The Debt Limit

Unions have taken a back seat to the hassle over the debt limit. Both remain of interest and the topics are related.


I begin with the debt limit problem. The original purpose of the debt limit was to limit debt. I don't know what the purpose of the debt limit is now but that it must be constantly be raised so the nation will function, according to those in the know. A contradiction. Ultimately, the nation cannot function with too much debt, so the debt must be limited, like our founders intended.

It appears that Treasury Secretary Geithner is threatening no payments to seniors if the debt limit is not raised. The crass idea that our citizens will go wanting while moneylenders must be paid seems to dominate. The moneylenders must be paid so that they will lend more money so they must be paid. What is wrong with this picture?

Donald Trump might have the right idea about China when he criticizes sweetheart deals for Chinese interests and the Chinese currency manipulations. Perhaps some of the past disparities among the currencies could be remunerated with debt credits, as a beginning negotiation point for continued payments of any kind.

Time for real negotiations, like Mr. Trump says.

And on to the topic of unions, much in the news lately. Governors are concerned that union demands are bankrupting the state and local jurisdictions. It appears that the aura of corruption extended to politicos who signed deals with unions that were financially unsustainable but I got mine, so what? Responsibility must be laid at the door of those elected officials who caved into union demands without the financial wherewithall to maintain payments to individuals. Borrowing is rife and the unions support the borrowing culture because they get more jobs now and fewer later and overall but so what? Short term thinking seems to be the leader of this crew.

The idea that clerical workers for the state need do or die union representation is ludicrous. Miners need that kind of representation, not paper pushers. The hazardous occupations need union representation and collective bargaining should come in if the members voluntarily join a union in response to poor working conditions. Mining is one of those occupations where the workers need protection from poor working conditions, like unsafe shafts. Police and Fire might need union representation if chronically understaffed, for instance. Requiring workers to join a union is a violation of workers' civil rights. Unions should arise in response to a need in the workplace, not be mandated 24/7. As of now, unions are controlling substantial required contributions from workers, which is money workers might like to spend elsewhere if they had a choice.

Get rid of the government worker unions. I don't want unions controlling any aspect of the government, including when and where workers will strike and shut the government down. Public employees and others like teachers have a responsibility to keep the schools and government functions open. OSHA should be sufficient for job safety requirements.

Now back to how unions and the debt limit are intersected: government unions encouraged the growth of pay levels beyond that of the private sector while relying on tax money to pay for it. The more, the merrier, except that the recession hit and the tax take shrunk and each worker now takes a higher percentage of the whole than before. In other words, there are too many workers at too high pay working for the government. The SunTran runs empty buses instead of cutting the number of runs on a route because of an agreement with the union not to cut jobs. So now the fares are raised and the poor pay for the extra runs. Would they rather pay less for fewer bus runs?

This story could go on and on but the idea is there to extrapolate: The entire nation is debt ridden. Moneylenders rule and the tax money is earmarked for however long the funding source lasts. The cash is long gone but the debt remains. Encumber your income sources and you have less cash to work with. It seems so logical but now this debt service obligation has blown everybody's mind with the implications for our immediate future. How much of the borrowed money is squandered?

For example, the Regional Transportation Authority is a tax on the populace. This money is to be used for a list of projects, yet millions are being used for a purpose never listed on the voting descriptor. The voters never voted to spend millions of the RTA money on interest payments. The use of the RTA funding for any other purpose than is what is on the ballot material is not legal, yet millions are wasted on interest payments. The RTA will sunset earlier than intended because the income will be gone or tied up in interest costs. The Rio Nuevo revenue stream is committed from now until 2025, which sunsetted the economic activity more than a decade before the revenue stream ends. Politicians should not be allowed to encumber every revenue stream available to the government. Why are they able to indebt the tax money without a vote of the people? Tucson Water owes half a billion dollars yet borrowing continues with spending having little to do with improving water quality or service. Are there no limits to the use of money derived from borrowing from Tucson Water? They raise water rates in order to finance this borrowing.

The cycle of borrowing has to end somewhere. The myriad brokers, unions and hangers-on are getting too expensive and the moneylenders and gamblers rule the halls of government.

                                         Winter Storm over Tucson

Tucson City Council Election is Important

Corruption in Government


I am amazed by the mistakes made by those in governance that might be construed as corruption by the less forgiving or possibly the more discerning.

The focus of government has been a bit wider than our founders had envisioned, leaving the people with less rights than the our original countrymen with all those free resources. Population pressure has reduced our property rights to a travesty defined by HOAS, zoning laws and ordinances. Apparently, monies collected by the government goes to keep the municipal necessities like police, water, fire, health and keeping the roads open. These departments in some cases have grown beyond the basic functions not defined by the Arizona Constitution or city charters.

During boom times, these excess functions were easily funded yet commitments were not sunset or phased out in case of an economic downturn. The debt load for Tucson ballooned to $1,200,000,000 due and payable through 2035. Tax collections are down, yet the borrowing proposals are still seriously considered.

