Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Nonfeasant Politicians

With the government shut down, it is apparent that partisan gridlock is not working. Neither side can seem to agree on how to resolve the impasse that creates greater challenges for Minnesota each day. Republicans are opposed to any taxes to resolve the budget crisis. Dayton refuses to give in as Margaret Anderson-Kelliher and other DFLers did during Pawlenty's last term. 


The Republicans want Governor Dayton to "call them back to work." However, he will likely dismiss any bills they give him that do not include a tax increase. And what work did Republican achieve while "working?" It is laughable to say the Republicans were focused on the budget "like a laser" as House speaker Amy Koch claimed. They passed Constitutional amendments requiring photo identification to vote and an anti-gay marriage bill. Neither of these will save Minnesota any money long-term and could have been brought up next year when the budget is less an issue. Minnesotans wisely chose to focus on biennial budgets so that the first term could focus on budget issues. Republicans, primarily elected on fiscal issues, chose to push a social agenda Minnesotan voters have little taste for. 


What Minnesotans want is for government to work for them and not against them. Voters have a civic duty  to elect representatives who will represent them and theoretically hold them accountable for their actions. Yet Minnesota has a growing body of elected officials choosing to ignore their duties. These representatives and senators choose not to vote at all.


Voter anger over the government shut down is only beginning to stir. Some are asking what are neighbors in Wisconsin have and are beginning to do: How do we recall these good for nothing politicians?


 Minnesota was the first state in the country to pass a Constitutional amendment allowing for the recall of elected state officials. It essentially states, "State officers can be recalled for “malfeasance,” “nonfeasance,” and “serious crime.” So breaking the laws are clearly problematic but so is the issue of nonfeasance. Nonfeasance is defined as, "...intentionally and repeatedly not performing required duties of the office." Since elected officials are intended to represent their constituents, when they choose not to vote, are they not in derelection of their duty? I would certainly consider this a form of nonfeasance. 


Are state politicians really not voting when, in fact, they should be? People can miss all sorts of things. Democrat defenders of Bobbi Jo Champion claimed he had "family business back home" and could not vote on the gay marriage Constitutional amendment. We could ignore the fact that his district in predominately African American, a community that appears to support homosexual oppression.It's an astute political move enabling him to keep the label of a "progressive" within his party, while simultaneously prevent a primary threat in his own district. Senator Obama also chose to not vote on most controversial bills while running for President, so there appears to be legitimacy and precedence for not voting. 


Which elected officials "forget" to vote?


As you can see from the graphs below, most politicians miss out on voting. Next time you forget to vote, remember that even our politicians do not consistently. The average house DFLer missed 6.4 votes in this year's session(8.7 in the senate). The average house Republican missed 2.8 votes (3 in the senate). The clear outliers are who I would like to point out. 


There were a total of 164 bills (111 in the senate) that were voted on during their third reading. In the Minnesota House, On the Republican side you have Steve Smith (Mound) who missed 25 votes, Rod Hamilton (Mountain Lake) 21 votes, and Bob Gunther (Fairmont) 19 votes. On the DFL side, Carolyn Laine missed 45 votes, Bobby Jo Champion (Minneapolis) missed 37 votes, Kerry Gauthier (Duluth) 21 votes, and Karen Clark (Minneapolis - 61A) 19 votes.  The Minnesotan Senate was much more proficient in completing their duties.However, Republican Senator Geoff Michel (Edina) missed 12 votes, and DFLer Senator Roger Reinert (Duluth) missed 40 votes. 


During the government shut down, Governor Mark Dayton and some state senators and representatives are foregoing pay. Would you believe ALL of those mentioned above, except Carolyn Laine, are collecting paychecks during the government shutdown? This should be appalling to the constituents in these districts where your elected officials are refusing to fully represent you.    


In a perfect world, these politicians would be docked pay for not doing their job. For all the talk from Republicans about government being run like a business, it never applies to politicians. They are not the ones out of work right now and collecting unemployment. They are not worried about paying bills this month or next when the rental rebates are being held back. Politicians seem to be the last to feel the pain of the people, living in an immaculate bubble of delusions. 


Another solution that would still allow districts to be represented in each vote, would be to have alternate representatives. The candidate who received the second most votes could easily do this. If a Democrat or Republican chose not to vote for their district, one of their opponents could step in. This would be a boon for constituents who lack a voice in the legislature, to include major and minor parties. (Let me interrupt with a shout out: I'd love to have fellow Greens Farheen Hakeem and Dan Craigie at the state capitol to voice what is being ignored by the corporate parties!) 


