November 4, 2010
On the Matter of Too Much "Fighting"
A couple of posts ago, Justin cited the statement yesterday by Linc Chafee that
One of our impediments has been too much fighting
to which Justin responds
"Too much fighting" means too much opposition to the position that he and his political supporters — mostly leftists and unionists — wish to impose on the state.
Indeed, there seems to be some confusion as to exactly what constitutes "fighting". Is it possible that the Governor-Elect has interpreted "fighting" as a steadfast resistance to new taxes and an ever hungrier government?
There is no question that some of us get a little testy at fresh suggestions to take from us even more of our hard earned dollars. That causes us to do wild and crazy things like speak up in a variety of outlets, lobby our elected officials and support candidates who do not agree that the answer to our government's budgetary shortfall is yet another dive into the pocket of the hapless taxpayer.
Our sincere apologies if this came across as "fighting". If, however, this is a new definition of "fighting", we disagree that there has been too much of it. On the contrary, the size of our tax bills and our government, not to mention the return on our "investment" in certain areas, clearly indicates that what is needed, under this novel definition, is more "fighting" and not less of it.
I approve of "gridlock". To me it means that the idea is one that cannot secure "across the aisle" approval. Chances are good that it is a bad idea. I distinctly disapprove of votes being "bought" to break the deadlock.
At worst, nothing gets done. "That government which governs least, governs best".
Posted by: Warrington Faust at November 4, 2010 2:03 PMThere is a big difference between fighting and complaining.
Posted by: michael at November 4, 2010 2:22 PMSorry to throw this unrelated tidbit in here, but did anybody see how Block waited two hours for Caprio to let him in to get his picture taken with Bill Clinton over the weekend?
Again, I'll say it, you were a fool if you ever believed Block was anything but a liberal Democrat.
While I'm here I'll make a prediction - Chafee becomes a Democrat before the next election for Governor.
Reminds me of an LTE I submitted not too long ago:
The truth isn’t ‘uncivil’
01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, April 12, 2009
At Cranston Mayor Allan W. Fung’s inauguration, retiring Chief Justice Frank J. Williams said “There is no reason why there can’t be a civil discourse among our elected officials” (“Fung sworn in as mayor,” news, Jan. 6).
Well, that depends on how fairly “civil discourse” is measured. Some members of the media, it seems, have a penchant for labeling public officials who dare to confront special-interest groups on behalf of the greater citizenry as arrogant, belligerent or uncivil.
When former Cranston Mayor Stephen P. Laffey began to expose the sweetheart deals previous administrations had arranged with public sector unions, his honeymoon with the unions, some who supported his campaign for mayor in 2002, and the media, which once heralded him as a financial expert and reformer, abruptly ended. From that moment on, the same inaccurate and mean-spirited labels were affixed to him over and over again.
On March 26, 2003, Mayor Laffey held a town meeting, open to all residents of Cranston, where he gave an unprecedented accounting, to a packed house in Bain Middle School auditorium, of how, in many ways, the taxpayers’ money was being squandered:
• Zero health insurance co-pays for police, fire and teachers, compared with 50-percent co-insurance for small-business employees or 30-percent for employees of large companies.
• How the $15 million increase the School Department requested consisted almost entirely of salary and benefit increases and only $300,000 for textbooks (about two-thirds of a book per child!).
• How crossing guards were making over $87 per hour with full benefits, including life insurance, pension and unemployment insurance (for a one-hour-a-day job).
• How a fair, uniform, 20-percent health-insurance co-share (about $38 per week) would save approximately $4.5 million.
• How, only three months into his first term, his administration had saved nearly $2 million through cost-cutting measures.
For this, for letting the public know the dirty little secrets politicians and union leaders had kept from them for years, for finally opening up City Hall for all to have an honest look at where tax money was going, Mayor Laffey was accused of “grandstanding,” “arrogance” and having a huge ego.
My understanding of the meaning of ego is that it causes people to put themselves before others. Mayor Laffey ’s goal was to help the people of Cranston, which he clearly did.
Obviously the goal of those who turned against him was to protect the special arrangements to which they had become so accustomed. They despised Laffey for telling the truth and did everything they could to make him out to be the villain.
For discourse to be civil, the truth — however inconvenient for some — cannot be viewed as a weapon. In public service, truth must be viewed simply for what it is — the key to honest, far-reaching, universal solutions. Let’s hope, in the future, all parties look at it that way. Then, finally, we’ll have more leaders.
GEORGE
Cranston Smithfield
We all know how the story ends.
Calling Sammy... time for your gratuitous hateful anti-Laffey remark. We know where you stand on "civility".
Posted by: George at November 4, 2010 5:35 PMIn 8 weeks we will be seeing a very curious drama unfold on Smith Hill;
1. A $350 million deficit for FY 12-budget due by end of January-and ever increasing deficits to come.
2. Zero possibility of anymore bailout/stimulus with a 50 seat Republican majority in the House.
3. A GA loathe to raise (state) taxes.
4. A governor elected solely on a platform promising NOT to do the only things (massive union, welfare and local aid cuts) which can possibly solve the crisis.
We are about to experience what the eggheads call "cognitive dissonance".