Category Archives: politics

Nesbitt-McCouch for Horsham Council!

Posted on by

As a 14-year resident of Horsham Township (Montgomery County, PA), I cannot really make claim to the full history of Horsham’s success or affluence.  However, for the years my family has lived here, I can unequivocally state that we have been very happy and extremely comfortable with our life in one of America’s Best Places to Live!

I wouldn’t change a thing about how the Township is planned, managed or operated!  And that MUST include those who have served to keep Horsham Township on the best possible path, both in the past and for the future!

Greg Nesbitt and Mark McCouch are two of the Leaders responsible for the current success and publicly recognized attractiveness and livability of Horsham Township!  Both men have been instrumental – as HLRA-backing Council members – in working towards a feasible, attractive, community-oriented solution for the now vacant JRB Willow Grove property.  And MOST IMPORTANTLY, making sure that future DOES NOT include an airport that indubitably would prove a greater drain on Township resources and community atmosphere than it would benefit.

Even their Democrat opponents admit that there are no “particular issues or problems with the current council” that might require a change in Township Leadership.  The opposition also openly AGREES with the premise and direction that both the HLRA and Township Council has taken on the future look of the JRB Willow Grove property.

So, you have to ask yourself … Why would you change what is so obviously working for the community in which you live?!?  What would possess one to think we could improve on one of the Best Places to Live in America?!?

It’s obvious that you shouldn’t and wouldn’t think seriously about either!

VOTE GREG NESBITT AND MARK McCOUCH on Tuesday, November 8!

Important election day for Montgomery County (PA)

Posted on by

This Tuesday, November 8 Montgomery County (PA) voters will face crucial decisions on the future health and welfare of the County in an election that will address the makeup of County leadership and management of 11 row offices. 

In the headline contest Republican candidates Jenny Brown and Bruce Castor faceoff against Democrats Josh Shapiro and Leslie Richards for control of the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners.  On election day, voters will cast ballots for TWO preferred commissioners.  The top three vote-getters will assume seats on the Commissioners Board, thus ensuring one minority representative will serve with two from the majority party.   

As background, the 2007 election for the County Commissioners Board was waylaid by the duplicitous Republican-elect Jim Matthews, when he worked a backroom, split-management deal with Democrat minority member, Joe Hoeffel.  Matthews’ low-handed dealings betrayed the wishes of the County’s electorate – a vote that demanded a Republican-controlled Commissioners Board – by essentially handing de facto control to Hoeffel.  Matthews’ behavior left him isolated from his own party and dependent on Hoeffel’s concurrence to get anything accomplished.  Democrat Hoeffel had unprecedented control – for a minority party board member – over patronage, contracts and budget decisions.

The issue of who was really in charge of the Montgomery County Board over the past term is an important distinction, because as of February 2011, the County possessed a $435 MILLION bonded debt obligation.  This is a RECORD HIGH for Montgomery County!  The County budget for Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) is already $25 million short in projected revenues!  And in September the County’s Treasurer, Tom Ellis reported that the County’s Financial Health Index (the ratio between cash reserves and debt service) projects to 0.63-to-1 for FY12, where a ratio of 2-1 would be considered “unhealthy”. 

The solution posed by current Democrat County Controller Diane Morgan to improve the County financial picture by pursuing fraud, waste and duplication is not a strategy that instills much confidence when looking at a $435 million hole.  

As Whitemarsh Supervisor, Leslie Richards oversaw an amazing 8-fold increase in township debt – from $1.8 million to $15.0 million!  So one can assume that a Shapiro-Richards-controlled Commissioners Board could very well continue a budget philosophy of spend-spend-spend, despite their pronouncements in favor of a “zero-based budgeting” approach to County finances.  Josh Shapiro already has a record of raising taxes; and his solution for fixing the traffic problems on Rt 422 is to leverage funding from the State and Federal Government. 

