RSS
Menampilkan postingan yang diurutkan menurut relevansi untuk kueri state. Urutkan menurut tanggal Tampilkan semua postingan
Menampilkan postingan yang diurutkan menurut relevansi untuk kueri state. Urutkan menurut tanggal Tampilkan semua postingan

Recommendation on the GOP Candidate for Secretary of State

One of the hotly contested races this year at the Michigan Republican State Convention (held in Lansing on Saturday, August 28) will be the race for the Republican nominee for Secretary of State. In my opinion, there has been little objective analysis so far on the candidates, as I don't consider the liberals working at the major newspapers or the hired hands working for the candidates to be objective opinions, so I am going to once again jump into the void and provide some analysis of the candidates. To prove my objectivity, I will volunteer that when I began writing this blog post I still had not decided who I would recommend, although in doing research for it and looking over my notes from the many debates and functions that I have attended, I feel that I can offer some guidance on who delegates should vote for.

Voters will be able to vote for a Michigan Secretary of State election of 2010 on November 2, 2010.  Candidates for Secretary of State are nominated by political parties at their state conventions. The office of Secretary of State is an open seat because Michigan state term limit laws prevent current Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land from running for a third term, in spite of the fact that she has been doing an amazing job with that office and proved that someday she is going to be an important leader for our state.

Unlike in years past when the Secretary of State race really didn't matter that much, this year it does. The main reason for this is because of billionaire George Sorus and his attempt to corrupt our democracy by corrupting the very nature of elections in our county. As I wrote earlier in Soros Creates Project to Install Secretaries of State Across the Nation in Attempt to Control Vote Counting Forever:

George Soros has created a "527" group called the Secretary of State Project, which can accept unlimited undisclosed money, and will use that money to run attack ads and hit pieces on Republican and moderate Democrats in an attempt to install left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation. Once Soros has put in place left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state all across the nation, they will be the ones counting the votes, deciding who is a registered voter and who isn't, and supervising the election process.

Joseph Stalin once remarked, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." George Soros is setting it up so that across the nation, left-wing Democrats will decide everything for our nation.

SoS Project is also endorsing Jocelyn Benson, candidate for secretary of state in Michigan, whom it lauds as an "[e]lection law scholar and community organizer." Benson is a candidate ACORN would love.
Now that you understand why important it is to win the Secretary of State position this year, let's immediately narrow down our list of possible candidates. Of course I hope that no one in their right mind considers voting for Democrat Jocelyn Benson- she is a left-wing liberal professor and lawyer who wants to let illegal aliens and Democrats from out of state vote, doesn't really like the 'one-person, one-vote' rule, wants to put an electronic chip in your license card so that she can track you at all times, wants to have Democrats count the votes and certify the votes in any election, and thinks that ACORN should run the entire Secretary of State office.

Also we probably can eliminate Green Party nominee John Anthony La Pietra, who is an attorney and likely a watermelon, Libertarian Scotty Boman, who is a community college instructor and will only suck votes away from real conservative candidates, and Tea Party candidate Kyle Franklin, who likely lives in California and is a registered Democrat who got on the ballot through forged signatures (see my post Fake Tea Party Group Exposed as Democrat Plot!).

So, let's now take a look at the possible Republican candidates for Secretary of State. There is State Senator Cameron Brown, Calhoun County Clerk Anne Norlander, State Representative Paul Scott, Oakland County Clerk Ruth Johnson, and State Senator Michelle McManus.

According to recent polling data the race is still wide open, although for the record McManus and Brown are in the lead. The numbers are Michelle McManus (R) 9.4%, Cameron Brown (R) 7.6%. Paul Scott (R) 5.2%, Ruth Johnson (R) 4.4%, Anne Norlander (R) 2.2%, and Undecided 71.2% (source: Glengariff Group Inc.).

As far as campaign finances go, Brown raised $228,000 (including $160,000 he gave his campaign), Norlander raised $224,000 (including $174,000 she loaned her campaign), McManus raised $197,000, Johnson has raised $174,000 (including $51,000 she gave herself), and Scott has raised $103,000 (includes $36,000 he gave his campaign) (source: The Detroit News), so it appears that McManus and Johnson are the big fundraisers.

Cameron Brown has a Master's Degree in Public Administration, served as St. Joseph county commissioner from 1988-98 and Mchigan State Senator from 2003 to present, and also is the former vice president of marketing for Freeman Manufacturing Co. He is a rather bland and boring speaker, does not get the crowd fired up, doesn't strike me as particularly conservative, has no experience as an elections official, and I haven't seen him at too many Tea Party events. He would be a solid and steady SoS, but doesn't strike me as the best candidate for the job.

Michelle McManus has a BA from CMU, is the former director of Gov. John Engler's northern office., was a State Representative from 1997-2002, and a State Senator from 2003-present. She has been involved with the Tea Party movement from the very start and strikes me as being a good conservative option for SoS, but she has no experience as an election official and doesn't excite the crowd. She would also be a good SoS, and I can see why she leads in both polls and fundraising, but I still feel there is a better candidate out there.

Ruth Johnson has a Master's Degree, was on the Oakland County Board of Commissioners from 1989-1998, was a State Representatives from 1999-2002, and since 2003 has served as the Oakland County Clerk. She's an able and nice clerk, but I think she like Mike Bouchard in that she is a state-wide election loser- I am bothered by her inability to run away with her last several Clerk elections here in Oakland County, and she was the lieutenant governor running mate for Dick DeVos in 2006 when he was hammered by an unpopular and inept Granholm. Also, she seems to be approaching the SoS position more as a legislator and less as an administrator. She's a good clerk and her experience running elections and ballots is a good plus, and she is raising a lot of money, and everyone in Oakland County is a homer for her, but I think that there are several candidates for SoS who bring a little more to the table.

Anne Norlander has a BA in Education from MSU, is a former kindergarten teacher, served as Calhoun county commissioner from 1984-1988, and has served as Calhoun County clerk from 1989 to present. Out of all the candidates running for Secretary of State, she has the most experience, and every time that I've seen her talk or debate, that experience has showed- she knows what the SoS office does better than any candidates, she knows the rules and regulations better than the other candidates, she knows exactly what's going on in other states and what the controversies are around the nation with regards to voting and elections, and clearly would run the SoS's office with command and ability. In any other year, I think she would be the best choice of candidates, as I feel the Secretary of State's office should be as un-political as possible and run by the best possible executive administrator, which I feel Norlander is. But I'm bothered by her lack of fundraising, her lack of support at events that I've gone to, and her poor polling numbers. I'd like to recommend her, but this election I'm going a different direction.

Paul Scott has a MA in public policy (from Harvard, and I'm not sure if that is a plus or a minus) and a law degree (from UofM, and again I'm not sure if that is a plus or minus), worked as the former deputy director, Gallup Organization's World Poll Division, and now is in the Michigan House of Representatives from 2009 to present. He lacks experience as an administrator and executive in elections and voting and he at times demonstrated a lack of knowledge about what the Secretary of State's office could do. But experience and knowledge can come quickly. Scott hasn't been active in the Tea Party movement that I know of, but in debates and speeches he expressed solid conservative values and struk me as the most game-changing possibility for the Tea Party/Conservative/Libertarian element of the GOP. He is a great speaker and debater and has charisma. Some people are going to hold his age against him- he is only 29 and is rather young, but contrary to what some of the old-timers in the GOP think, talent should be rewarded over 'paying your dues'. Scott is going to be controversial, he is going to upset a lot of people, and when the Democrats turn the SoS election ugly he likely is going to have some things that he said that rubbed people the wrong way, but I'm feeling a little reckless and annoyed with the traditional establishment in the GOP and don't want Brooks picking Johnson for me or other old-timers telling me to go with Brown, so I'm going to be recommending that you vote for Paul Scott.

A Conservative Teacher recommends that you vote for Paul Scott as the GOP nominee for Secretary of State. Let's roll the dice on this wild card and buck the traditional GOP establishment by going with a young and energetic conservative who could be the next great Secretary of State for Michigan.

(source information on degrees and experience came from the AP)

UPDATE: After another week of research and discussion, I'd like to add a few more things. First, a considerable amount of the 'vote for Ruth Johnson' stuff is coming from people who Ruth knows and has worked for- it's homer-type stuff. Second, most of the criticism leveled at Paul Scott continues to be of the 'he's too young' variety, and I consider that to be bogus criticism. Third, Anne Norlander seems to be switching her focus from winning the campaign to running up support for her doing other things in her political future. Fourth, Cameron Brown continues to exist. And last, Michelle McManus has impressed me more and more whenever I have met her.

So, that being said, I recommend that if you are feeling a little crazy and want to shake things up, go with Paul Scott. If you want a more solid and sensible pick, go with Michelle McManus. See you at the convention!

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Feb 3, Go to the Taxpayers State of the State Address in Michigan

Most likely, the Governor of your state will have a 'State of the State' address coming up soon. If you have a liberal or Democrat Governor who is out of touch with reality too, I suggest that you contact your local taxpayers association group or organize something similar to this yourself. Via the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, written by the great libertarian Republican Leon Drolet:

On February 3, Governor Granholm will present her eighth State of the State Address to Lansing lawmakers. there are fancy receptions prior to the Governor's speech featuring rich hors d'oeuvres and premium bars. Politicians dress in their finest clothes and bring their families and friends to the Capitol to attend the parties. Every state representative gets to bring a special guest - usually a big financial donor - to sit next to them in the House chamber during the governor's speech. It is all very nice. You are not invited.

You see, the State of the State Address isn't about you or your family. Much of the Governor's speech is about the government's budget, not YOUR budget. When Governor Granholm talks about helping the economy, she means giving special tax breaks and subsidies to politically connected and politically-correct companies while raising taxes on every family and business that doesn't have a solar-powered windmill and a healthy lobbying fund.

Let's seize the day of February 3rd away from Governor Granholm and the political class in Lansing.

On the evening of February 3rd, at the very same moment that Governor Granholm begins her speech, the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, and other activist groups like Common Sense in Government, are hosting a different speech outside the Capitol Building. This speech will be a "State of the Citizens Address" where everyday citizens will gather to air their grievances against Governor Granholm and Lansing's government class - and you are absolutely invited!

The protest starts in front of the Capitol Building at 6:30PM and the 'State of the Citizen Address' starts promptly at 7:00PM. Go to www.makelansinglisten.com for more information. Also, check out the great youtube video here.

Friends, it is time to seize the day. It's time to drive to Lansing (dress VERY warm!), and join us outside on the steps of the State Capitol Building. Bring your protest signs and join with fellow frustrated taxpayers in demanding an end to Lansing's failed policies of tax hikes, spending increases and broken promises.

Bring your family, friends and coworkers. The more people we have at this 'State of the Citizen Address', the more the media and (most importantly) the politicians inside the Capitol will pay attention.

Also, call your state representative and state senator and invite them to come too. Tell them that, if they want to really represent you, they should leave their seat on the House floor vacant and go outside and listen to the people. They might tell you that they "have an obligation to attend the Governor's State of the State Address" or that it "would be disrespectful" to miss it. Politely inform them that their obligation is to the citizens, not the Governor. And that we are not asking anyone to interrupt or be rude during the Governor's speech - we are asking them to simply not attend. And to join the citizens outside, instead.

Michigan taxpayers need you to step up. Our economy, our future, need you to step up. Let's do it. Let's rescue Michigan. Let's seize the day on February 3rd! You are invited.

This is a great idea, and I wanted to let you all know about it now, so that you can plan on being there if you live in Michigan, or if you are from another state so that you can begin to plan your own.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Vote Ruth Johnson for Michigan Secretary of State

According to a recent Detroit News poll, the Michigan Secretary of State race is a statistical dead heat moving into the last three weeks of campaigning, with the Republican candidate Ruth Johnson leading the Democratic candidate Joslyn Benson 52.9 to 46.7. This is too close to the margin of error for my liking, so I want to remind all of you why it is important for you to pay attention this election and vote for Ruth Johnson for Secretary of State of Michigan.

In Recommendation on the GOP Candidate for Secretary of State I wrote:

Unlike in years past when the Secretary of State race really didn't matter that much, this year it does. The main reason for this is because of billionaire George Sorus and his attempt to corrupt our democracy by corrupting the very nature of elections in our county. As I wrote earlier in Soros Creates Project to Install Secretaries of State Across the Nation in Attempt to Control Vote Counting Forever:

George Soros has created a "527" group called the Secretary of State Project, which can accept unlimited undisclosed money, and will use that money to run attack ads and hit pieces on Republican and moderate Democrats in an attempt to install left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation. Once Soros has put in place left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state all across the nation, they will be the ones counting the votes, deciding who is a registered voter and who isn't, and supervising the election process.

Joseph Stalin once remarked, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." George Soros is setting it up so that across the nation, left-wing Democrats will decide everything for our nation.

SoS Project is also endorsing Jocelyn Benson, candidate for secretary of state in Michigan, whom it lauds as an "[e]lection law scholar and community organizer." Benson is a candidate ACORN would love.

Now that you understand why important it is to win the Secretary of State position this year, let's immediately narrow down our list of possible candidates. Of course I hope that no one in their right mind considers voting for Democrat Jocelyn Benson- she is a left-wing liberal professor and lawyer who wants to let illegal aliens and Democrats from out of state vote, doesn't really like the 'one-person, one-vote' rule, wants to put an electronic chip in your license card so that she can track you at all times, wants to have Democrats count the votes and certify the votes in any election, and thinks that ACORN should run the entire Secretary of State office.

Also we probably can eliminate Green Party nominee John Anthony La Pietra, who is an attorney and likely a watermelon, Libertarian Scotty Boman, who is a community college instructor and will only suck votes away from real conservative candidates, and Tea Party candidate Kyle Franklin, who likely lives in California and is a registered Democrat who got on the ballot through forged signatures (see my post Fake Tea Party Group Exposed as Democrat Plot!).

Ruth Johnson has a Master's Degree, was on the Oakland County Board of Commissioners from 1989-1998, was a State Representatives from 1999-2002, and since 2003 has served as the Oakland County Clerk. She's an able and nice clerk, but I remain bothered by her inability to run away with her last elections. Also, she seems to be approaching the SoS position more as a legislator and less as an administrator. She's a good clerk and her experience running elections and ballots is a good plus.
Although Johnson was not my first pick in the primary, you would have to be a crazy liberal to want anyone else to win that seat in the upcoming general election. If Benson were to win, you could expect the rule of law to crumble in our state and for her to use that office to corrupt the voting process. Make sure you vote for Ruth Johnson for Michigan Secretary of State this election.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Only US State With Booming Economy: Texlahoma

There is one state in the United States that has continued to boom in spite of Democrat policies. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Peters high-tax, high-regulation policies haven't managed to take a dent out of this state's booming economy, even though they have deepened and lengthened the current US recession and damaged the economy of every state in the union except it. Truly, this state is the one state that has managed to prosper even through the mandates and controls and commissions and regulations and bureaucracy that has bogged down the rest of the United States and is destroying our economic drive.

The one state that is still booming, the one US state still growing, the one state in the United States that continues to have a booming economy: Texlahoma.

You see, Texlahoma has defied Democrats and avoided their snake-poison prescriptions for economic disaster, liberalizing their economy rather than socializing it, and championing human liberty in the face of increasing centralization, bureaucracy, and communism that marks the modern day Democratic Party.

Texlahoma cut taxes, at all levels, which led to increased revenue for the state, as predicted by the Laffer Curve. Texlahoma allows sensible energy exploration and development, letting the most environmentally friendly citizens in the world explore and develop natural resources rather than having its citizens importing them from other much-less environmentally friendly nations. Texlahoma has disbanded the public employee labor unions, since these unions are designed to correct for the corruption and abuse by private employers and are not needed when union employees work for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Texlahoma has allowed private schools to compete for customers in their educational system, awarding each student a certain amount of dollars that will go to the school that they want to go to, and further awarding monetary bonus' for grades, sports, achievements, clubs, and many other merit-based reasons. Texlahoma does not play games with race, sex, religion, or sex, and treats everyone equally, and judges them based on their conservative character only. Texlahoma has toll roads competing with public roads, creating an efficient, vibrant, dynamic transportation grid in what were once known as 'Forgotten Counties.' Texlahoma does not have any business taxes, excise taxes, or sales taxes- only the income tax.

The people of Texlahoma are blessed with freedom and liberty. Defying the Supreme Court as much as possible, they have restricted the right to abortions and championed a lifestyle that looks to human life as the next hope of the world. They have relaxed gun control laws, everyone has a concealed weapon, and crime rates are non-existent. Cops don't harass citizens, real criminals are kept in prison, and it is a truly great place to live and work.

Sadly, Texlahoma isn't a real state. As designed by Oklahoman A. P. Sights in the early 1900's, forty-six counties in Texas and twenty-three in Oklahoma would join to form Texlahoma. People in rural places such as northern Texas and western Oklahoma were especially desperate for decent roads, but politicians in the faraway state capitals weren't listening, so the Texlahoma proposal was created. Legislators of the new state could focus on building better roadways and providing all the other services that these "forgotten" counties believed they weren't getting. "Cactus Jack" (John Nance Garner IV) championed the idea. Sadly, it never came to be, but sometimes, it is fun to imagine a state where the people still believe in the Founding Principles of our nation and practice life, liberty, and protection of property. It is a happy fantasy much different then the increasing tyranny of our current government as set up by liberal Democrats.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Soros Creates Project to Install Secretaries of State Across the Nation in Attempt to Control Vote Counting Forever

A PATRIOTIC ROTTWEILER sinks his teeth into a real juicy story that makes me shiver in my bones- George Soros has created a "527" group called the Secretary of State Project, which can accept unlimited undisclosed money, and will use that money to run attack ads and hit pieces on Republican and moderate Democrats in an attempt to install left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation.

Once Soros has put in place left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state all across the nation, they will be the ones counting the votes, deciding who is a registered voter and who isn't, and supervising the election process.

Joseph Stalin once remarked, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." George Soros is setting it up so that across the nation, left-wing Democrats will decide everything for our nation.

Via The American Spectator:

At the top of the SoS Project's slate of candidates for state-level secretary of state positions in 2010 is Minnesota's radically left-wing Mark Ritchie, a former community organizer whose cavalier attitude toward electoral fraud and whose shamelessly partisan conduct during the recount process cleared the way for Al Franken to steal last year's U.S. Senate election from then-Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). Ritchie was first elected Minnesota secretary of state in 2006. Franken and Obama, by the way, were endorsed last year by ACORN votes, ACORN's federal political action committee.

The 2010 slate also includes California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, whom the group describes as "one of the most progressive Secretaries of State in the nation." Bowen was endorsed in her previous run by California ACORN PAC.

