« August 2005 | Main | November 2005 »

October 24, 2005

Washington Post Endorses Tim Kaine

The Washington Post has proclaimed its solid endorsement of Tim Kaine through a very sober article that analyzes many aspect of both the candidates and the race itself.

...the choice is easy. Mr. Kaine has the potential to be a remarkable governor -- a responsible, forward-thinking, unifying, principled politician with brains, guts and know-how.

While the focus of the article is the Kaine endorsement, they did briefly touch on two other races of importance this fall and their choices were a clean sweep for the Democrats. The Post announced its support of Leslie Byrne for Lt. Governor and Creigh Deeds for Attorney General.

Byrne:

We are swayed less by their ideological leanings than their stands on fiscal matters. There Ms. Byrne has the edge, having backed the Warner tax package last year.

Deeds:

We think he would be the more pragmatic choice, and a better attorney general.

The full article can be found here.

Posted by amahler at 09:24 AM | Comments (0)

October 07, 2005

What Ann Landers Would Say

By Barnie K. Day

One lame-brained idea-no doubt, there will be many-sure to see the light of day
during the coming session of the Virginia General Assembly will be a move to put to
referendum proposals that would increase state taxes and/or state spending-on anything.

"Let the people decide!" proponents will shout with huffed up indignation.

The people of Virginia should reject this duck, this con job, like the bob and weave that it
surely is.

Patrick McSweeney, a former chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, supports this
idea. He said, writing in the Daily Press, of Newport News, last week: "Voters should
reject politicians who promise to enact new 'spending commitments' as if economic
growth will continue unabated."

Patrick, my friend, Ann Landers would tell you to "wake up and smell the coffee."
You've got it exactly backwards.

Do you not see that government spending, that government investment in the
development of human capital, that investment in societal infrastructure--in education,
transportation, health care, research, law enforcement, the environment, and on and on
and on-is the very thing that spurs unabated economic growth in the private sector?

You don't seriously think these record corporate profits that are driving the so-called
"surplus" derive of their own unassisted effort and genius, do you?

Name one company that you think would enhance its profitability if it had to build its
own roads over which to ships its goods, educate its own workforce, discover, develop
and manufacture the medicines necessary to keep its workforce healthy, and provide its
own law enforcement and system of justice—courts, penal institutions, and so on.

You can't do it. That company does not exist in America.

No, Patrick.

Voters should reject politicians who do not understand the linkage between government
spending--good, measured, considered, opportunistic spending-and prosperity in the
private sector. This linkage is real. It is causal. And it is profound.

It works like this: We as individuals, and collectively as companies, benefit enormously
from the duties and chores our government performs in our name. We benefit
individually and collectively when the government undertakes to build roads and fund
universities. We benefit individually and collectively when the government funds
research that cures polio. We benefit individually and collectively when the government
serves as the referee and arbiter in our private disputes.

Of course these things cost money. You think it costs too much? Try doing it on your
own. There are still people in the world-scattered pockets of them-- trying to do just
that. Generally, they're characterized as "tribes."

Patrick, you say: "Although funding goals are acceptable, the legislature should abandon
the very idea of "spending commitments."

You can't be serious. Abandon our historic spending commitments to our children? To
our schools? To our universities? To our teachers? To transportation? To our law
enforcement officers?

I think not.

On the contrary, I believe very strongly that we should reaffirm these commitments. That
we should do more. And, yes, that we should spend more.

I say this, Patrick, with a firm belief that these spending commitments come back to us
with compounded interest. These commitments, this foresight, comes back to us in the
form of better citizens, in a better educated workforce, in safer, better communities in
which we can live, work and raise our families and otherwise engage in pursuit of that
sense of being called 'happiness.'

Patrick, all of this is not to say that I don't appreciate your frustration with Richmond. I
do. I not only appreciate it, but I understand it. I do not believe for one second though
that the smart thing to do is to straight jacket and handcuff those we elect to represent us
with supercilious constitutional amendments.

The thing is this: government is, by design, inefficient-and will always be -especially
democratic government. Some politicians will glibly promise, in a swaggering tone, to
run state government 'like a business' when they get to Richmond. They should be
avoided like they have something contagious. They do: stupidity. The last thing we
need is a government that "runs like a business."

Businesses can--and the good ones must--subject their products to severe quality control
standards. Businesses can, and the good ones must, discontinue obsolete and otherwise
undesirable product lines. Businesses are governed by a "survival of the fittest" law of
the marketplace.

But government must never be allowed to operate thusly. Our goods are us. Our goods
are people. We don't cull them. We don't 'seconds' them. We don't discontinue them.
Our efforts must be to ensure survival-not of the fittest-but of the weakest, the least
among us-and that is as it should be.

Posted by amahler at 12:11 AM | Comments (0)