Carolina be placed under a requirement to have all changes to voting laws, procedures and polling places "precleared" by either the Justice Department or a federal court, the source added."

Good start. Now let's extend the voting rights preclearance requirement to all fifty states.

Economist Mark Thoma On Inequality And The Republican Shutdown Shakedown

In a column in the Fiscal Times, economist Mark Thoma explains the real reason for the current fight over the debt limit. He actually puts it more politely than I do, but the article explains pretty clearly what is at stake.

"We have lost something important as a society," Thoma explains, "as inequality has grown over the last several decades, our sense that we are all in this together. Social insurance is a way of sharing the risks that our economic system imposes upon us. As with other types of insurance, e.g. fire insurance, we all put our money into a common pool and the few of us unlucky enough to experience a “fire” – the loss of a job, health problems that wipe out retirement funds, disability, and so on – use the insurance to avoid financial disaster and rebuild as best we can."

One of the themes that jumps out at me from my reading of actions during World War II: American servicemen completely grasped that we were all in this together - they didn't abandon their fellow soldiers and sailors to the enemy. The order to "abandon ship" didn't mean "abandon your shipmates." It didn't mean "you're on your own." The French say "sauve qui peut," literally "save [oneself] who can" or "every man for himself." That wasn't the way of the American warrior. It is the way these days of wealthy Republicans.
 

"But growing inequality has allowed one strata of society to be largely free of these risks while the other is very much exposed to them." The two strata Thoma is referring to are the 1% at the top of the ladder and the other 99%. "As that has happened," Thoma goes on, "as one group in society has had fewer and fewer worries about paying for college education, has first-rate health insurance, ample funds for retirement, and little or no chance of losing a home and ending up on the street if a job suddenly disappears in a recession, support among the politically powerful elite for the risk sharing that makes social insurance work has declined."

During World War II, even the wealthy dared not violate rationing, even when they could easily afford black market prices. Nor did they dare evade the draft. It wasn't patriotic. 

"Rising inequality and differential exposure to economic risk has caused one group to see themselves as the “makers” in society who provide for the rest and pay most of the bills, and the other group as “takers” who get all the benefits. The upper strata wonders, “Why should we pay for social insurance when we get little or none of the benefits?” and this leads to an attack on these programs."

I didn't miss the Republican message conveyed during last year's election. The theme was "you hard working white folks have to pay taxes to support those lazy, shiftless blacks and hispanics (all illegal immigrants)." Across the nation, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Jewish Americans and recent immigrants of all varieties got the same message: The Republican Party has become the party of White Supremacists. Indeed, both supporters and opponents of the GOP understand that "politically conservative" is another way of saying "White Supremacist."

"Even worse, this social stratification leads those at the top to begin imposing a virtue and vice story to justify their desire to stop paying the taxes needed to support social insurance programs. Those at the top did it all by themselves." ( in their own imaginations) "They “built that” through their own effort and sacrifice with no help from anyone else." Balderdash!

The American industrial planner who most clearly articulated the antidote to this nonsense was the late W. Edwards Deming. He understood that success was a result of collective rather than individual effort and particularly opposed bonuses. He described giving a manager a bonus for his organization's quarterly success as akin to rewarding the weatherman for a pleasant sunshiny day.

"Those at the bottom, on the other hand," the comfortably wealthy assert, "are essentially burning down their own houses just to collect the fire insurance, i.e. making poor choices and sponging off of social insurance programs. It’s their behavior that’s the problem," according to the Koch Brothers and their ilk, "and taking away the incentive to live off of the rest of society by constraining their ability to collect social insurance is the only way to ensure they get jobs and provide for themselves." And how did the Koch brothers provide for themselves? The old fashioned way. By choosing wealthy parents.

The people who have made poor choices in recent decades are our political leaders who dismantled very effective protections put in place eighty years ago. We are all suffering as a result.

"Of course, this is a false view of how the system operates," Thoma explains. "The wealthy would not have the opportunity to make so much money if it society didn’t provide the infrastructure, educated workforce, legal protections, and other building blocks critical for their success. And we shouldn’t forget that many of the wealthy got where they are through the privilege and advantage that comes from familial wealth rather than their own merit."

I might add that another way the super wealthy got that way is by buying politicians to change the rules by which we all live. To their advantage, of course. They have rigged the system.

This political dispute over the debt limit is, plainly and simply, about the size and role of government. In particular, it’s an attempt by Republicans to use undue fear about the debt to scale back or eliminate spending on social insurance programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare, food stamps, and unemployment compensation. And it’s no accident that this attack on social insurance coincides with growing income inequality. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf

This political dispute over the debt limit is, plainly and simply, about the size and role of government. In particular, it’s an attempt by Republicans to use undue fear about the debt to scale back or eliminate spending on social insurance programs such as Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare, food stamps, and unemployment compensation. And it’s no accident that this attack on social insurance coincides with growing income inequality. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf

the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a debt problem until over a decade from now, and when the debt does finally begin increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health care. So finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that already seems to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt problem. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf

the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a debt problem until over a decade from now, and when the debt does finally begin increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health care. So finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that already seems to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt problem. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf

In fact, the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a debt problem until over a decade from now, and when the debt does finally begin increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health care. So finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that already seems to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt problem. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf

In fact, the debt is not even an immediate problem. As the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show, we don’t have a debt problem until over a decade from now, and when the debt does finally begin increasing the main cause will be rising costs for health care. So finding a way to rein in health care costs, something that already seems to be happening, is the key to solving our future debt problem. - See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/24/Real-Reason-Fight-over-Debt-Limit#sthash.1PJ2MA0P.dpuf