There are a lot of times when I'm writing that I have to fit a certain word limit. Sometimes 500 words, sometimes 1000 words. There have been many times when I start work and quickly realize I am at 1,200 words, and realize I have to cut 20 or more out of the story. I usually can't accomplish this by just cutting 20 percent from each paragraph. I have to take out entire sections or ideas that, while important, were not essential to the overall piece.
Our state legislators should take a similar approach to Georgia's budget. Lets be realistic -- with a $2 billion budget gap, you are going to weaken every piece of state government if you just slice 10% out of operations equally. Unless we are willing to increase revenue (doubtful), legislators need to prioritize, and frankly, eliminate, some elements of state government, or we risk weakening every single element to the point where none of it is effective.
Here's my plan: the state should focus on three priorities: education, transportation, and environmental and public health. In other words, things local communities cannot accomplish on their own. If it doesn't fit in those buckets, cut it out or give the money for those functions to local governments or private partners and let them execute it.
What we are seeing now -- particularly in secondary and higher education -- is an evisceration, and it is sad. While I don't support "throwing money" at education, taking money away, especially from one of the nation's best higher education systems, is a tragic mistake.
On the transportation side, the lack of activity and leadership is tragic, although some of the more recent proposals offer hope. Both of these areas are critical areas to our state's future and require state leadership and investment.
Support for public and environmental health -- especially EPD and trauma care. Adding taxes to local health care systems is ridiculous.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I will say that I have friends and clients that operate in all three of these areas. I also have a lot of clients impacted by other areas of state government. But the bottom line is this: does anyone else want to offer up some solid solutions?
Showing posts with label legislature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislature. Show all posts
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Transportation Logjam Breaking Up?
I was able to attend yesterday's Eggs and Issues breakfast hosted by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and came away as confused about Georgia's efforts to fix transportation as ever. A quick summary:
Governor Perdue, in his classic COO style: "I will support transportation improvements if and when we can find a plan and a way to fund it."
Lt. Governor Cagle, playing it safe: "I support regional choice in transportation."
Speaker Richardson: "I am leaving it to Vance Smith and company to come up with a plan, but I don't like the regional approach."
Now as a local official, I like the local approach. But I think one reason local officials like the T-SPLOST or more locally driven options is because there is a vacuum right now -- nothing is getting done or funded at the state level, and there is no "plan."
But what I am hearing today is exciting -- that Rep. Smith has put his proposal on the table, and it includes myriad road, transit, cargo, and rail projects that would be funded by a 10-year, one percent statewide sales tax. Folks, the early list includes things like the Brain Train, light rail to the suburbs, the Atlanta Belt Line, and much more.
This is exciting news, and if the bill is well thought out, could be a game changer for Georgia, if GDOT can implement once the funds are raised. It is exciting to see Republican leadership in Georgia understanding that transportation is about more than rails. Fingers crossed....
Governor Perdue, in his classic COO style: "I will support transportation improvements if and when we can find a plan and a way to fund it."
Lt. Governor Cagle, playing it safe: "I support regional choice in transportation."
Speaker Richardson: "I am leaving it to Vance Smith and company to come up with a plan, but I don't like the regional approach."
Now as a local official, I like the local approach. But I think one reason local officials like the T-SPLOST or more locally driven options is because there is a vacuum right now -- nothing is getting done or funded at the state level, and there is no "plan."
But what I am hearing today is exciting -- that Rep. Smith has put his proposal on the table, and it includes myriad road, transit, cargo, and rail projects that would be funded by a 10-year, one percent statewide sales tax. Folks, the early list includes things like the Brain Train, light rail to the suburbs, the Atlanta Belt Line, and much more.
This is exciting news, and if the bill is well thought out, could be a game changer for Georgia, if GDOT can implement once the funds are raised. It is exciting to see Republican leadership in Georgia understanding that transportation is about more than rails. Fingers crossed....
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Political and Transportation News
Some local political and transportation news you shouldn't miss:
1) Paul Broun is claiming that he has saved the USDA's Phil Campbell Agricultural Research Center in Watkinsville. I really hope this is the case, as the center and the greenspace it provides is great for the community. I have not heard positive reports about this from anyone other than Rep. Broun.