There are currently no actions to take against these officials apart from a recall. Twenty-five voters in a district could sign a petition stating their purpose for recalling, submit it to the secretary of state and get things started to recall their malfeasant elected official. If approved, there would need to be an organized petition effort to attain 25% of those who voted in the district's election. This is not an impossible goal if constituents are angry enough. If the government shut down lasts for too long, what was once unthinkable will manifest. 













Saturday, August 08, 2009

America's car-centric short-sightedness clunking along
























Now that the US taxpayer's own a good portion of GM, the thought is we should subsidize the purchasing of cars. The justification for this is that handing car owners $4500 to trade in vehicles for those with better mileage is that fewer oil will be consumed. The problem with this is that it perpetuates the belief that "all Americans must own cars." The very notion of not owning a car is still regarded as suspect, and peraps even un-American. Yet more Americans will need to abandon their cars for our nation to transform to a lower energy society.

Oil is at half what it was a year ago ( $71 a barrel ) , but we are also in the worst recession since the 30s. Once the economy begins to pick up again, the price of oil will skyrocket again. Anyone that is car dependent will be whining for even more car-centric subsidies like the cash-for-clunkers program, but for oil.

Yet, the much touted "cash-for-clunkers" program is a measly $7 subsidy per taxpayer. At $4500 per clunker, that comes to one beneficiary per 643 taxpayers. Right now this is very cheap and has received a lot of hype. Unless Congress decides to throw more money at this car-centric program, it will run out again within weeks. And if the majority of taxpayers want a bite at this program, it would take a significant portion of the Federal budget. And how can a car
-subsidizing program end our addiction to oil when none are electric?

Naturally, Republicans are starting to oppose this program. Governor Tim Pawlenty also opposes the clunkers program because it takes many used vehicles out of the market. He believes this will hurt the poor who could have used the cars currently being recycled. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas also opposes because it will further burden future generations with pointless debt. And interestingly, Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy voted against more clunker money because he did not see enough evidence the program was working.

One argument conservatives make against building more transit is that they could just spend the money buying cars for everyone. This argument is pointless for those who are too young/old to drive, cannot afford gas/repairs/insurance, and who care about our environment. Yet, altering their argument, one might say about the clunkers program: why not buy everyone bikes?

A "cash-for-rusters" program. Trade in any working vehicle or rusty bicycle for a shiny new bike. This would greatly reduce oil consumption and cost far less per beneficiary than the clunkers program. It would appease conservatives railing against wasteful spending because it is cheaper. Environmentally bikes clearly use less gasoline to produce than even the most energy efficient vehicle. America needs a pro-bicycle program, not more car-centric subsidies.

( Top image produced by Ken Avidor )

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

NEWSFLASH: Humans are the dominate species on Earth


The ignorance of humanity never ceases to amaze me. And when people awaken to what is truly happening, I am amazed they have done so! Global Warming seems to irritate so many people. The question has changed - it's not whether it is real - what are we going to do about it?

Nathaniel states:"All you global warming people need to just stop...take a look at the world and realize that humans are not the problem with the world."

1) The Great Wall of China is visible from space
2) It took 300M years for oil (and coal) to be created from previous life. It will take humanity 300 years to go through most the oil.
3) Acid rain is the effect pollution has on the environment - care to drink from a local spring as people have in the not to distant past? Our waters are not safe anywhere. So much coal has been used in India and Bangladesh that Banglis have little drinkable water ( most has been contaminated with mercury )
4) The photo is of the Earth at night. Tell me again these lights emanate from nature and not humanity?

I keep doing as you say, Nate. I look around and see nature doing amazing things, and humans doing wonderful things to improve our collective quality of life. Unfortunately, humans must find a way to stay within natures boundaries - because we are subject to them at some point. Nature affects us and we nature. Just ask a farmer if humans affect the Earth - because if we didn't he would have no job.

Nathaniel statment #2: " How can you record the C02 emissions over 400,000 years when we obviously did not have instrumentation to record that."

Ice core samples from the Antarctic are the primary source. We know the earth is more than 400,000 years old. Therefore we are smart enough to devise ways to meausure Co2 levels. If you do not believe mankind is that smart, then that is your opinion. Facts have this annoying habit of proving themselves true.

Again, I do not see any debate on Global Warming occurring without ridiculing and ignoring all scientific thought. The debate ended when China capitulated - America's oil industry gave up long ago. Ideological Conservatives are nearly where their own party is taking a stance - that we should just give up on dealing with Global Warming and give in. ( similiar to what they say about Democrats giving into terrorism )

If only humanity realized how serious Global Warming is compared to petty terrorism.