LET THE MAYOR DO HER JOB

 

The ongoing dust-up between Washington’s Mayor and its police force is unfortunate, but a clear sign that Mayor Davis is protecting the rights of the City’s residents and doing her job.  When there is a public call to have an elected official back away from her mandate to oversee police activity, to in effect, let the tail wag the dog, the administrative democratic process in Washington is in real trouble.

 Mayor Davis was not elected to be the friend of the police department (nor the fire department, street department, or tax department).  She was elected to provide oversight and civilian guidance of important civic functions.  While it is not out of line to question her management style, to call for an abdication of her management responsibilities is beyond the pale.

One need not look far to determine the outcome, when police officials are permitted to let their will run riot.  An unsupervised rouge Police Chief in East Washington was in the pocket of drug dealers and gun runners.  In Pittsburgh, the cozy relationship between the Mayor and Police Chief resulted in a grand jury and the uncovering of large scale financial fraud.  The Mayor’s political career is over and the Police Chief is on his way to prison.

Mayor Davis is new to her position.  The bureaucracy of entrenched city departments is difficult to understand and manage.  It is more difficult to change.  In my opinion, it is well past time to scramble some eggs. The more micro management by Mayor Davis of City Departments, the better.

 

TWO QUESTIONS

 

A safer America versus an open America; regulation versus civil liberties; federal spending versus a hope and a prayer.  These issues are now at the forefront, with the recent events in Boston and West Texas, along with the ongoing debate over cutting federal spending to address the debt crisis.  When two young radicals are able to maim, kill and shut down a major city at a loss of millions in commercial activity, two questions must be asked.  When a non descript fertilizer company can ignore regulations on storing dangerous chemicals (ammonium nitrate) and a small town is decimated, the same two questions come to mind.

The first question is as old as democratic political theory and our constitution.  How much personal freedom are we willing to give up in order to avoid an act of intentional (Boston) or reckless (West Texas) harm?  How many cameras on poles; searches of our communication records; unannounced raids on fertilizer factories or suspension of constitutional legal guarantees are too many?  Where do we draw the line between security and regulation on the one hand and the open society that sets us apart from the rest of the world, on the other?

The second question is one of limited resources and the national debt.  Whether a tragedy is averted or not, enhanced security and enforcing regulations cost money, lots of money.  In this time of austerity, favoring these goals will force fiscal reductions in other worthwhile causes.  For example, many communities might prefer spending federal and state dollars on increased economic incentives to lure a large sporting event or chemical factory into their own backyard over providing security at major events or regulatory enforcement of dangerous chemicals.

Then there are the effects of the across the board deficit reduction.  The automatic sequester in January has forced layoffs and cutbacks in the very federal programs and agencies designed to prevent the events in Boston and West Texas.  We also know that state and local enforcement capabilities have been drastically reduced in recent years, due to mandatory cutbacks.

Sometimes events sharpen the landscape and force us to view what was previously in the fog and unpleasant to look at.  Each of us must determine our own tolerance for giving up some of the freedom that American democracy has come to represent and where providing funding for this goal fits among our other priorities. In other words, we must ask ourselves the two questions: (1) how much “big brother” national security effort to seek out and prevent intentional acts and how much regulatory enforcement to seek out and prevent reckless acts,  are appropriate for the common good and (2) how will we pay for it.

 

A COLLECTION OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & POLITICAL IRONIES

 

 

Ø  It seems like the only couples who want desperately to get married are gays and lesbians. Most heterosexuals are living together outside of marriage or go through life as single parents.

Ø  The identical congressional representatives, who drove the country into two wars, costing one trillion today and over 3 trillion when all is said and done, are now fiscal conservatives who want to balance the budget on the backs of the unemployed and underprivileged.

Ø  The neo cons in the Republican Party water boarded terrorists, the liberal progressives in the Democratic Party kill them with robotic planes.

Ø  The chief cause of financial failure and retirement unhappiness is trading what you will need most for what you want right now. Nearly 75% of retirees have not saved enough and said they would save more if they could do it all over again.