SoS Project is also endorsing Jocelyn Benson, candidate for secretary of state in Michigan, whom it lauds as an "[e]lection law scholar and community organizer." Benson is a candidate ACORN would love. The bio SoS Project provides credits Benson with running a 2004 "voter protection campaign in 21 states, deploying 17,000 trained election law lawyers." Last year in Michigan, she helped to lead the fight to stop the Republican secretary of state "from disenfranchising voters who were victims of home foreclosures." Assuming the desperately mismanaged Michigan continues to exist through Election Day next year, count on the desperately evil ACORN endorsing Benson.
According to the SoS Project website, The Secretary of State Project helped elect 9 out of 11 candidates for chief elections officer in key states in 2006 and 2008, and raised nearly 1 million dollars for SoS candidates in both election cycles. Now it is gearing up for 2010 to support left-wing Democrats for Secretaries of State around the nation.

This is a group to fear and has a steady track record of success. I'm worried that Soros is out-smarting the Republican Party, and while Tea Partiers and Conservatives argue about being true to their beliefs, left-wing Democrats across the nation will become Secretaries of State, and they'll be the ones counting the votes next election.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

This is Michigan- Will it be America?

This is Michigan. Our state is considering giving up our historic lighthouses to PETA to turn into Fish Empathy Re-Education Centers. Our state is desperate to bring in murderers and felons from all over the country to fill our jails, which are emptied because we can't afford to keep prisoners in them. And companies that want to bring businesses here face years of legal challenges and regulations before they can even think of providing jobs and income to the residents of our state. This is what happens when Democrats run a state for many years- and I expect this will be what happens after the Democrats run our nation for a couple years.

According to the Detroit News, PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) wants to buy a historic piece of property owned by all Michigan taxpayers and turn it into a politicized propaganda center. For all the talk about the left wanting to preserve areas in their natural state, it the usual leftwing hypocrisy that PETA wants to take a historic landmark and change it. They have applied to buy the lighthouse in Grand Haven and renovate it into a Fish Empathy Center- this group wants to remind all the decent people relaxing on the pier fishing and all those people whose job is to fish that they are evil murderers and should feel awful about their lives. Hopefully, liberal employees working for a liberal government will make the correct choice and not sell this property to a liberal special interest group.

Also in the Detroit News is a story about California rejecting Michigan's attempt to bring it's felons and murders to our state because our state charges too much for this service. Michigan, plagued by years of Democratic control which brings skyrocketing state spending and yet cuts in vital services like prisons and roads, was desperate to make the Great Lakes State into a penal colony to bring in much needed money to the residents of our state. Michigan already brings garbage in from Canada for a couple bucks a load, so the authorities here, desperate to save jobs that they have spent years destroying with high taxes and extensive regulations, thought it would be good for the bankrupt California to send it's prisoners here. Sadly, Michigan charges too much, and so California said no. Michigan is still in the running to house terrorists from Gitmo, as the federal government does not care about cost.

Lastly, a good explanation of how Michigan found itself in such dire straits is found in the Detroit News story about how a mining company has been battling through years of red tape and bureaucratic annoyances and now has just battled past special interest groups corrupting our legal system. Apparently a mining company wants to bring jobs and income to residents of the Upper Peninsula in Michigan by having them mine needed metals and minerals that make our world a better place to live in. This company has complied with all of the many regulations, fees, and red tape that the state of Michigan put in place to stop it from developing our world and progressing our society, but then this company was sued by multiple (unnamed in the article) environmental groups. They were hoping to find a liberal judge who was filled with empathy for their cause, but sadly got a couple of judges who ruled that there arguments had no legal merit. The mines have not been built yet though, so there is still many chances for people to corrupt the system to destroy legitimate business interests in our Democratic-run state.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Direct Democracy: Is it Better than our Representative Democracy?

The Swiss recently celebrated the digging of a $10 billion, 35.4-mile (57-kilometer) tube will connect Europe's high-speed rail network to various valleys and low lying areas of Switzerland, without having to use trucks to go over the Alps. This is a mighty accomplishment, but what was intriguing about it was the way that it was done- Swiss voters approved the tunnel's construction in a series of referendums almost 20 years ago, where despite some criticism at the cost — almost $1,300 for every citizen — the proposal passed by a wide margin.

"Today proves how sustainable, strong and efficient our direct democracy is," Swiss Transport Minister Moritz Leuenberger told miners, VIPs and reporters amid the raucous underground celebrating as the huge drill broke through the last stretch of rock deep in the Swiss Alps.

Direct democracy is a form of democracy which sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect or dismiss officials, and conduct trials. Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, usually on the basis of election. In America, we have elements of direct democracy in the form of initiatives, referendums, and recalls, but mostly our nation relies on electing officials who then make decisions for us.

After watching the disasters of the last several decades, where more and more political power is accumulated in the national government and representatives increasingly represent larger and larger population groups, I have to wonder if our system works any more. It isn't working any more like our founding fathers designed it- direct election of senators, fixed number of Representatives, vast expansion of federal government, etc- so it shouldn't offend conservatives to question our present system. Perhaps it is the system that is broken, and a radical new fix is required?

Via wikipedia's entry on Direct Democracy:

In Switzerland, single majorities are sufficient at the town, city, and canton level, but at the national level, double majorities are required on constitutional matters. The intent of the double majorities is simply to ensure any citizen-made law's legitimacy.

Double majorities are, first, the approval by a majority of those voting, and, second, a majority of cantons in which a majority of those voting approve the ballot measure. In 1890, when the provisions for Swiss national citizen lawmaking were being debated by civil society and government, the Swiss copied the idea of double majorities from the United States Congress, in which House votes were to represent the people and Senate votes were to represent the states. According to its supporters, this "legitimacy-rich" approach to national citizen lawmaking has been very successful. Switzerland has had tandem successes both socially and economically which are matched by only a few other nations, and that the United States is not one of them.
Did you catch that? Originally, the Swiss copied our system, and have since been very happy with it, but here in America, the progressives (early liberals) changed our system and since then, our nation has been increasingly unhappy with our system and the laws it passes, both by Republicans and Democrats. Double majorities and direct democracy may be the direction that our nation should go in the future to achieve more legitimate government.

How might this look and how might this be implemented in that United States? Well, the easiest place to start would be to conduct a constitutional convention at the state level and go about testing this idea at the state level, whereby a state would invest political power in both county level government and state level government, which would both have veto power over any proposed legislation of state-wide importance. Of course state authorities would have responsibility for day-to-day management of the state, but major legislation (raising of taxes, new executive agencies, legalization of drugs, major regulation of healthcare or energy industries, building of new major transportation lines, etc) would be required to pass a double majority of both state government (which could be unicameral) and a majority of county governments (which also could be unicameral). This would increase the legitimacy of laws that were passed in a given state and ensure that citizens were engaged and supportive of any major laws passed by the state.

Our founding fathers knew that local government and limited government were important to in the creation of laws that the people supported and believed in, and yet over the years our government has become increasingly illegitimate, both with the engagement of the United States in unpopular wars and the more recent passage of unpopular legislation such as Obamacare, the stimulus bill, and budget bills. Our nation might need an example or inspiration for change, and we've learned it can't come from the election of one person and that structural changes are needed- perhaps Switzerland's direct democracy system, modified and adopted by a US state, could serve as that basis.

Suggested book to read related to this post: The Referendum: Direct Democracy in Switzerland.

UPDATE: Saw a post by John Woo called Repeal the 17th Amendment. I'm all for it, and I think this latest line of thought about providing for a double majority is fascinating. At the very least, state governments should pass a law requesting that their federal senators appear monthly in front of the state legislators and discuss what they've been up to. It might serve some positive purpose on making Senators justify their paychecks, since they have a term so long that people lose track of exactly what they do with all that time.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

State Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Corrupt Capitalism, Syndicaliam, Corporatism... Obamaism

In my post Crony Capitalism Booming Under Obama Rule in February of 2010, I wrote:

One of my biggest fears about the Obama administration is not that it is liberal and not that it is communist, but rather that it is the beginning of a renaissance of National Socialism. One of the common misconceptions that people have about National Socialism is that it was against big business, or that big business opposed it. Free markets oppose national socialism, and individuals oppose national socialism, but Big Business, threatened by government, does the logical thing, and joins in. National socialism leads to an alliance of Big Business, which enjoys government protection against challenges to its market share and in exchange transforms itself into a tool of government control over the economy. Top executives and lobbyists do very well under a National Socialist regime, while the people suffer.
At the time, I was responding to a post that I found on powerlineblog called Crony Capitalism, which itself was a response to the article from Michael Barone called: "Under Obama, crony capitalism again rules the day."

That was several months ago now, and with the passage of time, we can re-evaluate my thesis- that the Obama administration is putting place a version of fascism that you can nicely called Crony Capitalism or State Capitalism, whereby the government subverts the free market for the good of the 'state' and makes alliances with Big Business to crush smaller companies through regulation and taxation.

Gregory Scoblete updates the situation with his article Will Free Markets Give Way to State Capitalism:

State capitalism, Bremmer writes, "is a system in which the state dominates markets primarily for political gain." From state-owned corporations operating in strategic industries like natural resources or defense, to enormous sovereign wealth funds in the hands of autocrats with opaque operating principles, state capitalism has enabled the world's autocratic states to reap the benefits of capitalist enterprise while maintaining a vice-grip on political freedom.

In Bremmer's telling, the world's autocratic states learned a valuable lesson from the implosion of the Soviet Union: command economies do not work and when they fail, they can bring down the over-arching political system with them. They also watched the post Soviet experiment in crash liberalization with horror. To protect their hides and preserve their privilege, autocratic rulers in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have created a "hybrid" system that leverages many of the tools of capitalism to generate wealth while the heavy hand of the state ensures that wealth is put to the service of the elites and rulers of each country.

Here in America, we have a ruler who wants us to emulate China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia- he wants to create a 'hybrid system' here where the fascist state can leverage capitalism for the good of the all-powerful state through the heavy hand of a tyrannical government. I'd love to sugar coat this, but the evidence is piling up that this is his intention.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Fake Tea Party Group Exposed as Democrat Plot!

