Job Losses

Oriental Town Charter - Proposed Amendment

A couple of interesting items on tomorrow night's agenda for the meeting of the Oriental Town Board of Commissioners:

1. Under "new business" - Approve subdivision of property at 204 High Street. This is a continuation of a longstanding controversy in that neighborhood. There has been high public interest in the issue in the past.

2. Set public hearing for proposed amendment to Article VI of the GMO. I'm sure it's just a typo, because required notice of a public hearing has not been made - but the proposed amendment in the commissioners' briefing package says "adopted this 2nd day of August, 2011."

3. Similarly, the resolution of intent to adopt a charter amendment changing terms of office for mayor and council members from two to four years calls for a public hearing August 2, 2011. This is obviously in error.

For the information of citizens, NCGS 160A-102 sets out the procedure to be followed:

"The resolution of intent shall describe the proposed charter amendments briefly but completely and with reference to the pertinent provisions of G.S. 160A‑101, but it need not contain the precise text of the charter amendments necessary to implement the proposed changes. At the same time that a resolution of intent is adopted, the council shall also call a public hearing on the proposed charter amendments, the date of the hearing to be not more than 45 days after adoption of the resolution. A notice of the hearing shall be published at least once not less than 10 days prior to the date fixed for the public hearing, and shall contain a summary of the proposed amendments. Following the public hearing, but not earlier than the next regular meeting of the council and not later than 60 days from the date of the hearing, the council may adopt an ordinance amending the charter to implement the amendments proposed in the resolution of intent.

The council may, but shall not be required to unless a referendum petition is received pursuant to G.S. 160A‑103, make any ordinance adopted pursuant to this section effective only if approved by a vote of the people, and may by resolution adopted at the same time call a special election for the purpose of submitting the ordinance to a vote. The date fixed for the special election shall be not more than 90 days after adoption of the ordinance.

Within 10 days after an ordinance is adopted under this section, the council shall publish a notice stating that an ordinance amending the charter has been adopted and summarizing its contents and effect. If the ordinance is made effective subject to a vote of the people, the council shall publish a notice of the election in accordance with G.S. 163‑287, and need not publish a separate notice of adoption of the ordinance."

NCGS 160A-103 Stipulates: "An ordinance adopted under G.S. 160A‑102 that is not made effective upon approval by a vote of the people shall be subject to a referendum petition. Upon receipt of a referendum petition bearing the signatures and residence addresses of a number of qualified voters of the city equal to at least 10 percent of the whole number of voters who are registered to vote in city elections according to the most recent figures certified by the State Board of Elections or 5,000, whichever is less, the council shall submit an ordinance adopted under G.S. 160A‑102 to a vote of the people."

Debt Limit Update

We hear there is an agreement.

The country's future has been held hostage, and we paid a substantial ransom.

The price will be economic contraction. Jobs will be lost.

I suppose disaster is better than catastrophe.

New Poll Questions

At least, these are questions I wish pollsters would ask:

Q: Do you support reduced government expenditures even if it means you lose your job?

Q: Do you support reduced government expenditures even if it means reduced unemployment compensation when you lose your job?

Q: Do you support reduced government expenditures even if it means reduction in Medicaid when you lose your job?

Q: Do you support reduced government expenditures even if it means reduced Social Security benefits?

Q: Do you support reduced government expenditures even if it means reduced Medicare?

For business owners:

Q: Do you support reduced government expenditures even if it means fewer customers buy your products or services?

Pudd'nhead Wilson, Chapter 1 by Mark Twain (Excerpt)

Mr. David Wilson, a young fellow of Scotch parentage had finished a post-college course in an Eastern law school a couple of years before. A homely, freckled, sandy-haired young fellow, with an intelligent blue eye that had frankness and comradeship in it and a covert twinkle of a pleasant sort, Wilson had just made the acquaintance of a group of citizens. An invisible dog began to yelp and snarl and howl and make himself very comprehensively disagreeable, whereupon young Wilson said, much as one who is thinking aloud:

"I wish I owned half of that dog."

"Why?" somebody asked.

"Because I would kill my half."

The group searched his face with curiosity, with anxiety even, but found no light there, no expression that they could read. They fell away from him as from something uncanny, and went into privacy to discuss him. One said:

"'Pears to be a fool."

"'Pears?" said another. "Is, I reckon you better say."

"Said he wished he owned half of the dog, the idiot," said a third. "What did he reckon would become of the other half if he killed his half? Do you reckon he thought it would live?"

"Why, he must have thought it, unless he IS the downrightest fool in the world; because if he hadn't thought it, he would have wanted to own the whole dog, knowing that if he killed his half and the other half died, he would be responsible for that half just the same as if he had killed that half instead of his own. Don't it look that way to you, gents?"

"Yes, it does. If he owned one half of the general dog, it would be so; if he owned one end of the dog and another person owned the other end, it would be so, just the same; particularly in the first case, because if you kill one half of a general dog, there ain't any man that can tell whose half it was; but if he owned one end of the dog, maybe he could kill his end of it and -- "

"No, he couldn't either; he couldn't and not be responsible if the other end died, which it would. In my opinion that man ain't in his right mind."

"In my opinion he hain't got any mind."

No. 3 said: "Well, he's a lummox, anyway."

That's what he is;" said No. 4. "He's a labrick -- just a Simon-pure labrick, if there was one."

"Yes, sir, he's a dam fool. That's the way I put him up," said No. 5. "Anybody can think different that wants to, but those are my sentiments."

"I'm with you, gentlemen," said No. 6. "Perfect jackass -- yes, and it ain't going too far to say he is a pudd'nhead. If he ain't a pudd'nhead, I ain't no judge, that's all."

-

Discussion Question - Was David "Pudd'nhead" Wilson an early member of the Tea Party?

Or was the dog?

Early Sunday Morning?

So, are we going to have a constitutional crisis?

No, Thomas Friedman, a third party won't help.

A modest proposal: can the debt limit. It serves no useful function.

Federal Spending 2007 to 2010

Here's a graphical picture of the increase in government expenditure as a percentage of GDP from 2007 to 2010.

The Truth About Federal Spending

New Data: There Has Been No Recovery

Turns out, according to latest data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, we haven't had a weak recovery for the past three years - our GDP actually decreased from 2007 to 2010 by 0.3% per year. One of the main contributing factors has been decreased state and local government expenditures.

Here's what the Washington Post's Ezra Klein has to say in his article "The Recovery-Less Recovery."