2) Senator Bill Cowsert has been named one of Governor Perdue's floor leaders in the Senate. As I said in my earlier post, the level of promise and potential Cowsert has -- and the respect he gets from his colleagues -- make him the easy choice in the upcoming primary vote. While I don't always agree with the Governor and his laid back approach to governing, this is a significant assignment for Sen. Cowsert. Athens paper covers it here.
3) Well, nobody has officially notified the city of Watkinsville (despite our financial participation in the project), but the Oconee Enterprise is reporting that the Mars Hill widening project is moving forward. I have decidedly mixed emotions about this effort. Frankly, I have zero interest in seeing the whole corridor "opened up to commercial development" as the article says. Just what we need: another sprawling route full of strip malls, poorly planned commercial (see the recent Auto Zone and attendant shopping area at Butler's Crossroads for a good example of this) and the occasional subdivision entrance. While the road needs some improvements, the track record of GDOT road expansions ever being viable routes for cyclists and pedestrians (and for having any redeeming aesthetic value) is not good. We have been working hard to make sure the stretch in the Watkinsville city limits is designed and handled in a quality way that respects the existing business and institutions in the community while addressing traffic needs.
Bottom line, if there is one thing Oconee needs, it is stronger aesthetic planning guides governing the appearance of commercial and office buildings on commercial corridors. Extensive landscaping, buffers, brick buildings, hidden or buried power lines, generous sidewalks, street trees, landscaped (rather than concrete) medians should all be the norm for any road widenings. Lets hope "the new" Mars Hill includes these features.
1) Paul Broun is claiming that he has saved the USDA's Phil Campbell Agricultural Research Center in Watkinsville. I really hope this is the case, as the center and the greenspace it provides is great for the community. I have not heard positive reports about this from anyone other than Rep. Broun.
2) Senator Bill Cowsert has been named one of Governor Perdue's floor leaders in the Senate. As I said in my earlier post, the level of promise and potential Cowsert has -- and the respect he gets from his colleagues -- make him the easy choice in the upcoming primary vote. While I don't always agree with the Governor and his laid back approach to governing, this is a significant assignment for Sen. Cowsert. Athens paper covers it here.
3) Well, nobody has officially notified the city of Watkinsville (despite our financial participation in the project), but the Oconee Enterprise is reporting that the Mars Hill widening project is moving forward. I have decidedly mixed emotions about this effort. Frankly, I have zero interest in seeing the whole corridor "opened up to commercial development" as the article says. Just what we need: another sprawling route full of strip malls, poorly planned commercial (see the recent Auto Zone and attendant shopping area at Butler's Crossroads for a good example of this) and the occasional subdivision entrance. While the road needs some improvements, the track record of GDOT road expansions ever being viable routes for cyclists and pedestrians (and for having any redeeming aesthetic value) is not good. We have been working hard to make sure the stretch in the Watkinsville city limits is designed and handled in a quality way that respects the existing business and institutions in the community while addressing traffic needs.
Bottom line, if there is one thing Oconee needs, it is stronger aesthetic planning guides governing the appearance of commercial and office buildings on commercial corridors. Extensive landscaping, buffers, brick buildings, hidden or buried power lines, generous sidewalks, street trees, landscaped (rather than concrete) medians should all be the norm for any road widenings. Lets hope "the new" Mars Hill includes these features.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Mortgage Bailout Plans Bad News
If you read the Oconee County legal organ, the Oconee Enterprise, you'll notice that the numbers of foreclosures have grown significantly this year. Many of these are established homes occupied by individuals who have been unable to pay their bills. Undoubtedly, these are sad situations for the owners and occupants of these homes. Other listings are for undeveloped lots or unsold homes in some of Oconee's new neighborhoods, most notably Coldwater Creek, which seems to have a few listed each week. Despite these notices, it is obvious that the vast majority of people in Oconee and elsewhere have honored their commitments to their banks, and despite the tough times, are still paying their mortgages.