The Democrats came up with a neat little plot for the coming General Elections- run "Tea Party" candidates who are not in fact Tea Party candidates and hope to draw votes off of real 'tea party' candidates who are running as Republicans. It is a nice plot, and like most Democrat initiatives it is full of deceit and fraud, and like most, it was uncovered and exposed, in time for the election, and voters now have a chance to punish Democrats up and down the ticket for this outrage too.

From an email sent by Ruth Johnson, Oakland County Clerk and GOP Secretary of State candidate:

Oakland County, Mich. - Friday, August 20, 2010 - Ruth Johnson, the Oakland County Clerk/Register, said her office has uncovered apparent evidence of fraud involving the so-called "Fake" Tea Party and one of its candidates.

"We have a candidate filing with signatures we suspect are forged and an out-of-state high school teacher who says he never filed to run for office and has no idea what this is even about," said Johnson.

On July 23, 2010 a man calling himself Aaron William Tyler filed signed paperwork to run on the November ballot as a Tea Party candidate for the Oakland County Board of Commissioners, District 2 seat. The candidate also filed paperwork to form a campaign committee, Citizens for Aaron Tyler. He listed a Springfield Township address and gave his birth date as Feb. 26, 1983.

However, when Johnson's office notified Aaron Tyler, now living out-of-state, that he had a $30 late fee for failing to file proper paperwork for his committee, he told Johnson's Director of Elections, Joe Rozell, that he had no idea what they were talking about and that he had never filed paperwork to run for office. Tyler's signature on the apparently falsified candidate filing, which had been notarized, does not match his signature on file in the State's Qualified Voter File.

At a press conference Friday, Johnson read a letter she received today from Aaron Tyler. His signature on today's letter did match Tyler's signature in the state's Qualified Voter File.

"This letter is in regards to the elections filing with the Oakland County Clerk's office. I was shown a document that states my intention of being placed on the ballot for this fall. I have been in Phoenix, Arizona since July 27, 2010 for a new job. I did not sign this piece of paper. I have been receiving calls in regards to various aspects of this election process and have been confused as to why I was getting those. I figured it must have been some sort of mistake. I finally took the initiative to call the Clerk's office to investigate and they have helped explain the situation to me. I have no intentions of running for elected office. I believe a fraud was committed." - Aaron Tyler, Aug. 20, 2010

Legitimate Tea Party organizations across the state have condemned the state's new Tea Party as a "Fake" Tea party which does not represent them or their beliefs. Election experts have called the state's new Tea Party a ploy by Democrats to confuse voters.

"Here we have evidence that their concerns may be well-founded," Johnson said. "We must ensure integrity in our elections. This is a group that is trying to deceive voters and now it appears that they may have committed election fraud. Our state needs an Elections Crimes Unit to investigate allegations like this."

Johnson said the alleged false Tyler paperwork was notarized by a Jason H. Bauer. According to Michigan Capitol Confidential.com, a Jason Bauer has registered twice to run for office in Oakland County, once as a Democrat in May of this year. Mr. Bauer notarized paperwork for eight Tea Party candidates running in the November election.

Johnson called for election officials across the state to examine all candidate filings by "fake" Tea Party candidates, especially any and all candidate affidavits notarized by the same individual who notarized the Tyler paperwork.

Johnson said the documents have been turned over to the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office and she will hand-deliver the documents to the Michigan Attorney General's Office for investigation On Monday. Johnson said she will also be testifying about the alleged fraud before the state Board of Canvassers Monday on Monday.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Granholm's State of the State: No Surprises- A Plan for a Less Free, Less Prosperous Michigan

Yesterday Michigan Governor Democrat Jennifer Granholm gave her State of the State address- let's take a look at what she said.

First, she announced that she is going to continue her policy of attempting to personally direct the economy of Michigan by focusing the state on new industries like 'green energy' and film-making. Granholm has no major experience or success at any level in starting and running new businesses, yet in spite of this, she is going to use the power and force of government to take money from you and me and then invest it in businesses that she thinks will be successful. I have no problem with her doing this with her own money- but using the power of the state to gamble in supporting risky business ventures is not sound public policy, and our state should not be engaged in it.

Next, let's take a closer look at how she is going to lower energy prices in our state, make energy more affordable to citizens, and lower the overall cost of doing business here- she is going to ban the building and running of coal-powered electric plants in Michigan. Not only will that make energy more expensive and raise the cost of business in our state, she is essentially telling companies that want to invest in Michigan and hire workers here "no"- that Michigan is not open to new businesses if they aren't the state favored 'green' businesses. A government that can pick and choose winners in the marketplace and one that can disallow certain businesses to be built just because it doesn't like them is not a free government in charge of a prosperous society- it is a tyranny that makes society more poor, and you can see that in Michigan, as our government becomes more arbitrary, more corrupt, less responsive, and society becomes poorer as a result.

Continuing on, I would like to announce that I will not be paying my utility bills, house payments, or car insurance any more, since it appears that these are voluntary payments, and the state will use its power to keep the energy on and even provide insurance for me, or at least that is what Granholm is proposing. Once the moratorium expires, I might pay then. She is removing personal responsibility from individuals, and society will be less because of this- these programs will increase economic inefficiencies and drive up taxes, making society poorer, and ultimately as society becomes poorer people will be less able to pay their bills, which the government will have to pay, etc, etc. It doesn't make logical sense, although it is nice, and saying nice illogical things gets you elected now days (Exhibit A: Obama). As a side note, since I brought up Obama, I am also considering no longer paying my taxes, since those are optional as well, at least until you are nominated for public office, and then campaign donors pay the bill.

Lastly, I would just like to comment that this is exactly what you get when you elect a Democrat who promises to improve funding for the arts, provide jobs, keep the cost of education low, and protect the environment- a politician who says nice things, but reality is much different, as we can see now that Granholm- elected to do those things- is now cutting the state fair, turning over wetlands protection to the federal government, cutting the Department of Humanities, Arts, and Libraries, and overseeing skyrocketing tuition increases and unemployment rates. If you want low cost education, jobs, a protected environment, and everything else a Democrat promises to do- vote Republican in the future. Results matter, not words, Granholm.

The information from this post was taken from her speech yesterday, covered in this story in the Detroit News.

UPDATE: On the way in to work today on 760AM, there was a debate between Granholm's guy and an insurance guy, and they were debating the Governor's proposal to make car insurance more fair by increasing regulations and oversight of the insurance industry.

As I understood it, the government is upset that when deciding rates insurance companies rate people based on occupation/race/income, that insurance rates have gone up by 69% since 1989, and that our insurance rates are some of the highest in the nation.

The insurance industry's reply is that basing insurance rates on such factors is established as valid under actuary practice, and that such factors are good predictors between good risks/bad risks, that the increase in rates since 1989 works out to be 3% a year, which is the rate of inflation and is pretty good considering the sharper rise in health care costs, and that the reason why our insurance rates are high is that the government demands a no-fault system with unlimited medical compensation.

Honestly, this debate works out to a typical debate between a Republican and a Democrat- the Democrat wants the best coverage in the world, free from cost, and everyone paying in equal, while the Republican wants to give people choices on what kind of coverage they think is best for their needs, that the cost is based on the benefit gained to the consumer, and that the reason why it costs so much is because of government involvement. It's pretty clear that this insurance proposal of Granholm's is like most of the rest of her ideas- bad for Michigan.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Obama's Economic Policy is... State Socialism?

Listening to a recent speech by US President Barack Obama (Democrat) regarding the passage of the American Invents Act at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Virginia, I was bothered by way that he phrased things. Shortly into his speech, he said:

...But there are other steps that (the national government) can take. Today, for example, my (the national government) administration is announcing a new center that will help companies reduce the time and cost of developing lifesaving drugs. When scientists and researchers at the National Institutes of Health discover a new cure or breakthrough, (the national government's) going to make it easier for startup companies to sell those products to the people who need them. (The national government) got more than 100 universities and companies to agree that they’ll work together to bring more inventions to market as fast as possible. And (the national government's) also developing a strategy to create jobs in biotechnology, which has tremendous promise for health, clean energy and the environment....

....So (the national government's) going to have to make sure that (the national government's) continuing to invest in basic research so you can do the work that you’re capable of — and still pay the rent, which is important, you will find out. (ha ha, paying the bills is funny.)

(The national government's) need to continue to provide incentives and support to make sure the next generation of manufacturing takes root not in China or in Europe, but right here in the United States — because it’s not enough to invent things here; our workers should also be building the products that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America.

And if (the national government) wants companies to hire our workers, (the national government) needs to make sure we give every American the skills and education that they need to compete. (The national government has) got to have more schools like Thomas Jefferson....

...That’s why (the national government's) boosting science and technology and engineering and math education all across the country. And that’s why (the national government's) also working with businesses to train more engineers, and revitalize our community colleges so they can provide our workers with new skills and training. And, finally, that’s why (the national government's) making sure that all of our children can afford to fulfill their dream of a college education — that they can afford to go to school and that Pell grants and student loan programs ensure that they don’t come out of college with mountains of debt.

This is the economy (the national government) needs to build — one where innovation is encouraged, education is a national mission, and new jobs and businesses take root right here in America.

So that’s the long-term project.
To be helpful, I replaced the word 'we' with 'the national government' so that I could better understand exactly what Obama sees as the long-term project of change for our nation.

You see, what bothers me is that the economic philosophy that I increasingly believe that Obama is increasingly pushing in our nation is State Socialism. Wikipedia describes it this way:
State socialism is an economic system with limited socialist characteristics, such as public ownership of major industries, remedial measures to benefit the working class, and a gradual process of developing socialism through government policy.

