Put ’em in jail

January 25, 2013

I often hear local citizens express their desire to have our local functionaries put in jail for their actions.

Unless you look closely at the things they are doing you might conclude that they are all illegal.  The horrible truth is that the cabal that has seized our local governments is being careful from a legality point of view.  They seem to decide what they want to do and then examine the rules and bend them to their favor — just to the point — but not quite — of being illegal.  Some of their actions may in fact prove to be illegal, if we can get to the truth.

Getting our local prosecutors to help us is not going to be easy.  Note the absence of the district attorney’s office in the well publicized public corruption issues in El Paso.  For that matter when has this district attorney prosecuted any public official?  The word around town is that he will not do it.  The county sheriff could investigate and then press charges, but he is known to be a close friend of our city manager.

There may be other law enforcement agencies that could help but our chances right now are slim.  I suspect that those acts that may be judged to be illegal will mostly be violations of Texas laws, not those of the United States.  All of that is conjecture until hard facts surface.

When we elect or appoint these people we expect them to do what is right.  Unfortunately we have local governing bodies that ignore that and do what their cabal has designed.

It looks like our more likely remedy is at the ballot box.  Yes, even those rights have been stolen from us.  The various efforts at recall and at initiative have been systematically foiled by one form of parliamentary chicanery or another.

Remember though that a city election is coming in May.  We will have an opportunity to elect four council members plus a mayor.  Get active.

I believe that one of the mistakes that has caused our current situation is that we changed the City Charter to elect council members for four years instead of two.  With four years of office council members evidently feel that the public will not be able to touch them while they do what they want.  We have seen efforts at recall squashed through technicalities.

We need to go back to two year terms.  Unfortunately that will require a change in the City Charter.  Even more unfortunately you and I cannot change the City Charter.  Proposals to change it must come from city council — the very rascals that would benefit from leaving the terms at four years.  Even members of the United States congress must stand for election every two years.  We cannot continue to put our representation on auto-pilot for four years.  Look what has happened!

As you decide who to support in the May elections you might want to condition your support on a pledge from the candidate that they will allow the term length issue to be put before the public in a charter election.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Cato

1 Comment | City government, County Government, El Paso Independent School District, Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

liberal

January 20, 2013

The term liberal has been hijacked in the United States.  In virtually every part of the world the term “liberal” refers to what is now called a “classic liberal” in the United States.  We have it backward now.

Classically it referred to a belief in limited government, political freedom, civil and economic freedom, and the rule of law. We refer to this today as the “right” in the political spectrum.

Today it seems to imply a vigorous government that acts to control the economy, redistribute wealth, and actively manage inequalities. Today this is the “left” politically.

So why the change from “right” to “left”? Liberal sounds giving, it is nice. Conservative sounds stingy, we think of that as bad.

None other than the republican Theodore Roosevelt started the shift when he branded his opponent William Howard Taft as being “too conservative” while he was “liberal” enough to lead the nation.

Stealing the term also provided confusion for the electorate. The value of that is obvious.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Cato

Leave a Comment » | City government, County Government, Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

When did it happen?

January 12, 2013

Much of what Brutus has been writing about is government activity that is just not right.

In most cases it may be legal though.

That does not make it right.

When did government following the spirit of the law become unimportant?  Why is it that so many of our elected officials and government workers do not care about doing the right thing?  Why are they seemingly only worried about whether their actions can be judged illegal?

There is some hope though.  Even though much of what they are doing around here appears to be legal, their actions may turn out to be illegal.  How so?  Well, conducting a purchase a certain way may be technically legal but lying about facts or falsifying documents may turn out to be illegal.  Ignoring procedural requirements can put them in violation of other laws.

Pulling the search facility from the city web site was wrong minded.  They should be ashamed.

It would be nice if they would embrace the spirit of their jobs.

Time will tell.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Leave a Comment » | City government, County Government, Federal Government, Open Government, Purchasing, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Cato

Why the smile?

January 2, 2013

The tension between those who want a smaller central (aka Federal) government and a larger one (sometimes known as the nanny state) has been going on since the runaway convention that drafted our Constitution.

Indeed, Alexander Hamilton wrote just a few days after the proposed Constitution was made public that he hoped that soon the States would be entirely dissolved and replaced with “districts” organized under the new system of government.

I am not a trained economist and thus am only qualified to offer my opinion as to which (large or small) is preferable.  For that matter I have a difficult time remembering when the trained economists turned out to be right either.

Which system you prefer is not the topic of this article.

We are either going to go over the “Fiscal Cliff” on the first day of the year or we are going to slide a long way down it.  Enough time does not remain for congress to solve its problems comprehensively.  We might instead see some provisions of the law that are scheduled to go into effect January 1 changed at the last minute.

This article is not about the cliff either.

When talking with friends and acquaintances that prefer the larger government approach I am frequently puzzled by the smile (sometimes even a sneer) that comes over their faces when they relish increasing the taxes on higher earners.  Some will even seriously discuss the need to reduce spending.  Some of us from both sides agree on that.

The joy they seem to get out of raising the tax rates on some other people just does not make sense to me.  It is not that they want to change the rates — it is that they seem to take joy in doing so.   I find it difficult to determine what their thinking is.

It makes me think of Ayn Rand’s predicted Fair Share Law in “Atlas Shrugged”.

I personally believe that a “progressive” tax system can make sense, but not if the lowest rate is zero or even negative.  Everyone should pay some portion of our spending burden.  Any system that creates two groups of citizens, those who do not pay and those who pay, is destructive of our republican form of government.  As long as one group can vote to enjoy the benefits of government while making someone else pay for it we are headed for serious trouble.

So my question is “why are they smiling?”.  What is the cause of that particular emotion?

We deserve better.

2 Comments | City government, County Government, Federal Government, State Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus

Change the retirement age

December 27, 2012

The Social Security Act was passed in 1935.

The first benefits were paid out in 1937 to people aged 65 and older.

In order to be 65 years old in 1937 you had to have been born around 1872.

Now let’s look at how long you might have lived if you were born in 1872.  Looking at only people who made it to the age of 20 (infant mortality was much higher back then) by 1892, those people lived an average of 40 more years.  That meant that most people died at 60 years old — before the age of 65 and thus never drew from Social Security.

A person who just turned 20 today cannot draw full retirement until the age of 67.  That 20 year old will live an average of 60  more years (according to the Social Security web site), thus potentially drawing Social Security up to the age of 80, or on average drawing on the system for 13 years.

Remember when Social Security was first enacted most people died five years before they were eligible for payments.  Now the average person will draw payments for 13 years.

To me if we are going to have Social Security we should change the retirement age for younger people to reflect their longer life expectancy.

We deserve better

2 Comments | Federal Government | Permalink
Posted by jcurrey

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »