How to cut local and federal debt
The government must cut spending somewhere before adding a new obligation, popularly known as PAYGO. Unfunded mandates from the federal to the state must cease, particularly in education.
A young doctor will borrow against future earnings to buy an incredibly expensive piece of equipment, and then charge patients to pay for it. Perhaps the government might subsidize the cost of the equipment, rather than distributing the same amount in subsidized patient health care. I think health care professionals would find subsidized equipment financially attractive debt relief.
Student loans are a drag on the economy. Somehow, you should be able to work all of them off in public service, like on the reservations. (For example, teach GED or tutor students to work it off)
Did term limits encourage the mountain of debt? This is a cynical thought that during the cheap credit drama, borrowing on the part of cities in Arizona rose precipitously, giving the borrowers much power in the community, without having to return to the voters for a long career in congress. Absolution of responsibility? Why not borrow? They won’t be here to pay for it because they are term limited. I think politicians ability to indebt the taxpayer should not exceed their term of office. Term limits disrupt entrenchment of special interests, which is a positive effect. Which is worse?
Road building has gone far enough for now. We need to maintain the transportation infrastructure rather than borrow to expand it. No more borrowing for transportation would force a pay as you go plan and reliance on short term contracts to local contractors.
Moneylenders have their place but it should not be at the top of the profit chain. There are too many fees, interest payments, obligations; it costs too much to borrow, too many brokers, too many people who produce nothing cut in front of everybody at the table. Endgame. Somebody big should take a haircut, face a clawback of that money and fraud charges.
Legislation against debt needs to happen. It looks like the city of Tucson is paying $133 million to borrow $80 million. This is not judicious use of taxpayer money. How about limiting debt incurred by politicians to their term or require a public vote on any debt?
Reduce the fleet the government sponsors. Cancel all cars for other than police and fire. This would save insurance, fuel and maintenance plus a cash outlay for new units. Sell off gas guzzlers, private cars etc.
Van Tran in Tucson: how many people are being served at what cost per person? Would this be cheaper contracted out to a private enterprise taxi?
Pima County should not borrow to build more wastewater plants. We are still paying for the last one. Why not start incremental work and use local contractors and pay cash as it comes in? Don’t borrow to build. Pay for the ongoing work as the money comes in and avoid interest charges. If this doesn’t generate enough money then the plans are too grandiose and must be scaled back to the actual income available. The amount of actual income available should drive the scope of the project, not the maximum able to be borrowed and the cash in a lump sum for somebody to play with. It costs money to borrow money and an ambition to control a large amount of money is not adequate criteria to indebt the public.
The TIF Rio Nuevo in Tucson did not produce adequate results from the cash borrowed and the debt remains. Legally this appears to be tenuous as audit results are awaited. How did the people who controlled Rio Nuevo get the power to borrow against the revenue stream? Why is this allowed without a popular vote? Somebody landed control of $80 million and blew it. Who voted to do this? What about the $15 million entrance boondoggle? That’s like financing a new Cadillac and never getting possession of the car but still have to pay the debt.
Mandating insurance turns it into a debt. This assures that a percentage of income is forever inaccessible to the earner. This is a tax also. The net result is that the earner may never have access to this money, but is required to pay it. This is a debt. The insurance companies are taking too much out of the general economy and funneling too much of the money to themselves and health care professionals, who are pumping up the costs by ordering expensive tests/procedures in order to avoid litigation.
Litigation in the medical world is making money for the lawyers at the expense of the insurance companies and medical professionals who must pay enormous insurance premiums. Some claims are legitimate but the parasitic aspect of litigation and the negative results on society is a cause for concern. Limits on litigation must be set in order to protect our medical professionals, while protecting individual rights.
There are more ideas out there. Cut debt, reexamine contracts for legalities and applied limits to more than the market value for rent as a lease payment in Tucson, and renegotiation possibilities for strapped homeowners. Or defaults will continue to rise. Nobody wants to put more money into something that is losing face value, making the debt impossible to pay in today’s economy. If you can get better elsewhere for less money, then that will happen. Buyers have dried up. Cut the rents. Nobody can make money while paying exorbitant rents because the owners have huge debt on the property. So units stand empty.
If you own a rental and that rental remains unrented with an exorbitant rent demanded, does that constitute a tax deduction for the owner? If it does, cancel that deduction. Nobody should make money from the government by leaving units unrented.