My understanding of leveraging includes the promise of putting up substantial funds (more borrowing!) to demonstrate a financial commitment which is then used to elicit funding from other sources, in this case the State and federal government.  More fiscal insanity is not the response taxpayers want!

The solution favored by the Brown-Castor team is to slash expenditures while in the pursuit of gambling income from the new Valley Forge Convention Center casino development.  This has the potential for being a tax-neutral solution, assuming the County can successfully reverse a state law that prevents direct Montgomery County control over its share of casino proceeds, a flawed – and unfair – state law fully supported by Shapiro in his duties as a State Representative.  Instead the Pennsylvania Financing Authority controls MontCo’s funds from gambling revenue, the funds limited to use in treating sites with environmental contamination in preparation for future business redevelopment.  Bucks County – on the other hand – enjoys direct and complete control over its portion of revenue from the Parx casino because somehow that casino is licensed under a different classification than the proposed Valley Forge development.  (Confusing? Yes.)

It’s not difficult to recognize which debt solution makes the most sense in these troubling economic times or which team is best positioned to pursue it.    

Both Jenny Brown and Bruce Castor have well-respected records as government leaders.  Brown has served as Commissioner in Lower Merion Township since 2005.  Castor, after a successful term as Montgomery County District Attorney, was elected to the Montgomery County Commission in 2007. 

For these reasons, the right votes are for Jenny Brown and Bruce Castor for Montgomery County Commissioners!

 

On the subject of Row Office candidates, I have provided my impressions on several occasions.

I have been much impressed by several of the female row office and judicial candidates, particularly Eileen Behr for Sheriff, Maureen Coggins for Judge on the Court of Common Pleas,  and of course Risa Vetri Ferman, who is running for re-election after a superb term as Montgomery County’s District Attorney. 

Another strong Republican contender is William “Bill” Donnelly for Prothonotary (Clerk of the Court for Common Pleas), who led a modernization effort during a previous term, achieving recognition as one of the most efficient such offices in the country. 

Normally, I’m one to loath suggesting that anyone pull the straight party lever when they enter the voting booth.  But frankly, I cannot find a single candidate on the Montgomery County Republican ballot that I will not support with my own vote!

Whatever your voting inclinations, DO NOT forsake this opportunity to set the course for Montgomery County’s future!  Get out and vote!

Josh Shapiro-Leslie Richards: Not your typical “green party” Democrats!

Posted on by

Or how to trash the community you want to serve even BEFORE you get elected!

Used to be, you could count on a Democrat – as a candidate – to stand for certain things, including care for the environment and reasonable control of man’s infringement upon it in the pursuit of worldly treasures.

Not so much though for the two Democrats campaigning to become Montgomery County (PA) Commissioners!

Was driving my son home from Temple University Friday evening when I happened to take Cheltenham Avenue out to Rt. 309 in an attempt to beat rush hour traffic.  Didn’t get to see much of 309, but what I saw of Cheltenham Avenue from Broad Street (Rt. 611) all the way out to Ogontz Avenue (Rt. 309) was disturbing and infuriating, especially if you despise trashiness and man-made contributions to urban blight.

Contrary to those environmental concerns that so many Democrats seem to cherish, the Shapiro-Richards campaign decided to blanket Cheltenham Avenue with enough Shapiro-Richards plastic to shrink-wrap the Norristown Courthouse.

From what I saw, the signs are already adding clutter and blight to the sights along that stretch of highway.  Many of the signs are coming loose or have been displaced and uprooted.  They lay on the sidewalks and street.  It’s not too hard to imagine what Cheltenham Avenue is going to look like in two weeks time with all the Shapiro-Richards plastic littering the ground there.

Is it too much to expect a reasonable use of signage??  Maybe a bit of common sense in how many you need to plant or the spacing that might lessen the visual assault???

One wonders exactly how many plastic lawn signs the Shapiro-Richards campaign estimates they will place throughout Montgomery County in the pursuit of nothing more than election-day name recognition?!?  Apparently, it’s quite a bit more than what you see on Cheltenham Avenue!