Ø  While Washington County is becoming a prosperous bedroom community, the “Montgomery County of the West”, the City of Washington is becoming a place that time and gas drilling forgot.

Ø  In Cypress when the government proposed to tax the bank accounts of wealthy Russians everyone cried theft.  In the United States when we tax the bank accounts of the elderly and unsophisticated saver by keeping interest rates at zero, we cheer the rising stock market.

 

Ø  Corporations who keep earned income off shore to avoid taxes are called prudent capitalists.  Individuals who do the same are labeled unpatriotic tax evaders.

Ø  City governance in Pittsburgh and Washington is significantly more entertaining than County governance, which is one of the many reasons this form of government should be abolished and the two city governments absorbed by their respective counties.

Ø   Nearly all economists, of all political persuasions, agree that immigrants — those here legally or not — benefit the overall economy.  There is a consensus that, on average, the incomes of families in this country are increased by a small, but clearly positive amount, because of immigration. (NYT-February 12, 2013)

Ø  The Financial Times recently wrote: "In 2008, the three most admired personalities in sport were probably Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, and Oscar Pistorius." Given the volume of recent insider trading charges, something similar could occur among the investing "greats."

 

 

 

IT IS TIME FOR REASSESSMENT

 

I could not disagree more with the position of the Washington County Commissioners on reassessment.  Their recent collective comments sounded like our “Generals” had lost the valiant battle of Stalingrad and were about to be thrown into the Volga (if not the County Jail) unless they capitulated and permitted reassessment to move forward.  In fact, Washington County is in the sweet spot when it comes to reassessment.  The Commissioners should seize the moment and move forward with confidence and vigor, not anger and defeatism.

No one disputes that base year assessments are patently unfair and discriminate against owners of properties in lower-value neighborhoods.  Correcting this inequality is certainly sound governance and in the public good.  This leaves only three arguments against reassessment: cost, comfort and convenience.  I would argue that waiting for the Commonwealth to come up with standardized procedures, pursuant to Senate Bill 66, will be an unnecessary delay and more costly in the long run.  As for comfort and convenience, these excuses have never stood up in the face of discrimination and/or inequality.

The problem is not that there are no standards for reassessment.  In fact, there are many standards that have been used successfully in many different jurisdictions, inside and outside of Pennsylvania. Washington County is not Allegheny County. We are in the enviable position to learn from its reassessment experience and to not repeat its mistakes.  Following the guidance from the many other successful reassessment efforts, we will be able to tailor a program to our specific needs, demographics and tax base.  We can also address how to value properties with gas rights, both in and out of production, an issue unique to Marcellus shale counties.

When Washington County moves forward with reassessment, its request for a proposal will create a most valuable contract opportunity for vendors.  Getting our assessment program right will be of upmost importance because unlike Allegheny County, there are dozens of counties of similar size and situation as Washington.  Contractors will bid low and offer premiums in order to gain a foothold in Pennsylvania.  They will agree to performance criteria and to penalties for above average assessment appeals.  We will become a de facto pilot County, with all the perks and pampering that accompanies this status.

Given the size, cost and importance of the reassessment project, the Commissioners should retain the best consultant available to fashion a proposal and to review the bids for an optimal result.  In several years Washington County will be praised for its forward thinking and grateful that it moved ahead without delay.

A few thoughts on Senate Bill 66, which has now passed both houses of the state legislature and is headed to the Governor for signature.  The legislation is being hailed as “property reassessment reform”, when upon careful reading it appears to be a blatant case of further “property assessment delay.”  Creating an underfunded State Tax Equalization Board with the tasks of developing operations manuals, databases and training programs will not stop the Courts from enforcing the law or aid Washington County in any meaningful way from performing the task at hand.

 

AN AVIAN CONSPIRACY

 

As winter gives way to spring, I continue to wonder, what is the connection, psychological or otherwise, between humans and the compulsive need to feed the birds?  Almost every retired individual I know and many others develop a strong affection for these hardy creatures that will appear in our backyards when some seed is offered.  From several blocks away, our properties on South Wade in East Washington sound like an aviary, if we have all filled our feeders.  Favorite bird photos show up in this newspaper with great frequency.