Creative thinking needs to happen. Focus on the real necessities. If local default becomes an option, we can start over with the actual income to be applied to the necessities of government, instead of harmful cutbacks in physical necessities in order to meet debt service. Practicality must rule.
Remember that old Alexander Dumas story about the poor woman who borrowed a diamond necklace from a rich friend, lost it, and spent years paying for a replacement only to eventually find out the original necklace had been glass? I don’t want to spend the taxpayers’ lives paying for debts incurred within a few years. This truly impoverishes the community for the duration of the debt. They cannot count on continued inflation and another boom to bail them out of debt made smaller through inflation. That is wishful thinking.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Hypocrisy at the Arizona Daily Star
Dear Colonel Gent:
I read with interest your letter in the Arizona Daily Star on February 15, 2010. The best line in the letter is “When elected officials decline to take part in public discourse, one has to ask why.”
I looked on the net to perhaps find your e mail address and found your bio, which tells me you are a person to respect. Like many of the Republican Party, I support the military and veterans. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of national pride and responsibility. I am also a Daughter of the American Revolution and am proud of it.
I surmise we do have more goals in common. Since you serve on Representative Giffords Military Advisory Council, I surmise that you support the space program. To me the space program is too important to be a partisan issue. Many military people I have met also support the space program.
I also have a great interest in environmental issues and as a consequence, I have supported Representative Raul Grijalva in my district. Possibly you also have such interest in preserving the natural environment.
A noted Iraq War veteran and author in Arizona, State Representative Frank Antenori had the following to say when I requested a statement about the Arizona Daily Star’s editorial policy:
“The Arizona Daily Star's editorial board has clear bias and hidden agenda that distorts or filters information in an effort to influence public opinion in favor of their ideological beliefs. They offer no opposing views on their editorial pages and have consistently suppressed opposing views submitted by readers by refusing to print them. They are now truly living up to the words of Mark Twain, "Those that do not read the paper are uninformed, and those that do are misinformed."”
I believe that Mr. Antenori is correct. Apparently, nothing is more important than partisan politics to the editorial staff at the Star.
My own experiences with the ‘Reader Advocate’ Debbie Kornmiller did nothing to correct this assertation. Ms. Kornmiller has banned me from commenting online because my husband allegedly broke the terms of service while using his private e mail address. No complaints were made about my postings.
Ms. Kornmiller banned me because I am a Republican precinct committeeman who does not always agree with her personal choice of candidates. My blog explains my interests and opinions, if you would like to see what Ms. Kornmiller banned. A past president of the Pima County Republican Womens’ Club has felt ostracized because she was at odds with Ms. Kornmiller. Ms. Kornmiller has also ‘edited’ letters printed in the paper, receiving complaints. I attend several Republican political organizations and often the discussion turns to the biased editorial page of the Star. The problem appeared to escalate after the demise of the Tucson Citizen.
What does this have to do with elected officials declining to take part in public discourse? It has been suggested that the Star have more ‘conservative’ viewpoints represented in the opinion section. I support this idea.
I think what we have here is a breakdown of genuine bipartisanship, reflected in the stagnation of the legislative process. My problem with Ms. Kornmiller is a microcosm of the mentality that is preventing true public and private discourse. The lines of communication are cut. What the opinion page of the Star is offering is not public discourse, but is a heavily edited version of the truth as sifted for you. That’s probably why some decline to comment for the Star. They don’t deserve to be criticized for not answering the Star’s demand for a statement. There are other venues to reach the constituency.
A free flow of ideas is essential for democracy. I think that the key to future success in solving the problems of this country lies in bipartisan or antipartisan agreements. Important issues like the military, veterans affairs, forwarding the space program, health care payment system reform and other issues should generate bipartisan coalitions, but the lines of communication must remain open for this to occur.
I am disappointed in the Arizona Daily Star.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Prater Niemi
LD 27
I read with interest your letter in the Arizona Daily Star on February 15, 2010. The best line in the letter is “When elected officials decline to take part in public discourse, one has to ask why.”
I looked on the net to perhaps find your e mail address and found your bio, which tells me you are a person to respect. Like many of the Republican Party, I support the military and veterans. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of national pride and responsibility. I am also a Daughter of the American Revolution and am proud of it.
I surmise we do have more goals in common. Since you serve on Representative Giffords Military Advisory Council, I surmise that you support the space program. To me the space program is too important to be a partisan issue. Many military people I have met also support the space program.
I also have a great interest in environmental issues and as a consequence, I have supported Representative Raul Grijalva in my district. Possibly you also have such interest in preserving the natural environment.
A noted Iraq War veteran and author in Arizona, State Representative Frank Antenori had the following to say when I requested a statement about the Arizona Daily Star’s editorial policy:
“The Arizona Daily Star's editorial board has clear bias and hidden agenda that distorts or filters information in an effort to influence public opinion in favor of their ideological beliefs. They offer no opposing views on their editorial pages and have consistently suppressed opposing views submitted by readers by refusing to print them. They are now truly living up to the words of Mark Twain, "Those that do not read the paper are uninformed, and those that do are misinformed."”
I believe that Mr. Antenori is correct. Apparently, nothing is more important than partisan politics to the editorial staff at the Star.
My own experiences with the ‘Reader Advocate’ Debbie Kornmiller did nothing to correct this assertation. Ms. Kornmiller has banned me from commenting online because my husband allegedly broke the terms of service while using his private e mail address. No complaints were made about my postings.
Ms. Kornmiller banned me because I am a Republican precinct committeeman who does not always agree with her personal choice of candidates. My blog explains my interests and opinions, if you would like to see what Ms. Kornmiller banned. A past president of the Pima County Republican Womens’ Club has felt ostracized because she was at odds with Ms. Kornmiller. Ms. Kornmiller has also ‘edited’ letters printed in the paper, receiving complaints. I attend several Republican political organizations and often the discussion turns to the biased editorial page of the Star. The problem appeared to escalate after the demise of the Tucson Citizen.
What does this have to do with elected officials declining to take part in public discourse? It has been suggested that the Star have more ‘conservative’ viewpoints represented in the opinion section. I support this idea.
I think what we have here is a breakdown of genuine bipartisanship, reflected in the stagnation of the legislative process. My problem with Ms. Kornmiller is a microcosm of the mentality that is preventing true public and private discourse. The lines of communication are cut. What the opinion page of the Star is offering is not public discourse, but is a heavily edited version of the truth as sifted for you. That’s probably why some decline to comment for the Star. They don’t deserve to be criticized for not answering the Star’s demand for a statement. There are other venues to reach the constituency.
A free flow of ideas is essential for democracy. I think that the key to future success in solving the problems of this country lies in bipartisan or antipartisan agreements. Important issues like the military, veterans affairs, forwarding the space program, health care payment system reform and other issues should generate bipartisan coalitions, but the lines of communication must remain open for this to occur.
I am disappointed in the Arizona Daily Star.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Prater Niemi
LD 27
Monday, January 18, 2010
Capitalism?
Capitalism/Free Enterprise System
The Free Enterprise economic system is not a game of ‘keep away’ played as a child. Free Enterprise is a game designed to keep the system running while making a profit. If the means to a profit eventually destroys the system, then this means is immoral to use. Morality is actually subjective as used by people and the legal system only covers a small portion of business practices. A sense of responsibility has been absent in the past, either that or a blissful ignorance or indifference to the consequences of the business model deemed to earn a profit. Ms. Bair indicated that compensation practices be linked to FDIC insurance rates, as an insurance hazard that promotes risky investments. Is it really true that investment houses funneling investors’ money into mortgage ‘products’ bet against success and collected insurance money when the mortgage ‘products’ failed while the investors they counseled lost their cash? And what about dividend payments? Are these boards and executives feathering their own nest using tax money and the capital invested by others? Many questions remain to be answered.
Of course the excesses produce regulation and restrictions. Yet they still want more derivatives and other investments that produce nothing but commissions for a few, very expensive people. These derivatives and hedges should be relegated to organized gambling in Nevada or let the Indians handle them.
Formerly known as killing the goose that lays the golden egg, this destructive behavior
must be discouraged, in favor of a less phenomenally profitable enterprise that makes a good living and keeps work going. The short term profit taking model should be analyzed carefully before implementation, as to whether the economy will be perpetuated in a healthy condition after the profit taking. Is that so much to ask on a moral level or must the government create regulation? The answer lies before us.
Now the investment banks that were intensely subsidized for a short time are hugely profitable and plan to pay themselves large sums for handling the government money. Unemployment is about 10%, social services are strained, the real estate market overbuilt and foreclosures rising. Local governments talk more taxes and insurance is in danger of becoming a mandated racket, while layoffs continue.
Can all this be blamed on the mortgage bubble? Easy money and no oversight pumped up real estate values so the securities sold by the investment banks would be worth more and they could make more mortgage ‘products’ for their clients while betting that these same securities would be worthless, collecting on insurance paid by the Feds through the ‘too big to fail’ authorization. Clients sold these ‘securities’ lost out as the foreclosure rate surfaced and the lack of loan oversight became a national scandal. Is buying insurance on something you know to be questionable or even worthless a crime? Fraud? Claw back that money.
Populism aside, people feel ripped off, gasoline prices are creeping up and the President is talking taxes on the investment bank bubble. Unbridled capitalism does become Darwinism as the available resources become controlled by a few manipulative individuals. Better yet, if these ‘new entrepreneurs’ can make up their own investment games without oversight, force the government to pick up the losses and come out of it with huge sums to divvy up, just like the train robbers of old, they think they won the game of keep away.
A brief return to the social unrest of the 20th century in the United States in my memory and knowledge of history tells me that the economy is often cause of unrest as manifested by bitter elections, corruption, recession, fewer jobs, riots and more regulation. The phenomena of bus rides past AIG mansions, rumors that Goldman Sachs people find it easier to get a firearms permit, or that GS people had swine flu shots before anyone else fan populist flames. I thank the media for publicizing the outrageous ripoffs and giant payoffs. I hope our Legislators order a full investigation of the ‘too big to fail’ authorizations. If they do not, expect them to be voted out. Difficult for incumbents in times like these.
Responsible capitalism? Is that possible? Regulated responsible capitalism? Foresight and careful decisions will perpetuate our civilization and allow free enterprise to function within a framework of sustainability in this new environment of 2010.
The Free Enterprise economic system is not a game of ‘keep away’ played as a child. Free Enterprise is a game designed to keep the system running while making a profit. If the means to a profit eventually destroys the system, then this means is immoral to use. Morality is actually subjective as used by people and the legal system only covers a small portion of business practices. A sense of responsibility has been absent in the past, either that or a blissful ignorance or indifference to the consequences of the business model deemed to earn a profit. Ms. Bair indicated that compensation practices be linked to FDIC insurance rates, as an insurance hazard that promotes risky investments. Is it really true that investment houses funneling investors’ money into mortgage ‘products’ bet against success and collected insurance money when the mortgage ‘products’ failed while the investors they counseled lost their cash? And what about dividend payments? Are these boards and executives feathering their own nest using tax money and the capital invested by others? Many questions remain to be answered.
Of course the excesses produce regulation and restrictions. Yet they still want more derivatives and other investments that produce nothing but commissions for a few, very expensive people. These derivatives and hedges should be relegated to organized gambling in Nevada or let the Indians handle them.
Formerly known as killing the goose that lays the golden egg, this destructive behavior
must be discouraged, in favor of a less phenomenally profitable enterprise that makes a good living and keeps work going. The short term profit taking model should be analyzed carefully before implementation, as to whether the economy will be perpetuated in a healthy condition after the profit taking. Is that so much to ask on a moral level or must the government create regulation? The answer lies before us.
Now the investment banks that were intensely subsidized for a short time are hugely profitable and plan to pay themselves large sums for handling the government money. Unemployment is about 10%, social services are strained, the real estate market overbuilt and foreclosures rising. Local governments talk more taxes and insurance is in danger of becoming a mandated racket, while layoffs continue.
Can all this be blamed on the mortgage bubble? Easy money and no oversight pumped up real estate values so the securities sold by the investment banks would be worth more and they could make more mortgage ‘products’ for their clients while betting that these same securities would be worthless, collecting on insurance paid by the Feds through the ‘too big to fail’ authorization. Clients sold these ‘securities’ lost out as the foreclosure rate surfaced and the lack of loan oversight became a national scandal. Is buying insurance on something you know to be questionable or even worthless a crime? Fraud? Claw back that money.
Populism aside, people feel ripped off, gasoline prices are creeping up and the President is talking taxes on the investment bank bubble. Unbridled capitalism does become Darwinism as the available resources become controlled by a few manipulative individuals. Better yet, if these ‘new entrepreneurs’ can make up their own investment games without oversight, force the government to pick up the losses and come out of it with huge sums to divvy up, just like the train robbers of old, they think they won the game of keep away.
A brief return to the social unrest of the 20th century in the United States in my memory and knowledge of history tells me that the economy is often cause of unrest as manifested by bitter elections, corruption, recession, fewer jobs, riots and more regulation. The phenomena of bus rides past AIG mansions, rumors that Goldman Sachs people find it easier to get a firearms permit, or that GS people had swine flu shots before anyone else fan populist flames. I thank the media for publicizing the outrageous ripoffs and giant payoffs. I hope our Legislators order a full investigation of the ‘too big to fail’ authorizations. If they do not, expect them to be voted out. Difficult for incumbents in times like these.
Responsible capitalism? Is that possible? Regulated responsible capitalism? Foresight and careful decisions will perpetuate our civilization and allow free enterprise to function within a framework of sustainability in this new environment of 2010.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Tucson City Council
Recall of City Council 2010
What do I think of the recall?
What caused the recall?
A lack of focus in Rio Nuevo contributed to public distrust. One project should be the focus until that project is completed and paid for. Squandering money on consultants resulted in a few benefiting hugely from Rio Nuevo while few jobs were created. Most of the money was skimmed off by those in the know before the job benefits actually reached the people. As for the public structures to be created with this money in Rio Nuevo, they do not exist, the money is gone and the fund encumbered for $80,000,000. We see a very few benefitting at the expense of the rest of us as the city staggers under a mountain of debt service. And there are no new museums or parade grounds for the people to enjoy.
I think an investigation and the ongoing audit will determine where the money went, what it was spent on and who got it. How about a list of people/enterprises that received Rio Nuevo money, in order of amount? This is public information. Let the audit begin when the first Rio Nuevo crew was ousted and the new regime took over.
Insular attitudes, insider mentalities, a lack of long term planning, lack of focus in Rio Nuevo, too much debt, and high unemployment have resulted in a negative public attitude. Recalls are a sign of public unrest and competition for scarce resources. The Rio Nuevo money was a rare opportunity for this community that has come to just another credit line to be obligated with nothing to show for the money. Too many people were cut out of the deal. Too much in the hands of too few. A few jobs for some very expensive people. Free land for select individuals. Rent subsidy for some and not others.
The ‘discovery’ of the $32,000,000 budget deficit just after the election left some people wondering if this information were withheld in an attempt to influence the election.
And now after all this public debt and the recession, we cannot afford more taxes and fees. With the city scrounging in our pockets for money and high unemployment rates, citizens need relief. The recall interests people because the city is insolvent and the Council raised fees and might be considering raising taxes.
What do I think of the recall?
What caused the recall?
A lack of focus in Rio Nuevo contributed to public distrust. One project should be the focus until that project is completed and paid for. Squandering money on consultants resulted in a few benefiting hugely from Rio Nuevo while few jobs were created. Most of the money was skimmed off by those in the know before the job benefits actually reached the people. As for the public structures to be created with this money in Rio Nuevo, they do not exist, the money is gone and the fund encumbered for $80,000,000. We see a very few benefitting at the expense of the rest of us as the city staggers under a mountain of debt service. And there are no new museums or parade grounds for the people to enjoy.
I think an investigation and the ongoing audit will determine where the money went, what it was spent on and who got it. How about a list of people/enterprises that received Rio Nuevo money, in order of amount? This is public information. Let the audit begin when the first Rio Nuevo crew was ousted and the new regime took over.
Insular attitudes, insider mentalities, a lack of long term planning, lack of focus in Rio Nuevo, too much debt, and high unemployment have resulted in a negative public attitude. Recalls are a sign of public unrest and competition for scarce resources. The Rio Nuevo money was a rare opportunity for this community that has come to just another credit line to be obligated with nothing to show for the money. Too many people were cut out of the deal. Too much in the hands of too few. A few jobs for some very expensive people. Free land for select individuals. Rent subsidy for some and not others.
The ‘discovery’ of the $32,000,000 budget deficit just after the election left some people wondering if this information were withheld in an attempt to influence the election.
And now after all this public debt and the recession, we cannot afford more taxes and fees. With the city scrounging in our pockets for money and high unemployment rates, citizens need relief. The recall interests people because the city is insolvent and the Council raised fees and might be considering raising taxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)