Proponents of state socialism claim the state, through practical considerations of governing, must play at least a temporary part in building socialism. Many Socialists, such as Fredrick Engels and Saint-Simon, take the position that the state will change in nature and function in a socialist society; specifically, the nature of the state would change from one of political rule over people into a scientific administration of the processes of production; specifically the state would become a coordinating economic entity of inclusive associations rather than a mechanism of class and political control....

...Traditional social democrats and non-revolutionary democratic socialists argue for a gradual, peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. They wish to abolish capitalism, but through political reform rather than revolution. This method of gradualism implies utilization of the existing state apparatus and machinery of government to gradually move society toward socialism, and is sometimes derided by other socialists as a form of "socialism from above" or political "elitism" for relying on electoral means to achieve socialism....

....Trotskyists believe that central planners, regardless of their intellectual capacity, operate without the input and participation of the millions of people who participate in the economy who understand/respond to local conditions and changes in the economy, and because of this criticize central state planning as being unable to effectively coordinate all economic activity....
Perhaps I'm wrong, and Obama isn't in favor of State Socialism, but I think I'm narrowing down exactly just exactly this guy is thinking for the future of America.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Education Policy in Michigan and How It is Created

One of my brothers recently was invited by the Michigan House Republican Strategic Task Force on Education to come and discuss the long range vision of education policy in the state of Michigan. This special task force composed of Republicans has been touring the state looking for both successes and failures in Michigan's education system. It was on the west side of the state and after talking to my brother about how it went, I have the following comments to pass on to you.

What the task force does is get input from parent teacher associations, student council members, administrator, teachers, board members, and students, from public schools, special education, alternative education, charter and private schools. The end goal is to develop ideas on how to improve the quality of the education system here in Michigan.

The result of these task force meetings is predictable and an indication of everything that is wrong with education in our state. Three hours of discussion produced all the wrong policy suggestions for education, suggestions politicians should not consider. The following account is a way for you to see how policy is created in our state and helpful in developing your own opinions about the future of education.

The first step in the discussion was to answer the question "What is the purpose of education?" Do that right now in your head- think about what you want the education system in our state to look like and do. Is it prepare students for college? Prepare them for future jobs? Mold good citizens? Give all students a broad base of knowledge? Or did you, like most people at this forum, say "everything!" The mission of education needs to be focused, clear, and consistent, and it can not be everything to everybody all at the same time. There is only enough time in the day, only enough resources to spend, and our state needs to think long and hard about what they want the goal of education to be.

In my opinion, our school system should move to a two-tier system- K-8 the goal is to provide a broad range of knowledge for all students, and 9-12 students will either go into a college-prep track or a job-preparation track. That's just my opinion though.

The next question the group that came to this task force meeting was asked is "what are we doing well right now in education?" Think about this question. Education is doing a lot of things well- babysitting students 8 hours a day, running great sports programs, educating a lot of top students, running a good special needs program, helping students learn how to think, giving students opportunities, offering many innovative learning styles, and nationally our K-5 program is the best in the world.

The next question the task force had us think about was "what do you want the education system to look like 10 years from now". I think the overall consensus of the task force was that we want education to do more to teach students critical thinking skills, to learn how to be innovative and creative, to teach entrepreneurship and job creation, and to have students focus more on the career paths that they are headed into after school rather than just focus on school.

The last step is the most important step, and the step that resulted in disaster for this task force and that produced information the Michigan House Republican Strategic Task Force on Education should utterly disregard. The question that was posed to us was "how do we build on what we are doing well to make our education system look like we want it to look 10 years from now?"

Here is the information the task force received, and it is a good lesson on why sometimes special interest groups should not be the ones designing the policies in our nation. The task force was told to drop all standardized testing and to just hand the money to districts with no more accountability. The task force was told that one way to increase the education levels in our state was to give more funding to teachers, have them work shorter hours, and give them more training. The task force was told that students should teach classes, as if they were subject matter and teaching experts. The task force produced a lot of garbage ideas, and in every hearing they conducted they pretty much got the same garbage.

This is why the state should not be trusted with running any sort of service industry. The failures in education are the failures of government planning and funding. The failures of education result from this idea that bureaucrats working in distant locations can issue rules and decrees and that will somehow make things better. And the failures of education and this process demonstrate that a system that ignores values and character will produce a valueless result.

The way to fix education is to increase choice, increase personal responsibility, increase local control, and increase the focus on value and character education. Students need to take classes that emphasise creativity and entrepreneurship and they need to buy into the system by making them realize just how much it is costing them to go to school (or at least their parents need to realize what the cost is for education and then demand the results to justify the cost). Standardized testing needs to be increased, but the information that comes from these tests needs to be disseminated throughout the system and analyzed and studied by everyone- teachers, students, and administrators.

Education needs to run more like a business, with the service provided being learning and the learning delivered by skilled professionals. It can not run like a government agency, answering to dozens of constituents and staffed by bureaucrats.

Please take a moment to look up your state Representative and pass on your thoughts to them about education and the types of policies that you would like to see put in place in this state. If you don't speak up, they will have only heard from others, and those others are pushing groups like that Michigan House Republican Strategic Task Force on Education to put in place policies that will only erode the educational quality of our great state.

UPDATE: Here is a story about the event... notice the utter lack of anything productive or useful mentioned in this article.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Support Local Teachers Unions, Question State Teachers Unions, Oppose National Teachers Unions

All around the state of Michigan, when teachers aren't talking about their NCAA brackets, the conversation is the coming teacher's strike. These conversations are getting tougher and tougher on me, because I have a unique position among government employees- whereas most teachers support 'their union', I make a distinction- I defend and support my local union and its actions, but disagree with the actions of my state union, and attack the actions of my national union. You see, there are important differences between local, state, and national teachers unions- differences in who is in them, what they do, and what they are fighting for- and those differences are important enough that my position on each level is clearly different (as should yours, if I make the argument successfully).

My local union is composed of the teachers in my district. These people are my colleagues; I know them, they know me, and more importantly, we both know what the reality of the situation is. We know what funds the district at the local level- whether we have a rural town, a big city, a shopping mall, an important factory, etc- and we know where that money is going- what buildings have to maintained, transportation costs, new stadiums, fancy administration buildings, teacher salaries, etc. At the local level, my union serves a vital and important service- collectively organizing and bargaining on behalf of all the teachers for salaries, benefits, and working conditions in the district with the local administration and school board. They bargain tough and fair, we bargain tough and fair, and society is the winner. We represent the community and are part of the community, and so we don't try to take advantage of the community and they don't try to take advantage of us (or if that does happen, it gets real ugly and everyone is a loser).

My state union (MEA) is composed of people who derive their salaries and pay and benefits on the backs of the teachers who are working hard to teach children. These people work in the state capitol mostly, although there are mysterious field offices too scattered about the state, employing people who do something or other. They have intermittent contact with the districts that they serve, meeting with teachers every now and then or walking through a building, but they do not know the districts or the teachers, and so don't know where the money is coming from or where the money is going. Oh, they know they want more money- they hammer away at funds and balances trying to move numbers around, but the numbers mean nothing to them since they don't actually represent anything. And they really don't know why they want more money- they know more money is good because more money means more union dues and so they get a higher salary and more benefits- but they don't actually know where the more money they fight for actually goes- whether it is to repay a furlough day, to reinstate a step increase, to create a longevity bonus, to cover some sort of health benefit, to pay disability pay for a sick colleague, or anything else. They just know it is more money, and so they fight for it. The state union has little incentive to maintain the communities that they do not know, and the state government has little incentive to maintain the union that they do not know, and so the two fight ugly and dirty and society is less so because of this.

My national union (the NEA) is composed of people who derive their salaries and benefits from dues paid by teachers in the classroom working hard, and they resemble in many ways the state union, except that they are even further removed from teachers and the communities they serve and so care less about them. The nation union blows money sponsoring experts who talk about sexualizing children at earlier ages, recommends books to teachers like Rules for Radicals, and spends its time going to fancy dinners to lobby the national government to transfer more of societies wealth to 'education', even though the national union is now so far removed from 'education' that it knows not what it speaks about. Conferences sponsored by the NEA are far disconnected from the reality of the situation that teachers experience and focus on topics and subjects that are of only marginal importance to them. Since the national union serves only one purpose- redirect wealth from the national government- and this purpose is rather corrupt, it pretends it is something more, and its pretentiousness shows. Society suffers with the existence of the NEA, and this is yet more reason why the NEA, the Department of Education, and national funding for education all need to be done away with- they are all too disconnected to the local community.

Our lunch room conversations inevitably dissolve into me trying to dance the delicate dance of defending the actions of my local union while calling into question the actions of my state union and harshly criticizing the actions of my national union, and that dance is a tough dance that I shouldn't have to perform. My local should be the focus- teachers should be the focus, and everything else should support and assist them. But like most government workers, the MEA and NEA is now part of the entitled class, which feels that others exist to serve them, rather than the other way around. Changes need to be made.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Government Spending is UP 5% So Far This Year!

According to my liberal friends, the reason why the economy is going to double-dip is because the Republicans have been cutting so much spending that it is de-stimulating the economy. Like most things liberals say, the facts don't support it- not only haven't Republicans been cutting spending they actually are spending more money. It's understandable- they only control the House- but not acceptable- by spending more money, they are sucking up resources from the private sector and distorting our market system with their inefficient use of resources, corrupting free choices and mis-allocating valuable monies to make our nation more and more poor and less and less free. Cut spending now!