Today, Carol and I decided to drive up to the Philadelphia Outlets in Limerick.  As we usually do, we exited the Turnpike at King of Prussia and headed west on Rt. 422.  And guess what we saw?

Yep … Long lines of Shapiro-Richards plastic lining both sides of 422 for as far as the eye could see.  No, it won’t be too long at all before 422 resembles – at least on one level – Cheltenham Avenue! 

At this time of year you expect to see campaign lawn signs throughout your community.  It is – unfortunately – what is to be expected.  But you would hope that common sense and – above all – consideration for the aesthetic impact of too many signs in too high a concentration in your neighborhood and on the roads you travel might cross a politician’s – or campaign worker’s – mind. 

Apparently not so this year from the Shapiro-Richards Plastic Campaign! 

Remember that when you consider who you want to run Montgomery County and to protect green spaces and the local environment for the next four years!

I pledge not to pledge!

Posted on by

Other than The Pledge of Allegiance, I know of no pledges worth taking.

For the life of me, I fail to understand the phenomena of committing to pledges as the latest iteration of the dreaded political litmus test.  Few of the Republican Presidential hopefuls show the backbone or willingness to be a LEADER!  It has gotten to the point where I am forced to agree with a Liberal scribe, such as Karen Heller of The Philadelphia Inquirer, whose Wednesday column reflects my own growing frustration with spine-ophobia.

It is time to begin looking with jaundiced eye at any candidate who feels compelled to kowtow to every political group looking to push a narrow, unyielding agenda.  The trend is growing beyond the point of disturbing.  Is winning in the Iowa caucuses really worth losing any claim to being a strong, independent leader?!?

Don’t get me wrong.  I agree with the underlying premise of some of the more popular pledges.  Others however, like Rick Santorum’s public pledge to remain faithful to one’s wife, are simply silly and capricious.  If we honestly admit to NEEDING such a pledge, then the problem is magnitudes larger than the objectives of all pledges combined.  In reality what we are saying is, “We no longer TRUST you, Mr./Mrs. OfficeSeeker, to use your judgement and do the right thing!”  And that to me, says much more about the shallowness of our expectations than it does the worthiness of any candidate.

And what might we expect in the way of governance from candidates who so willingly allow narrow political agendas to bind their feet so tightly as to make compromise impossible?  Currently over half of the entire House of Representatives has signed Grover Norquist‘s call for no tax increases. 

At this particular time, how does that further the interests of The Country?  Does anyone really believe that with skyrocketing national debt and the sacrifices being made on Main Streets throughout The Country, that taxes on the richest cannot ever be raised? 

The concept of republican government requires compromise.  Without it no progress can be made towards the true goals and interests of the country.  There are plenty of areas on both sides where compromise can and should be made.  But binding one’s feet only guarantees nothing can be done.      

At least ONE candidate has refused to prostrate himself before the pledge seekers.  Jon Huntsman, the former Ambassador to China, has steadfastly refused to take any pledges other than The Pledge of Allegiance and his marital pledge to his wife.  Interesting that he didn’t seem to need anyone to force him to sign for the latter!

That’s a breath of fresh air!

Rainy days and primaries always get me down

Posted on by

As Karen Carpenter once sang,

Sometimes I’d like to quit
Nothing ever seems to fit
Hangin’ around, nothing to do but frown

Honest, I really did have to look that up!  It’s bad enough that I still remember the song.

But it sums up nicely what yesterday was like.  Primary Day in Montgomery County was dull, slow, wet, long, and dull.  That is until the evening voter rush hit, when it was even duller still if that’s possible.   

It is what it is.

What it was, was a Primary Day completing lacking in any headline-grabbing fights for Party endorsements, save a semi-interesting two-way battle for the County GOP nod in the County Sheriff’s race (Congrats to winning nominee, Eileen Whalon Behr!)  and a few skirmishes for judgeship nominations.  Other than that, it was about as interesting as a night at your daughter’s dance recital.  (C’mon … Admit it!)