Over the past few weeks and months I have discussed the mortgage situation with various reporters and others, and posted on it on May 21. I have deep concerns about Congress' apparent willingness to wade into the non-fraudulent aspects of the national mortgage situation -- which in many areas is much worse than that in Oconee -- and rescue borrowers who took on a larger mortgage than they could handle as well as the banks who loaned them the money.
Today, details began to emerge in the Washington Post and elsewhere that set off the alarm bells again. If you buy a house you can't afford, why in the world should you get a guaranteed bailout from the government? What does this tell future consumers? Why shouldn't everyone be able to get a government backed, low cost loan? And why in the world should a bank that loaned someone the money -- when it shouldn't have -- be able to avoid the full consequences of that action?
Clark Howard calls this action privatized risk and socialized return -- and I couldn't agree more. He summarizes his point neatly:
"This plan is being sold as a "bailout for homeowners," but it's the lenders who really benefit.
... BoA is using its influence in Washington to get a deal for itself and other lenders from the government -- with taxpayers being put at risk to fund it.
The question remains: Will this move actually help the homeowners who are delinquent? We'll have to wait and see. There's no telling if this is a workable solution for those who got into loans they could never afford.
Most of us who pay our mortgages every month aren't happy about a taxpayer-supported bailout. But there are complicating factors. For example, every foreclosed house in a neighborhood lowers the value of surrounding homes by 1%."
A Wall Street Journal article goes into more detail on the specifics of the bill, and offers some further insights on the situation, including the idea that bailed out borrowers somehow will share profits with the federal government and that $4 billion of community development block grants are involved, which are always a red flag for me as they are often a gift to inefficient urban governments.
Let me say this: anyone who was duped by an unscrupulous lender needs to have a recourse through the government or the legal system. But the healthiest thing for our economy long term is for the borrowers who bit off more than they could chew and the bankers who enabled them to bear the painful consequences of capitalism. And if mortgage lenders were corrupt or misleading to consumers, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and those borrowers should be granted relief.
I admit that I am not a banker. If anyone can make a case for this bill and why it is getting near unanimous support on the hill (other than pure political expediency), please comment below. I'd also love to hear about how else this situation is impacting the local economy from your perspective. To me, it seems as if it's another step towards the erosion of personal responsibility and limited government involvement in business that our country was founded on.
Over the past few weeks and months I have discussed the mortgage situation with various reporters and others, and posted on it on May 21. I have deep concerns about Congress' apparent willingness to wade into the non-fraudulent aspects of the national mortgage situation -- which in many areas is much worse than that in Oconee -- and rescue borrowers who took on a larger mortgage than they could handle as well as the banks who loaned them the money.
Today, details began to emerge in the Washington Post and elsewhere that set off the alarm bells again. If you buy a house you can't afford, why in the world should you get a guaranteed bailout from the government? What does this tell future consumers? Why shouldn't everyone be able to get a government backed, low cost loan? And why in the world should a bank that loaned someone the money -- when it shouldn't have -- be able to avoid the full consequences of that action?
Clark Howard calls this action privatized risk and socialized return -- and I couldn't agree more. He summarizes his point neatly:
"This plan is being sold as a "bailout for homeowners," but it's the lenders who really benefit.
... BoA is using its influence in Washington to get a deal for itself and other lenders from the government -- with taxpayers being put at risk to fund it.
The question remains: Will this move actually help the homeowners who are delinquent? We'll have to wait and see. There's no telling if this is a workable solution for those who got into loans they could never afford.
Most of us who pay our mortgages every month aren't happy about a taxpayer-supported bailout. But there are complicating factors. For example, every foreclosed house in a neighborhood lowers the value of surrounding homes by 1%."
A Wall Street Journal article goes into more detail on the specifics of the bill, and offers some further insights on the situation, including the idea that bailed out borrowers somehow will share profits with the federal government and that $4 billion of community development block grants are involved, which are always a red flag for me as they are often a gift to inefficient urban governments.