Here is the story, via IBD:

When Republicans took control of the House in January, they pledged to make deep cuts in federal spending, and in April they succeeded in passing a bill advertised as cutting $38 billion from fiscal 2011's budget. Then in August, they pushed for a deal to cut an additional $2.4 trillion over the next decade.

Some analysts have blamed these spending cuts for this year's economic slowdown.

But data released by the Treasury Department on Friday show that, so far, there haven't been any spending cuts at all.

In fact, in the first nine months of this year, federal spending was $120 billion higher than in the same period in 2010, the data show. That's an increase of almost 5%. And deficits during this time were $23.5 billion higher. These spending hikes haven't stopped many analysts from claiming that the country is in an age of budget austerity, one that's hurting economic growth.

A July article in USA Today, for example, claimed that "Already in 2011, softer government spending has sapped growth."

Jared Bernstein, former chief economic adviser to Vice President Biden, wrote over the summer that "government spending cutbacks have been a large drag on growth in recent quarters and have led to sharp losses in state and local employment."

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argued in September that "the turn toward austerity (is) a major factor in our growth slowdown."

If government spending is related to growth, as these and others claim, then the economy presumably should be growing faster, not slower, given the current higher rates of federal outlays.

Nor does the claim that state governments sharply cut spending stand up well to closer scrutiny.

Overall state spending continued to climb right through the recession, when all money from state general funds and other funds, federal grants and state bonds is combined. Total state outlays in 2010 were almost 10% higher than in 2008, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers' annual State Expenditure Report.

And general fund spending — which makes up about 40% of total state spending — is expected to climb 5.2% in 2011 and 2.6% next year, according to the association's latest survey.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Republicans Overturning Tradition and Removing Choice from Parents on Kindergarten?

Two values that are supported more by conservatives than liberals are traditional values and parent choice, and yet Republicans in Michigan keep forgetting these values that they were elected on. Seduced by the power of government and feeling empowered by their large majorities in the House and the Senate, Michigan Republicans recently supported President Obama's Race to the Top program which gives more control over education to Washingtion DC and even more recently have supported raiding the K-12 School Aid fund in violation with voters stated wishes on the subject.

And now I hear that Republicans are prepared to use the power of the state to tell parents when they think a child is ready or not to go to kindergarten, overturning over 100 years of established values on the subject.

It is understandable that liberals would push to overturn tradition and take away choice from parents on when they send their own children to school, since liberals thrive on power and control, but I would never have thought that the tea party and conservatives in our good state would have swept into power people who now are about to meddle in parent's choice and established values in the name of new-age science.

Feeling that every month in a child's life makes a big difference, that young kids lack the stamina for kindergarten, and that the youngest ones have a harder time integrating socially, emotionally, physically and academically, Michigan State Senator Darwin Booher (R-Evart) and Michigan State Representative Ray Franz (R-Onekama) are planning on introducing legislation that would move up the kindergarten cutoff date from December 1 (where it has been set for over 100 years) to September 1. This would act to prevent children who turn 5 from September to December from attending kindergarten, even if their own parents feel that they are ready.

If parents still want their children to go to school earlier than the government mandated cutoff date, they would be forced to sit down with a government committee which would judge them and issue a decree on whether or not their child was ready to go to school or whether they would have to pay thousands more in daycare for another year until the state deemed it now appropriate for them to send their child to kindergarten.

State Senator and Education Chair Phil Pavlov (R-St. Clair) also apparently supports this attempt to take away choice from parents and overturn tradition. It is unclear why the state has to get involved with setting arbitrary deadlines on when a parent is allowed to send their own child to school, and I suggest that in coming elections that conservative and tea partiers keep these thoughts in mind and work to knock off these corrupted-by-power Senators and Representatives.

Parental choice and tradition, dear state government- that's the way to go.

UPDATE: For those who asked...


UPDATE II: Thank you all for the comments- they support my original point that I'm pissed at Republicans running as conservatives and then not being conservative- so thank you for supporting my argument.

While many feel that children should be older before going to kindergarden, that's their choice. No offense intended, but I don't want anyone to have the power to control when my children start going to school- that's my call as a parent. I do not want any sort of government committee to telling me that if I (as the parent) choose to send my kid to school earlier, that the government will not allow it. That's not how our state has run in the past.

Tradition and parental choice- those are conservative values, and they are the values I support.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Raiding the K-12 School Aid Fund for College Money?

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (Republican) has proposed a budget which would shift revenue from the Michigan School Aid Fund away from K-12 schools to Higher Education and Community colleges, and this is wrong. Currently the Michigan School Aid fund is fully funded and able to pay for K-12 education in Michigan, as it was intended to and designed to do so by voters, but Snyder wants to raid $895.6 million from it and divert that money to higher education and community colleges, the first time in the history of our state that the School Aid Fund is to be used in this manner.

Not everyone has an equal opportunity or desire or obligation to go to college in America. Attending college, is not part of creating a basis of education necessary for us all to be educated voters; it is not about giving everyone in America the same basic broad basis of knowledge to enable us to compete for jobs; it is not a requirement for being successful or making a decent living like passing high school is; it is not a task that everyone is up to mentally or emotionally; and it is not something that everyone can afford to do. Going to college is something that those who want to do can; those who feel that a higher education will benefit them; and is for those who can afford to, either on their own or by winning scholarships or grants or taking out loans or having the military pay for it. So the question I have to ask is why then do taxpayers assume they have an obligation to fund higher education and community colleges in a given state?

Oh, I am sure there are arguments in favor of the desire to fund higher education and community colleges- as a way for a state to stay competitive for jobs, as a community outreach program, as a way to make our state more prestigious or something, etc. Those are all good arguments for the desire to use taxpayer money to support the few with the means and inclination to go to college- but they are not convincing arguments to me of the necessity of diverting money from the K-12 School Aid Fund.

In Michigan, our K-12 school system, which does provide all children of our state with a quality education so that they all will have the same basic chances to compete for jobs and be solid citizens, is funded by state revenues including sales taxes, lottery taxes, property taxes, and other taxes which are all deposited into a fund called 'The School Aid Fund.'

Article IX, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 establishes the State School Aid Fund, which shall be used exclusively for aid to school districts, higher education, and school employee's retirement systems. This fund was considerably adjusted by Proposal A in 1994, which was a very important constitutional amendment in Michigan that considerably changed around the way that school districts are funded.

Although the MI Constitution does include the words 'higher education,' historically the School Aid Fund was used exclusively for K-12 funding, and a search of the records and conversation of the last time that voters addressed this issue revealed to me that there was no conversation in any way of using the school aid fund for anything other that K-12 funding. In fact, the publication Michigan in Brief's seventh edition, which was sponsored by the Michigan Nonprofit Association and the Council of Michigan Foundations and was prepared and published by Public Sector Consultants, Inc., describes the school aid fund this way- "School Aid Fund: A fund into which certain state revenues are deposited and from which funds may be spent only on K–12 education."- note that there is no mention of the school aid fund being used for higher or community college education, as it has never been used for this purpose in the past.

As a conservative, I have always favored this idea that voters would make their wishes known to the government, and the government would implement these wishes to the best of their abilities. Liberals and Democrats are the ones who want to rule over us and make decisions for us, not conservatives, and in this case, based on the long history of our state and the conversation regarding the last time voters looked at the issue of the School Aid Fund, it is clear to me that voters never intended the fund to be used to divert money away from K-12 schools to pay for college for rich smart kids. I am surprised that many Republicans support this idea.

As a conservative, I also believe in paying for services and using dedicated funds to pay for services. For example, I pay into social security, I pull out of the social security fund; or I pay into a gas tax, and then that gas tax is used to maintain roads; or I pay my property taxes, which are used to pay for local police, fire, and library services; etc. I'm not an anarchist or a libertarian- I do believe that government plays an important role in our society, providing order and safe-guarding rights so that we may be free and prosperous, and so I like the idea that voters decide to set aside certain amounts of money to pay for certain budget items, and if they don't like the amount of money or where the money is being spent, they can raise or lower those revenues or spending. Raiding dedicated school aid funds intended for K-12 education to pay for other services that have historically been paid for through the General Fund such as higher education and community education is therefore wrong to me and sounds to me more like a liberal idea of viewing all government money as some sort of slush fund to which to distribute gifts and buy off voters.

As a conservative teacher, I am surprised to find that I support the Michigan Education Association and the Democrats here in Michigan on this issue, and oppose Snyder's plan to divert funding from the one part of our budget that is balanced and working, the School Aid Fund. As a result of Snyder's plan, students in Michigan will face a per pupil cut of $470, which is unnecessary because the School Aid Fund is fully funded and if it is not raided to help pay for rich smart kids who want to go to college, students in Michigan would lose no funding at all. Listen to the voters and vote in favor of conservative values, Republicans, and don't raid the school aid fund.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

DRC and the Rhetoric of Despair

In Think Africa Sarah Collier writes:
The image of the Democratic Republic of Congo dominating the media is that of “the heart of darkness and the ultimate failed state”. The DRC conjures up images of strife, corruption, rape, ethnic hatred, meaningless war, an absence of justice, rule of law, and authority. Academics have also perpetuated this picture of the Congo as the paradigm of a “failed state”. Jeffrey Herbst, a major academic writer on Africa argued that “there is no Congo,” while Richard Dowden of the Royal African Society described the state as “a Congo-shaped hole in the map”. Within the label of a “failed” state, a frequently unexamined assumption is that selfishness and anarchy will reign. The DRC has attracted many other labels including “shadow state”, “pariah state”, “parastate”, “collapsed state”, “stateless state” and even “vampire state”...[continue reading]

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

The Colonialism-Imperialism Paradigm Is Kaput (1 of 2)

The Colonialism-Imperialism Paradigm Is Kaput
George B. N. Ayittey, Ph.D.
June 26, 2005.