You know you’re in for a long day when you remind neighbors the night before ” … to vote tomorrow!”, and they scrunch up their noses and say, “What’s tomorrow?!?” 

Oh, boy …  

Heck, not even a single Democrat poll worker/watcher bothered to show up at our polling place!

With over 800 registered voters in our district, well less than 100 turned out to vote.  But that’s what happens when rainy days and low-profile primaries converge.  

Let’s just hope it doesn’t rain in November for a race that will decide Montgomery (PA) County leadership for the next four years!

‘Cause if it does, there will be …

No need to talk it out
We know what it’s all about
Hangin’ around, nothing to do but frown

Montgomery County (PA) Primary Elections

Posted on by

Tomorrow, May 17 is primary day in Pennsylvania. And although there are few national or state-wide races sexy enough to draw much attention, Montgomery County will be selecting party nominations for the County Commissioners offices and all county row offices.

Any Republican, who pays attention to regional politics, recognizes the problems which have occurred at the County Commissioner level when Republican voters were disenfranchised through Jim Matthews’ personal vendetta against Bruce Castor.  The stage will be set for purging the Commissioners ranks of Matthews with the strong candidate team of Bruce Castor and Jenny Brown. 

Even though the Castor and Brown will be unopposed for the Republican nomination, several other important nominations for row offices are being contested.  (Each party nominates two Commissioner candidates for three commissioner offices.  This ensures that there is always one minority member included on the County Commissioners Board.)

See my take on the Montgomery County Republican nominees here.

Pay particular attention to the GOP nomination race for Sheriff.  Eileen Behr, former Whitemarsh Township Police Chief and currently serving the balance of the term of the deceased John P. Durante as Montgomery County’s Sheriff, looks to run as the Montco GOP-endorsed candidate for her own term as Sheriff.  Behr was asked by Governor Tom Corbett to finish out Durante’s term when he passed away in February 2010.

She is being opposed by Robert J. Durante, who is of no relation to the deceased Sheriff Durante, is a retired 33-year veteran of the Sheriff’s office. 

Ms. Behr is eminently qualified for the post of Sheriff.  Please show your support for a woman who has diligently worked her way up from dispatcher to become the first female police chief in Montgomery County.  

To my knowledge, none of the other GOP row office nominations are being contested with the Republican Party.  However, care should be given in recognizing Democrat candidates for judge that have cross-filed as Republicans in order to cement unopposed ballot positions in the November election.

On that note, I also submit for your consideration the nomination of Maureen Coggins for judge.  I was much impressed by Ms. Coggins during the Republican nomination process.  She would be an excellent choice for judge in Montgomery County.

Review: “Decision Points” by George W. Bush

Posted on by

At times I have been accused of being an apologist for former President George W. Bush.  Rightfully so, I must add.  That’s why I have been looking forward to reading Bush43‘s memoir, Decision Points. 

The book starts out with a frank, introspective look at Bush’s struggle to overcome his problem with alcohol.  Most telling was his failure at Laura Bush’s urging to remember a day when he had not had a drink.  Unable to do so, he begins to realize that he just might have a problem.  From my perspective, it was a surprising way for an ex-President to kick off his memoir.  But it conveyed the obvious importance that struggle was to his future success.  It also helps to understand his reliance on Laura’s strength and wisdom.  They were married just three months after they met!

Of course the linchpin event of George Bush’s presidency was the attack of September 11, 2001.  Through all the smoke, fire and loss of life from that day comes the one pledge that overshadowed the rest of his presidency.

Yet after 9/11, I felt my responsibility was clear. For as long as I held office, I could never forget what happened to America that day. I would pour my heart and soul into protecting the country, whatever it took. (page 151)

This is the prism through which one must view his subsequent decisions and actions, both here and abroad.  Afghanistan was a no-brainer; but going into Iraq was a dicier decision that resulted in a major distraction from the Afghan operation.  

However a decade after Operation Desert Storm, the Saddam Hussein situation required a solution.  The international community, the U.N., and the Clinton Administration had been convinced that Hussein had WMDs; and the reliance on no-fly zones was not the solution to Hussein’s cruelty, oppression, and perceived threat to the region.  That no WMDs were found does not diminish the validity of these widely held beliefs.

President Bush’s 9/11 pledge also explains the decisions to house captured terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, The Patriot Act, creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and the development of the Bush Doctrine and the Freedom Agenda.  And no matter where you stood on the pro-con scale as the Bush Administration enacted these measures, they are still in place two years after President Barack Obama entered The Oval Office!

The book’s tone is straight-forward and conversational.  My impression was that the book read much the way his speeches and national addresses sounded (minus the ill-timed gaffes).  Those who regarded President Bush as a fumbler and stumbler would be impressed by GWB’s efficient style.  I found the book to be an easy and enjoyable read.

The common thread throughout the book is how Bush43 approached the problems and decisions he faced.  Oft times criticized for not being naturally inquisitive, he relied heavily on experts and leaders in applicable fields of research and study – both from within his administration and in industry and academia – when facing complex issues and problems.  And when it came to making a decision, GWB viewed all situations through his strongly held core values.  Although he was not pretentious in his religious beliefs, his beliefs were the foundation of those values.

And yet President Bush was capable of making sound value-based decisions that were not restrained by the desire to pander to his political base.  An example was his decision on stem cell research.  Despite the fervent wishes of the religious right, GWB was adamant in his commitment to seek out all sides of the controversy.  His final decision was based on several factors: stem cell research offered the potential for monumental breakthroughs in medical research; research was already progressing on several dozen stem cell lines (per the National Institute of Health), and the number of lines in development were plentiful for current and future medical research.  His decision to allow federal funding for existing stem cell lines, while affirming the dignity of human life and preventing the use of federal funds for future stem cell harvesting was a practical and compassionate solution to a difficult problem.

If the measure of a good compromise is the reality that neither side is entirely satisfied with the solution, then George Bush certainly hit the mark with stem cell research.  A good leader can never be burdened with the concept that he must please everyone all the time.

Several other aspects of the book were very interesting; some surprised me:

  • As Governor of Texas, GWB was renown for his ability to work across the aisle.  Something that was essential as a Republican Governor with a State House and Senate headed by seasoned and well-respected Democrats.  In fact, Bush and Lt. Governor Bob Lubbock – a Democrat – respected each other to the point where Lubbock not only endorsed Bush for his second term as Texas Governor, he predicted that Bush would be the next President of the United States!
  • Laura Bush was a real cutie when she landed GWB!  (See third page of the first photo section.)
  • The Bush Administration committed $15 billion over 5 years to fight the spread of AIDS in Africa.  After a 2003 visit to AIDS-ravaged Uganda, Bush was inspired to push the country to do more in fighting the disease.  He envisioned the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) as a medical version of The Marshall Plan.  In addition to testing, counseling and treating tens of millions for AIDS, there was also considerable commitment to eradicate malaria.
  • During the 2008 presidential campaign and the banking crises that resulted in the Toxic Asset Recovery Program (TARP), Republican candidate for president, Arizona Senator John McCain insisted that The White House host an emergency meeting of both candidates, the leadership of both parties in the House and Senate, and the Bush Administration.  Expecting McCain, who instigated the meeting, to address the issues and how Congress could support TARP, the President was astounded at McCain’s silence in contrast to Barack Obama’s succinct analysis of the program.

In my opinion, anyone interested in politics and government whether a supporter or critic of President George W. Bush would enjoy reading a Commander-in-Chief’s view of his eight years in The Oval Office. 

DISCUSSION TOPIC:  The Bush Doctrine included the concept that America’s interests would be maximized by promoting freedom and democracy wherever possible.  It supported fledgling democracies in the Ukraine, Georgia, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories as well as Iraq and Afghanistan.  And it lent encouragement and support for dissidents and reformers in places like Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.

“America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.”