Let me say this: anyone who was duped by an unscrupulous lender needs to have a recourse through the government or the legal system. But the healthiest thing for our economy long term is for the borrowers who bit off more than they could chew and the bankers who enabled them to bear the painful consequences of capitalism. And if mortgage lenders were corrupt or misleading to consumers, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and those borrowers should be granted relief.
I admit that I am not a banker. If anyone can make a case for this bill and why it is getting near unanimous support on the hill (other than pure political expediency), please comment below. I'd also love to hear about how else this situation is impacting the local economy from your perspective. To me, it seems as if it's another step towards the erosion of personal responsibility and limited government involvement in business that our country was founded on.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Qualifying Begins and Election News
Local qualifying has begun, and the Oconee Enterprise has the most comprehensive list of local qualifiers I have seen at its new website, and Adam Thompson at the Athens Banner-Herald has an overview of the qualifiers and an interview with chair candidate Sarah Bell here. Some interesting names out there and still some open slots, apparently (don't expect those will remain much longer).
The big news locally has been the number of yard signs popping up for Tommy Malcom, who grew up down the road from me in Northwest Woods. Tommy's surprise decision to challenge incumbent Republican Bill Cowsert in the July primary turned some heads.
Tommy Malcom is a fine man and someone I have known a long time. I applaud him for his service on the school board. We need more young people seeking elected positions, and Tommy is one of the youngest I can remember to get engaged politically (he was elected to the school board at age 22 or 23). I have no doubt Tommy will have future opportunities to serve, and applaud him for his willingness to go after a higher position.
But Bill's legal expertise and the high regard held for him by his colleagues make it clear he will be a leader in the Senate sooner rather than later -- if we keep him in Atlanta. Last night I attended Bill's campaign kick off at the Oconee County Civic Center (good recap here from Blake Aued). In attendance were Senate Majority Leader Tommy Williams, Lt. Governor Casey Cagle, Secretary of State Karen Handel and Senate Majority Caucus Chair Dan Moody. As you'd expect, these folks spoke glowingly of Bill.
By almost all accounts, Bill has served the area ably, taking leadership positions on the state water plan and a number of other fronts. He has not been afraid to vote against bills favored by his party when he sees a problem with them. He also has a seat on the appropriations committee, which is very beneficial for our area.
Our region needs to take care of state and federal legislative leaders with strong potential and give them the time it takes to earn leadership positions. It is also healthy to have an attorney in Atlanta who understands the Georgia Code and the unintended consequences of laws that are proposed. The best thing for this area is to send Bill back to Atlanta for another four years. What do you think?
The big news locally has been the number of yard signs popping up for Tommy Malcom, who grew up down the road from me in Northwest Woods. Tommy's surprise decision to challenge incumbent Republican Bill Cowsert in the July primary turned some heads.
Tommy Malcom is a fine man and someone I have known a long time. I applaud him for his service on the school board. We need more young people seeking elected positions, and Tommy is one of the youngest I can remember to get engaged politically (he was elected to the school board at age 22 or 23). I have no doubt Tommy will have future opportunities to serve, and applaud him for his willingness to go after a higher position.
But Bill's legal expertise and the high regard held for him by his colleagues make it clear he will be a leader in the Senate sooner rather than later -- if we keep him in Atlanta. Last night I attended Bill's campaign kick off at the Oconee County Civic Center (good recap here from Blake Aued). In attendance were Senate Majority Leader Tommy Williams, Lt. Governor Casey Cagle, Secretary of State Karen Handel and Senate Majority Caucus Chair Dan Moody. As you'd expect, these folks spoke glowingly of Bill.
By almost all accounts, Bill has served the area ably, taking leadership positions on the state water plan and a number of other fronts. He has not been afraid to vote against bills favored by his party when he sees a problem with them. He also has a seat on the appropriations committee, which is very beneficial for our area.
Our region needs to take care of state and federal legislative leaders with strong potential and give them the time it takes to earn leadership positions. It is also healthy to have an attorney in Atlanta who understands the Georgia Code and the unintended consequences of laws that are proposed. The best thing for this area is to send Bill back to Atlanta for another four years. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