Africas paradox is galling: immense mineral wealth yet inexorably mired in steaming squalor, misery, deprivation, and chaos. A few countries have sprinted ahead but Africas overall economic performance remains abysmal, lagging behind those of other regions in the Third World. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has warned that at the prevailing rates black Africa would take another 150 years to reach some of the development targets agreed by UN members for 2015. (Financial Times, July 9, 2003; p.1). Who ruined Africa?

The causes of Africas lack of development have always evoked heated emotional debates. On one hand are those who portray Africa as a victim of powerful external forces and conspiracies a group that may be described as externalists.On the other are those who believe that the causes of Africa's crisis lie mostly within African in the nature of government (governance) or how Africa runs its own affairs. This group may be described as the internalists.

The Externalists

The externalists believe that Africa's woes are due to external factors such as the lingering effects of Western colonialism and imperialism, the pernicious effects of the slave trade, racist conspiracy plots, exploitation by avaricious multinational corporations, an unjust international economic system, inadequate flows of foreign aid, the neo-liberal policies of the World Bank, IMF, and deteriorating terms of trade. Disciples of the externalist creed include most African leaders, scholars, and intellectual radicals. For decades, the externalist position held sway, attributing the causes of almost every African problem to such external factors.

In his book, The Africans, African scholar and historian Professor Ali Mazrui, examining Africas crises, attributed most of Africas woes to Western colonialism and imperialism. "The West harmed Africa's indigenous technological development in a number of ways" (164). Africa's collapsing infrastructure (roads, railways, and utilities) is due to the "shallowness of Western institutions," "the lopsided nature of colonial acculturation" and "the moral contradictions of Western political tutelage" (202). In fact, "the political decay is partly a consequence of colonial institutions without cultural roots in Africa" (199). Therefore, self congratulatory western assertions of contributing to Africa's modernization are shallow: "The West has contributed far
less to Africa than Africa has contributed to the industrial civilization of the West" (164). Decay in law enforcement and mismanagement of funds can be traced to Western colonialism too. "The
pervasive atmosphere in much of the land is one of rust and dust, stagnation and decay, especially within those institutions which were originally bequeathed by the West signal the slow death of an alien civilization" (204) and Africa's rebellion "against westernization
masquerading as modernity" (211). Western institutions are doomed "to grind to a standstill in Africa" or decay. "Where Islam is already established, the decay of western civilization is good for Islam since it helps to neutralize a major threat" (19).

Many African leaders also subscribed to and espoused similar views ascribing the causes of Africa's crises to external factors. In fact, since independence in the sixties, almost every African malaise was alleged to have been caused by the operation or conspiracy of extrinsic agents. This externalist doctrine totally absolved the leadership of any responsibility for the mess in Africa. The leadership was above reproach and could never be faulted. President Mobutu even blamed
corruption on European colonialism. Asked who introduced corruption into Zaire, he retorted: "European businessmen were the ones who said, 'I sell you this thing for $1,000, but $200 will be for your (Swiss bank) account'" (New African, July, 1988, 25).

In his address to the third Congress of the Democratic Union of Malian People recently, President Moussa Traore observed that, The world economy is passing through a period characterized by monetary disorder and slow trade exchanges. The worsening crisis is affecting all countries, particularly developing countries. Due to the difficult situation, which is compounded by the serious drought, socio economic life has been affected by serious imbalances
that have jeopardized our country's development growth. Debt servicing, characterized mainly by state to state debts are a heavy burden on the state budget. The drop in the price of cotton which accounts for much of the country's foreign earnings, has led to a great reduction in export
earnings" (West Africa, 16 May 1988, 876).

President Danial arap Moi accused the IMF and other development partners of denying Kenya development funds, thus triggering mass poverty (The Washington Times, June 3, 1999; p.A12). According to the Chairman of Ghanas ruling NDC, Issifu Ali, whatever economic crisis the nation was going through had been caused by external factors. He said the NDC has since 1982 adopted pragmatic policies for the progress of Ghana, adding that the macro-economic environment of 1999 has been undermined by global economic developments" (The Independent, Nov 18, 1999; p.3). Said the Zimbabwe Independent (April 27, 1999), Mugabe
rejects the criticism of those who blame the government for the economic crisis. It is, he says, the fault of greedy Western powers, the IMF, the Asian financial crisis and the drought (p. 25).

Naturally, African leaders would deny any responsibility and blame everybody else except themselves for the mess in Africa. The New Economic Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) echoes this orthodoxy when it claims that Africas impoverishment has been accentuated by the legacy of colonialism and other historical legacies, such as the Cold War and the unjust international economic system. Colonialism subverted the "traditional structures, institutions and values," creating an economy "subservient to the economic and political
needs of the imperial powers" (para 21). Colonialism, according to NEPAD, retarded the development of an entrepreneurial and middle class with managerial capability. At independence, Africa inherited a "weak capitalist class," which explains the "weak accumulation process, weak states and dysfunctional economies." (para 22). More recent reasons for Africa's dire condition include "its continued marginalization from globalization process." (para 2). NEPAD seeks $64 billion in investments from the West.

Frankly, this colonialism-imperialism card has been so overplayed that it has lost its relevance and credence. Even Africas children dont buy it. Chernoh Bah, president of the Children's Forum asserted that Africa's socio economic problems are a direct repercussion of incompetent and corrupt political leaders who usurped political office via the gun. "Some blame colonialism for Africa' plight while others blame the continent's harsh climatic conditions. I think the reason is the kind of political systems we have had over the past decades, he said. (Standard Times [Freetown], April 2, 2003; web posted). At the United Nations Children's Summit held in May 2002 in New York, youngsters from Africa ripped into their leaders for failing to improve
their education and health. "You get loans that will be paid in 20 to 30 years and we have nothing to pay them with, because when you get the money, you embezzle it, you eat it, said 12-year-old Joseph Tamale from Uganda (BBC News, May 10, 2002).

The Internalists

Internalists are the new and angry generation of Africans, who are fed up with African leaders who refuse to take responsibility for their own failures and, instead use colonialism and other external factors as convenient alibis to conceal their own incompetence and mismanagement.
Internalists believe that, while external factors have played a role, internal factors have been far more significant in causing Africas crisis. This school of thought maintains that while it is true Western colonialism and imperialism did harm Africa and continues to do so, Africa's condition has been made immeasurably worse by such internal factors as misguided leadership, misgovernance, systemic corruption, capital flight, economic mismanagement, declining investment, collapsed infrastructure, decayed institutions, senseless civil wars, political
tyranny, flagrant violations of human rights, and military vandalism. In fact, one can identify a whole lot of them but these will suffice. U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, himself an African, lashed out at African leaders at the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit in Lome in July 2000. He pointedly told them that they are to blame for most of the continent's problems. Instead of being exploited for the benefit of the people, Africas mineral resources have been so
mismanaged and plundered that they are now the source of our misery (Daily Graphic, July 12, 2000; p.5). Earlier in the year at a press conference in London in April, 2000, Kofi Annan, lambasted African leaders who he says have subverted democracy and lined their pockets
with public funds, although he stopped short of naming names (The African-American Observer, April 25 May 1, 2000; p.10). During a brief stop-over in Accra, he disclosed in a Joy FM radio station interview that "Africa is the region giving him the biggest headache as the
Security Council spends 60 to 70% of its time on Africa. He admitted sadly that the conflicts on the continent embarrasses and pains him as an African" (The Guide, July 18-24, 2000; p.8).

Ordinary people are speaking out too. Said Akobeng Eric, a Ghanaian, in a letter to the Free Press (29 March - 11 April 1996): "A big obstacle to economic growth in Africa is the tendency to put all blame, failures and shortcomings on outside forces. Progress might have been achieved if we had always tried first to remove the mote in our own eyes" (2). Angry
at deteriorating economic conditions in Ghana, thousands of Ghanaians marched through the streets of the capital city, Accra, the economic crisis is due to external forces and therefore, beyond his control, then he should step aside and allow a competent person who can
manage the crisis to take over," Atta Frimpong demanded (The Ghanaian Chronicle, Nov 29, 1999; p.1). Appiah Dankwah, another protestor blamed the NDC government for mismanaging the resources of the nation.

By the 1990s, African governments had completely lost touch with their people; in fact, they were at war with their people. Citing "the credibility gap between the people and the leadership built up through years of mismanagement," Mr. Mohammed Boudiaf, the head of Algeria's
High Executive Council (HEC), lamented: "A large segment of the population has, I am afraid, lost confidence in the capacity of the leadership to provide jobs, housing, health care and its ability to combat corruption" (Financial Times, June 17, 1992; p. 4). Indeed, said Simon Agbo, a farmer in Ogbadibo, south of Makurdi, Benue state capital in Nigeria: "I heard we have a new government. It makes no difference to me. Here we have no light ( electricity), we have no water. There is no road. We have no school. The government does nothing for us (The
Washington Times, Oct 21, 1999; p.A19).

Rafael Marques, a journalist, jailed and convicted of defamation for a 1999 article in which he characterized President Jose Eduardo dos Santos of Angola as a dictator, wrote: "The government has created a stateless state here in Angola. Each citizen is responsible for his own health and welfare while the government is accountable to no one. The MPLA and
UNITA are like two gangs and the people of Angola are innocent bystanders caught in the middle of a drive-by shooting" (The Washington Post, Sept 18, 2000; p.A1).