Given the uprisings in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, etc., can the argument be made that the Bush strategy of supporting democratic reforms in that region has been much more successful than illustrated by the novice democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Lincoln’s struggle with slavery

Posted on by

The following letter was submitted to The Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial page in response to a very well written piece on Abraham Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address 150 years ago.  My motivation was my frustration with complaints – mainly from liberals scribes and commentators – that have recently taken to criticizing any commemoration in the southern U.S. of its Civil War history as “celebrating slavery”.

In my opinion, it’s the same old, tired foolishness – done on both sides of the political spectrum – to portray groups you don’t agree with as raving lunatics looking to destroy everyone’s way of life. The Left does it here, as they do whenever the Tea Party gathers; looking for the most unacceptable messages on signs and t-shirts from the loonies on the fringes, who tend to be attracted to large crowds. The Right tends to do the same thing with coverage of the union protests of late; looking for those who are way out there on the fringes of decorum or sanity.

When it comes to Southern commemorations of the Civil War, you can read letter after letter in The Inqy, or catch Bill Maher and the MSNBC afternoon/evening rabble criticizing southerners for daring to recognize their Civil War history. Yet, I have yet to see any evidence that anyone at these well-publicized events are “celebrating slavery”.

The letter:

Thanks for publishing William C. Kashatus’ piece that sheds a little light on President Abraham Lincoln’s struggle with balancing his constitutional mandate to preserve The Union and the maelstrom over slavery that was consuming the nation. Not many people – especially those who have taken to criticizing southerners for daring to commemorate their Civil War “slave history” – realize that Lincoln never promised to do anything about the institution of slavery. And that he didn’t act upon it until he was certain the issue could solidify The Union’s support in the North and it’s position internationally. 

Perhaps Mr. Kashatus’ next contribution (for Memorial Day?) could focus on all those common soldiers on both sides – fresh immigrants and stand-in draftees in the North and poor dirt farmers in the South – who fought and died with absolutely no personal or moral stand on the issue of slavery. Then perhaps we can bury the disingenuous criticism of southern commemorations of their Civil War history as nothing more than celebrations of slavery.

Certainly there are inappropriate ways in which anyone – north or south of the Mason-Dixon – can sully the memory of one of the most defining moments in U.S. history.  But the contention that every Civil War commemoration in the South is inexorably linked to commemorating slavery is a disingenuous attempt to paint one group of people with a wide brush all in the name of political expediency. 

People often lose sight of the fact that until 1964, the South was known as the Solid South due to its penchant for voting solid Democrat.  Those were southern Dems standing in the doorways of schools, blocking black access.  And Democrats who controlled the most violent states during the civil rights struggle.

My point being, these southern commemorations – that liberals so abhor – were cultivated largely under Democrat leadership.  So they really have no room for false righteous anger.    

(The Inquirer notified that they are considering the above letter for publication.)

On this date in 1875 …

Posted on by

… President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1875. 

This tends to surprise many people, even those who can refer to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, maybe even the Act of 1957.  But it’s a bit of a shock that Civil Rights was the topic of an act of Congress only ten years after the end of The Civil War.  Yet political and legal battles would be waged for almost another century before full civil rights law was established.   

The 1875 Act was written in an attempt to provide equal access to public accommodations such as restaurants, trains, theatres, etc.  The reason why so many have problems recognizing the earliest civil rights law was that it was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1883.  Its rejection by the country’s highest court was based on the law’s lack of standing within the context of the 13th and 14th Amendments.  Fact is, in its eight-year existence the 1875 Act was rarely – if ever – enforced anyway. 

What is most telling to me, is the realization as early as the 1870s that only reliance upon national law held any potential for mitigating the heinous treatment of African-Americans, both pre-Civil War freemen and newly liberated slaves.  And that despite this realization, it would take another 89 years before full civil rights legislation was enacted.      