Is excessive borrowing and spending corruption? This is a red flag, a warning of the follies of letting short term politicians indebt taxpayers. Some projects are built like the downtown fire station, a beautiful functional building. Other projects are planned and graded and never built, yet the debt remains. Other projects are not worth the money spent but the debt remains. Of course, there is no money for other projects because of the huge debt service owed. A few short term politicians tied up a huge chunk of Tucson's prosperity for years to come with little to show for it except a few well padded moneylenders, consultants and developers. Parking lots stand empty while they feverishly build more parking garages.

The sad thing about this is that Tucson actually needs a new museum to add to the tourist attractions. The ineptness and corruption ripped off the citizens. A funding instrument called a Certificate of Participation is available to borrow huge sums without the annoyance of a bond election. The City of Tucson has over $200,000,000 in COPS and the money is long gone but the debt lingers. I think the Arizona Legislature should institute a ban on these COPS, because it subverts the intent of the bond election law. Another problem is the 'bundling' used by the RTA to pass a blanket bond issue featuring wildly unpopular pork items sandwiched in with vote getting proposals. I suggest that each proposal be voted on in turn, but the bulk of these projects can be done by private enterprise rather than keeping an army of roadbuilders on the payroll all the time. Since the RTA is short of money, we need to revote on the proposals, one at a time. The RTA also stated in election literature that they were responsible for moving utilities for all RTA projects, but now they want the city to pay for that very expensive work when the city is bankrupt. We can be taxed twice for the same work, evidently.

An investigation into bidding practices, cost overruns, and the chain of command leading to disbursements of funding must be undertaken. Vicious cost overruns are what sunk so many of the Rio Nuevo projects, where accountability was lax. What happened to performance bonds? Don't contractors sign to perform a job for a defined amount? How much chance did actual bidders have of landing contracts if they bid actual cost plus a profit?

There's a skunk under the porch, folks. I am waiting for Attorney General Tom Horne to smell it.

I think the skunk had skunklets. Tucson Water is already in debt for almost half a billion dollars, yet spending for the streetcar demands a rate hike for the users, who will pay $10,000,000 to move water lines for a streetcar. The RTA is millions in the hole, yet plans to borrow funds to meet deadlines are actually being considered, which would cost about $40,000,000 in interest, paid out of sales taxes. The roads would get none of this interest money. What a waste. Why not prorate the spending? Of course the favored contractors don't want this slower, smaller feed into their coffers. So hire smaller contractors on shorter term contracts. What is the hurry? The taxpayers cannot afford more debt.

I think the problem goes beyond power and influence into the realm of what can be done to assist the City of Tucson to get through this recession that remains in effect despite what the economic pundits say. The cronyism, patronage and outrageous financial commissions and debt load have made Tucson into a difficult place to do business.

A Tea Party Anyone?

RTA Spending Plan

What is wrong with the RTA Spending Plan?


The current estimated cost of all the projects must be made. The projected income from the half cent sales tax must be made. The two figures must be compared. The termination date of the RTA must be discussed as a reality deadline and not something that will get even more money eventually. This RTA thing should be finished at the sunset date: this means any debt and the projects.

It is obvious that paper compliance is more important than the reality of what revenue the RTA is expected to generate and what the community can afford from these tax monies. Going in debt because 'scheduled' projects are projected to cost so much more than will actually be generated is both costly and foolish.

Poor planning.

Practicality would indicate that a spending pattern based on what is actually generated per month would be adopted. Just starting a project with no funds to finish it is not "compliance" with what the voters thought they were getting; it is a waste of money. Voters need to revote on the RTA. Why is this illusory 'compliance' so important? Could they lose their revenue stream due to nonperformance?

Since they are non compliant, perhaps voters should decide how this remaining RTA money should be spent. The RTA people want to go into debt, which would add $35 million to the cost of these projects they just want to get started on. Taxpayers cannot afford any more public debt that ties up future revenue streams in debt service. The cities need more ready cash from local taxes, not more encumbrances that suck a 35% profit out of local taxpayers, reducing the value of the tax dollar to 66%. Moneylenders will walk away with $35 million out of this community. We cannot afford this just to hurry up and get started.

Reduce the scope of projects. Focus on the project with the most safety concerns or focus on funding sidewalks, bike paths, bus pullouts and all those things that actually benefit the citizens. How about a nice bike path that could be used for the Bicycle Tour and others and then by the locals? This would be a tourist draw, useful for locals and affordable, according to actual RTA revenue, not borrowed cash that ties up cash for years to come. A nice safe Tour track winding all around Tucson would be a boon to the community.

What I am really saying here is that the RTA projects need to be rethought now, not after the RTA borrows and squanders $135 million in tax money, leaving behind an interminable debt. We never voted to give away a third of the money to moneylenders. We voted for the money to be spent on the projects. Since they obviously cannot afford to complete all the projects, let's forget them and start over. Take it to the voters in the next election. In the meantime, slow the spending and collect the funds as they come in. No more borrowing. Contract only for what funding actually exists.

Come up with some projects that would benefit the community, bring in seasonal tourism, open up small business zoning, and encourage the use of bicycles and buses around town. Revamp the bus system by creating bus centers in shopping malls and near medical facilities and the University. Repair existing roads. Stop the RTA from wasting money on beginning projects they don't have the money to finish.

I call for a forensic audit of the RTA planning and spending. The RTA appears to be following the same reasoning and actions that the Rio Nuevo boondoggle followed. The Tucson City Council and Pima County need to revisit the RTA election promises and get started on a logical action plan that does not further indebt the taxpayers.

According to Councilman Steve Kozachik, the planned borrowing by the RTA will result in $50 million of taxpayer money going to moneylenders for interest. The new fire station cost $38 million, just to give you an idea of what this borrowing is costing the Tucson community. You can add the new fire station and the new parking garage downtown as an example of what $50 million taxpayer dollars will buy. The city of Tucson cannot afford to lose $50 million just because the RTA is behind schedule.

We need a revote on the RTA projects because not enough money will be generated to pay for them and they are behind schedule. The hierarchy of the RTA has also said that a $9 million project that now will cost $22 million is what the voters wanted. Their callous attitudes towards cost overruns and taxpayer money is blatantly obvious.

I call for an audit and a commitment to deny further cost overruns on RTA projects. If bidders cannot meet their bid, then call in their bond and get somebody else.

Support Governor Walker!

Thoughts on the Hassle in Wisconsin

I retired from a career as a public school teacher and thus may some say I am biased. I am perhaps more knowledgeable because of the time spent on duty, not biased.

Being a teacher brings with it more responsibilities than meets first perusal. You have to be there in lieu of guardianship and you are legally responsible for those students. You have temporary custody of them. Being a teacher is a complex job, much of which has nothing to do with the actual curriculum you are charged to teach.

Are teachers paid enough? May I ask if prices are too high? Is it the same question?

Frankly, I am embarrassed by the actions of many teachers in Wisconsin. They even want to be paid for demonstrating. Some are apparently collecting phony doctors notes excusing them to get a sick day when they were not sick. These doctors should lose their license and teachers who claim the phony sick leave should be fired. What are these 'teachers' teaching the students? That it is ok to commit fraud for a cause? That it is ok to demand that you join a union if you want to work? You have to join my gang or you can't work here.

The unions are fighting the end of this forced servitude. The unions will lose money when people have a choice on whether to join a union or not. How much are union dues? How much was lost in the new contract? What is the difference? Maybe the teachers can exercise their right to free choice on what organizations will collect dues from their paychecks and save money that way. It's all about freedom from being forced to give money to an organization. The unions are afraid to lose this money: they might lose their jobs. These teachers who are demonstrating are attempting to force union membership on everyone else. They already conceded that they would pay more of their own pensions and benefits.

I call for law and order. The teachers should go back to work or face immediate termination. The cowardly legislators who fled their responsibilities should return and face the budgetary problems. The governor does not want to lay off teachers but the union would prefer layoffs to this new agreement that cuts off mandatory union membership. I never liked mandatory union membership, having worked under it in California. All it generated was a few puffed up individuals going to conferences on money I was forced to contribute. And of course, the union I was forced to join made very public political choices that were against my own political beliefs. The teachers of Wisconsin would be better off without this expensive yoke around their necks. The unions cost too much money.

Part of my hassle about unions, is the lack of responsibility for any consideration of the long term results of any demands they make. If they can get some craven public servant to agree to outrageous demands that are unsustainable, they believe they are successful. Success in the short term that decimates long term practicality is not success: it is irresponsible. If the current union bosses set up huge pensions and cheap benefits for themselves with minimal personal donations, Bell California comes to mind.  Clawbacks!

The public servant who agrees to an unsustainable pension plan should be sued for stupidity. I see these people gain public office, run up the public debt, agree to DOA pension plans, and let the unions run the government like their own cash cow. I do believe the situation in Wisconsin is a microcosm of the problems in our nation today.

I was looking over a federal grant application and noted that the 'affiliated unions' for the proposed project must be listed and guaranteed. All this in Arizona, a right to work state. Why must the Feds guarantee union control of all jobs using federal money? Who set that up? The federal money is derived from federal taxes paid from Arizona, so why does the federal government have the right to tell us how to spend the funding?

It's probably obvious by now that I do not support the anti-government demonstrators. They are anti-government and pro-union and I do not want a union takeover of any state government. Take a look at the states: union demands, pension problems, debt and insolvency. Does that sound like the automakers? Does that sound like we need to support Governor Walker of Wisconsin? Yes it does.