This phenomenon appears to cross all political and economic boundaries and somehow fills an important niche in our lives.  We spend more than $3 billion a year on food for birds, and $800 million a year on bird feeders and other accessories.

 Many of us are not avid bird watchers and would never consider getting up at the crack of dawn to find them in the field.  We prefer viewing from porch windows with a cup of coffee and the morning paper.  Like serious birders, seeing a rare species in a place that it is not normally seen is grounds for celebration, but only if the event happens on our terms of comfort and space.  We have not been able to control our children or our retirement accounts, so why not the daily visit of nuthatch and finch.

I sometimes fear we may alter migratory habits by offering the avian community an easier domestic alternative when the leaves start to fall.  Such was the fate of Canadian geese that no longer fly south because of viable food sources around golf courses and manmade lakes. Moreover, ornithologists believe that bird feeding interferes with ecological processes, causes malnutrition, facilitates the spread of disease and increases the risk of death from cats, pesticides, hitting windows and other causes.  Of course, none of this impacts our desire to provide a feeding frenzy and enjoy the spectacle.

Some of us welcome squirrels and deer to the show, but most try to exclude all mammals as interlopers.  It is birds we want and all types of contraptions will be employed to exclude the others.  Raptors are acceptable, even though our feeders have provided the stage for the killing grounds.  After all, nature is nature and the swoop of a red tail hawk is fine entertainment.

Earlier this winter, I spent some time trying to film a blue jay and red cardinal fighting over the same peanut, thinking it would make a great political statement for the election.  Unfortunately, my avian friends were showing more compromise skills than Congress and it was not to be.

 One wonders, who is really in control of this feeding enterprise.  Research has shown that thousands of years ago, dogs and cattle were pulling the evolutionary strings as they charmed humans into providing a free ride, through domestication.  Maybe the birds are on to something and we are the ones being coaxed into buying the most expensive sunflower seeds to dispense on even the most blustery of winter days.  Heated bird huts anyone?

 

TAKE A STAND ON THE BUDGET DEFICIT

 

 

It looks like the sequester is our formal introduction to an extended period of austerity.  Unfortunately, this is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to dealing with the overall budget deficit. 

There is an intractable battle being played out in Washington, over how to move the economy forward. Does the average American have any idea what the dispute is about?  One gets the feeling that supporting the political “team”, democrat or republican, is easier for the man on the street than sitting down and working through the issues.  Unfortunately, this is not a sporting event where we can be idle couch potatoes. There is a scarcity of road to kick the can down before disaster strikes.  What looms at the end is a fiscal cliff that can leave economic scars for generations to come.  We need to understand the dilemma, get involved in the debate and take ownership for the solutions.

It is not enough for an independent voter to say: “I do not support one political party over the other, just do something!”  This is like inviting the surgeon to cut off an arm or a leg with a blindfoldand dull scalpel.  Better for Independents to closely study their individual x-rays and
get the cuts in the right place and in the right amount.

No one likes to complete their tax return, review the family budget, or study their retirement statements.  In this respect most of us are like Washington, waiting until the last minute to confront financial matters, when sometimes it is too late to salvage an acceptable result.  With the present federal budget impasse, we all have the opportunity to take on the deficit, right alongside our disgruntled congressional representatives.  It is time for each of us to study the options with vigor and to take a position on a problem that will profoundly affect our economic future.

Upon first reflection it will become apparent that not raising taxes, keeping all of our benefits and cutting no services is not an option.  If this position is what you were voting for in November, you were fooled by the negative campaign adds telling you only what abominations the other candidate had in store for the Country.  In fact, both political parties had bad news they were keeping under wraps until January.  Republicans knew that taxes would need to increase and Democrats were aware that uncomfortable cuts were necessary.  All around, the campaign incense was covering up the odor of a rotting mountain of debt.

What we need to do now is make some decisions and let our opinions be known.  A good place to start is to make a list of benefits each of us receive or expect to receive later in life.  This would include Social Security, Medicare, SSI and the like.  Remember that these items make up most of the budget deficit and must be addressed without delay. The question becomes, how much are we willing to pay (or have our children pay) to keep a certain level of benefit.

 Next make a list of public services that you believe must be maintained or expanded and those that can be curtailed or eliminated.  These discretionary expenses include supporting the post office, reliable bridges and roads, funding for education, day-care and preschool programs, mental health facilities, school loans, efficient airports, efficient court systems, an efficient power grid, disaster relief, national public television and radio, legal services for the indigent, museums and libraries.  Each individual’s list will provide a different set of priorities. 

Lastly, make a list, from personal experience, of where federal dollars could be saved through more efficient government.  Once each of us completes this exercise, we are competent to enter the debate on deficit reduction.  A few of us will weigh the options and conclude there should be no tax increases despite drastic cuts in benefits and services.  A few more will insist on cradle to grave benefits with exorbitant taxes.  Most of us will be willing to pay moderately higher taxes with moderate cuts to social entitlements and discretionary spending. 

Take a position and write to your representatives in Congress.  Invite your friends and family to do the same.  Do not expect your political “team” to make the correct decision.  After all, your political party’s priorities are unlikely to mesh with yours and while the House and Senate benefits are mandated by Congress, yours are not.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

 

We all know that the idiom “be careful what you wish for” is used as a type of warning to people who are wishing for one thing, but might not realize all the negative consequences that could accompany obtaining that wish.  Sometimes it is instructive to look around and think about the ramifications of change on our lives and in the world at large.

For example, Washington and Greene counties are undergoing an economic revival of revolutionary proportions.  Unemployment is low, housing sales are improving and our backyards are literally the foundation of a new national industry.  My birthplace in Hunterdon County New Jersey went through a similar transformation in the 1970’s. A rural county of dairy farms with a homogeneous population of mostly white middle class residents exploded overnight with the completion of interstate 78 into New York City.  Within a few years Exxon, AT&T and Merck set up their headquarters in the cornfields and my favorite hunting spots sprouted wealthy subdivisions.  Now, I could not afford to go home and live in my hometown.

In Washington and Greene counties, along with growth and a larger tax base, we will begin to see more crime, more congestion and if the detractors of fracking are correct, more pollution.  The country hamlets and wide open spaces will never be the same.  Some of us will be questioning what we wished for.

Another “Be Careful” issue is taking shape in our Country at large that will have widespread implications.  Those among us wishing for immediate and significant debt reduction may not win the day immediately, but as the economy recovers there is no question that public retirement plans and the Social Security and Medicare Programs will undergo reduction. Because it is impossible to reduce present entitlements already in pay status, a line will be drawn in the sand.  We will in effect have two classes of retirees, those before and those after debt reduction.  The unlucky “afters” will be expected to work longer for less monetary and medical benefits.  I actually pity the unlucky republican congressman who must explain to his forty year old constituents why he was so eager to let this genie out of the bottle and get his wish answered.  Moreover, those of us with disabled family members or other economic challenges will be fighting to stuff the genie back in the bottle.

            On the international front the “Be Careful” issue is democracy in developing countries.  While the uprisings of the last two years have represented a significant affront to authoritarian rule in the Arab world, it has also reminded us how messy democracy is.  Being more democratic is not equating with being pro American.  It is somewhat ironic that those who insist the United States is a Christian democracy are horrified that an Arab country would want to become an Islamic democracy.  The Asian model for democracy, first economic and later political, looks nothing like our own experience.  In Latin America, the Spanish influence on democracy has continued to produce banana republics as opposed to stable institutions.

            I am not suggesting that any one of the three examples above is a bad result to wish for.  Perhaps the answer lies in moderation.  Like Midas turning everything he touched to gold, too much local development, debt reduction or international democracy may not be a wise result for any of us, at least in the short run.  Strong local governments which anticipate rather than react to change will help with the first issue. Thoughtful, measured plans to lower the deficit rather than sharp cuts will help with the second.  America offering moral support but otherwise staying out of the way as emerging democracies find their way will help with the third.