In 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 provided voting rights to black Americans in a way that was ineffectual in increasing their political power.  Then-Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson is touted with the tricky political accomplishment of both progressing the measure through Congress, while at the same time ensuring the bill’s evisceration by assigning it to a Judiciary Committee run by anti-civil rights Senator James Eastland (MS).  The bill’s eventual passage also had to survive the longest lasting Senate filibuster by Senator Strom Thurmond, who railed on about nothing in particular for 24 hours, 18 minutes.      

It would not be until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that full civil rights to women as well as blacks would be institutionalized.  Oddly enough, the Act of 1964 was signed into law by the very same, now-President Lyndon Baines Johnson, after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.

Just share the pain … please!

Posted on by

I’m sorry, but the expectation that I “tough out” the economic pain caused by large government deficits, which were caused by economic mismanagement and two wars, are starting to wear me down. 

This urge to apologize is the result of my position on the political scale.  (You have all seen these questionnaires I’m sure, the ones that ask a range of political, economic, and social questions designed to measure your leftward or rightward political tilt.  The program then compiles the results to pinpoint your location on a two-dimension political scale.  I always test to the center of the scale, slightly conservative socially, slightly libertarian economically.)     

My apology stems from the fact that lately my libertarianism is starting to fray. 

You see, it’s much, much easier to remain faithful to your clan when everything is hunky dory (i.e. ducky, jake, copacetic, good).  It gets only slightly harder when things get tough but you can sense that the pain is shared … roughly equally and across the board. 

But now the board seems to have a wall across it.  I never had a problem when the wall prevented the better things on the other side from trickling over to my side.  But I have a real problem when the wall prevents whatever pain is being inflicted on me from seeping over to inflict those people on the other side, especially when they would barely even notice.

I’m a big fan of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  Not because I’m convinced he possesses all the right answers, but because he is at least willing to speak plainly about what he perceives to be the problems; is unafraid to tack deliberately into politically turbulent areas; and is bold in taking the actions he deems essential to New Jersey’s longterm health.  Similarly, I can identify with Wisconsin’s Scott Walker.  His attempt to unilaterally suspend union bargaining rights seems a bridge too far.  But it’s hard not to agree with the view that unions cannot – in this economic climate – get away with paying little towards burgeoning healthcare costs or with enjoying incredibly generous pensions that are publicly funded.        

However, as a federal employee, I can also sympathize with the union members of Wisconsin.  So far this year I have had my salary frozen for the next two, three or five years depending on which flavor of the day emanates from Congress.  We have also heard the whisperings that unpaid furloughs could be in the offing as well.  No matter how you slice it, it comes out to a pay cut, since no one’s costs of living are frozen along with your frozen pay.

But you can deal with – if not fully accept – it, because you have the sense that The Other Guy is suffering along with you.

That’s simply not the case with the rich.

During the recent budget negotiations between the newly minted 112th Congress and the Obama administration I was an interested member of the audience.  The give-and-take that bounded back and forth between the two camps, and as examined eight-ways-to-Sunday by the talking heads, was a fascinating balancing act between how best to resolve the exponential growth of the national debt and at what point higher tax rates for the rich might retard business growth and investment. 

Should higher taxes kick in for those making over $250K a year?  $500K?  a million?  The warnings were dire.  The pictures, painted by the analysts, bleak.  Common sense seemed to indicate that the line had to be drawn in there somewhere.

So, you can imagine my befuddlement at the decision to punt the issue, not into next year but two years hence (or quite coincidentally, after both The House and President Obama run for re-election in 2012).

Even then, I wasn’t particularly annoyed … libertarian supply-sider that I am.

No, it wasn’t until I started grappling with the first-hand economic realities that I had to start venting some steam.  Health insurance – up, food prices – up, gas prices – up, new tires for the car … you get the picture.

No.  I’m sorry.  This has got to stop. 

You can’t keep dumping on the working people without throwing some of the manure over that wall.  The rich can be characterized as Hosni Mubarak-like, disconnected and blithely oblivious.  But the “solutions” are just few more strafing runs away from Moammar Gadhafi!