As a result of the failure to provide the basic necessities of life, the state and those in power have increasingly alienated themselves from those they rule and from whom they claim to derive their legitimacy. The growing gap between the leaders and the people has made the leaders increasingly insecure, sensitive, repressive and less responsive to the wishes of society. The mass of the people in turn regard the state and its organs with fear, suspicion and cynicism because as far as they are concerned, they are no longer legitimate or relevant in their lives. The government does nothing for them. Insecure African despots spend inordinate amounts on the military and security forces, subverting other state institutions squelch dissent, prop them up in power, and serve their parochial interests. The masses on the other hand, sensing their
inability to meaningfully influence the policies of the state and the behaviors of those in positions of power, develop apathy and withdraw from participation in the political process for safety reasons.

Government, as an institution that cares about its people and attends to their needs, has ceased to exist in many African countries. What exists is a vampire state, where the government has been hijacked by a phalanx of unrepentant bandits and crooks, who use the machinery of the
state to enrich themselves, their cronies and tribesmen, while excluding everyone else (the politics of exclusion). The richest persons in Africa are heads of state and ministers. Quite often, the chief bandit is the head of state himself.

At an African civic groups meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Nigeria's President, Olusegun Obasanjo, claimed that corrupt African leaders have stolen at least $140 billion (95 billion) from their people in the decades since independence (The London Independent, June 14, 2002. Web
posted at www.independent.co.uk). In August 2004, an African Union report claimed that Africa loses an estimated $148 billion annually to corrupt practices, a figure which represents 25 percent of the continent's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). But these are gross underestimates. According to one UN estimate, $200 billion or 90 percent of the sub-Saharan part of the continent's gross domestic product was shipped to foreign banks in 1991 alone (The New York Times, Feb 4, 1996; p.4). Nigeria's past rulers stole or misused 220 billion ($396 billion) -- that is as much as all the western aid given to Africa in almost four decades. The looting of Africa's most populous country amounted to a sum equivalent to 300 years of British aid for the
continent (The London Telegraph, June 25, 2005; web posted). If this sum had been divided equally among Nigerias 120 million people, its income per capita would be at least $3,000, instead of the miserable $265, which is about the same as it was when it gained its independence in 1960. Between 1970 and 2004, more than $400 billion in oil money
flowed into Nigerian governments coffers. What happened to the oil money?

Eventually the vampire state metastasizes into what Africans call a coconut republic and implodes when politically-excluded groups rise up in rebellion: Somalia (1993), Rwanda (1994), Burundi (1995), Zaire (1996), Sierra Leone (1998), Liberia (1999), Ivory Coast (2000), and
Togo (2005). Only reform intellectual, economic, political and institutional will save Africa but the leadership is not interested. Period.

Ask these leaders to develop their countries and they will develop their pockets. Ask them to seek foreign investment and they will seek a foreign country to invest their booty. Ask them to cut bloated state bureaucracies or government spending and they will set up a Ministry of
Less Government Spending. Ask them to establish better systems of governance and they will set up a Ministry of Good Governance (Tanzania). Ask them to curb corruption and they will set up an Anti-Corruption Commission with no teeth and then sack the Commissioner if he gets too close to the fat cats (Kenya). Ask them to establish democracy and they will empanel a coterie of fawning sycophants to write the electoral rules, hold fraudulent elections with opposition leaders either disqualified or in jail, and return themselves to power (Ivory Coast, Rwanda). Ask them to reduce state hegemony in the economy and place more reliance on the private sector and they will create a Ministry of Private Enterprise (Ghana). Ask them to privatize inefficient state-owned enterprises and they will sell them off at fire-sale prices to their cronies. In 1992, in accordance with World Bank loan conditionalities, the Government of Uganda began a
privatization effort to sell-off 142 of its state-owned enterprises. However, in 1998, the process was halted twice by Ugandas own parliament because, according to the chair of a parliamentary select committee, Tom Omongole, it had been derailed by corruption, implicating three senior ministers who had "political responsibility" (The East African, June 14, 1999). The sale of these 142 enterprises was initially projected to generate 900 billion Ugandan shillings or $500
million. However, by the autumn of 1999 the revenue balance was only 3.7 billion Ushs.

Now, their recalcitrance has transmogrified into extortion. Ask them to move a foot and they will demand foreign aid in order to do so. In 2003, some 30,000 ghost names were discovered on the payroll of the Ministry of Education, costing the government $1.2 million a month in salaries heisted by living workers. When Ghana demanded foreign aid to purge these ghost names, Japan ponied up $5 million.

The reform process has stalled through vexatious chicanery, strong-arm tactics, deception, and vaunted acrobatics. Only 16 out of the 54 African countries are democratic and fewer than 8 African countries can be described as economic success stories. Intellectual freedom remains
in the Stalinist era: only 8 African countries have a free and independent media. But without genuine reform, more African countries will implode -- Chad, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Togo and Zimbabwe are already teetering on the brink

The slave trade, Western colonialism, imperialism and external factors have nothing to do with the naked plunder and wrong choices made by bad African leaders. The World Bank has nothing to do with monumental leadership failure in Africa. The IMF, which most African leaders relish
vilifying, has nothing to do with petrol (gasoline) shortages in Nigeria. Nor do Western agricultural subsidies have anything to do with why African governments cant supply reliable electricity and safe drinking water to their people. The slave trade has nothing to do with
Nigeria turning itself into the scam capital of the world.

The Flaws in the Externalist Position

The issue of Western culpability or complicity in causing Africas woes evokes such intense emotionalism that it often clouds rational analysis of our problems in Africa. Let us strip the issue of its emotionalism and examine it rationally.

Historical Wrongs Committed by the West

The Slave Trade/Colonialism

Everyone agrees that the slave trade was at once a brutally inhumane treatment that can ever be meted out to a people. The horrors of capture, the trans-shipment, the loss of millions of able-bodied men, the atrocities that were committed by European slave traders, etc. are all documented. We all agree to the humiliating experience of colonial subjugation. The discrimination against African natives, the exploitation of Africa's mineral wealth and artifacts, etc. -- we also agree on that.

Remedies

We may seek compensation (reparations) for the harm that slavery did to us. We may seek the return of the stolen booty. Ethiopia has just received its ancient obelisk, stolen by the Italian colonialists. But even here, African leaders have debauched the issue.

Back in August 1999, representatives of African governments met in Accra and issued a declaration: "Africa is demanding $777 trillion from Western Europe and the Americas in reparation for enslaving Africans while colonizing the continent" (Pan African News Agency, August 18, 1999). It added that the money would be demanded from ''all those nations of Western Europe and the Americas and institutions, who participated and benefited from the slave trade and colonialism''. Dr. Hamet Maulana and Debra Kofie, co-chairpersons of the commission, urged that worldwide monitoring and networking systems be instituted to ensure
that reparation and repatriation will be achieved by 2004. Problem is, U.S. GNP is only $12 trillion and amount asked- $777 trillion- exceeds the combined sum of the GNPs of the entire Western world! According to the British governments Office of National Statistics, The United
Kingdom -- that is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland -- is officially valued at $8.8 trillion, a sum that includes all of its property and buildings, machinery, roads, bridges, planes, trains and automobiles. It also includes all the money deposited in its banks and other financial institutions. Plus everything on the shelves at Harrods (The New York Times, Jan 1, 2004; p.A4). So how do African leaders hope to collect $777 trillion?

We may argue all we want about the size of reparations but these historical wrongs cannot repeat, cannot -- be used to justify the cruel atrocities and grotesque misdeeds African leaders commit against their own people. Winning independence for their respective countries gives no African leader -- none of them -- the license to do what they want with their people and countries.

European slave traders or colonialists did not tell President Mugabe to raze down shanty-towns, destroying the propertied of hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans and rendering more than 1.5 million HOMELESS. American imperialists did not tell President Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia
to order his security forces to open fire on student demonstrators, killing more than 40 of them on June 15, 2005. British racists did not tell President Isaiah Afwerki of Eritrea to shut down all the private newspapers in Eritrea and jail all their editors and journalists.

These leaders must be held ACCOUNTABLE for their actions. Historical wrongs by the West do not factor in here because they are a separate issue and CANNOT be used to excuse wrongful actions taken by African leaders TODAY.

Colonial Legacies

It is also agreed that the colonial legacies bequeathed to Africa were pitiful. What the Portuguese left behind in Guinea-Bissau, after 200 years of colonial rule, was a small brewery for their local servicemen. There was no social development; industry was not encouraged. African colonies were to serve as sources of raw material and cheap labor for the industrial machines of Metropolitan Europe. The colonial economies were based on export mono-culture: the export of one or two cash crops.

Colonial education was geared toward training male clerks for the colonial administration. The Belgians and Portuguese never encouraged university education as that would teach African natives of their political rights. When Tanzania gained its independence in 1964, it had only 4 university graduates.

Infrastructure was Spartan. Few roads and railways were built. Even where built in West Africa, they exhibited a dendritic pattern: Straight from the coast to the hinterland to evacuate some mineral or cash crop.

All this is true but heres the problem: After independence, we, African elites, did not maintain, let alone keep the little infrastructure we inherited from the colonialists. In fact, we destroyed them! Infrastructure crumbled in the post colonial period. The few universities we got in Ghana and Nigeria decayed. In Uganda, Makerere University used to be called the Harvard of Africa in the 1950s. By 1980, it was a shambles. In Zaire, the Belgian colonialists put down only 2,000 miles of paved road appalling for that huge country the size of Texas. By 1990, only 200 miles were usable. So who do you blame: the Belgian colonialists for not laying down enough roads OR Mobutu for failing to maintain the little that Zaire got? Later, we learned that Mobutu allowed the roads and infrastructure to crumble in Zaire because it made it difficult for the opposition to organize against him!
(contd)

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS