government

In order to thwart the Winston Salem Occupy Wallstreet group.

Winston-Salem City Council considers changing free-speech ordinance
By: LAURA GRAFF | Winston-Salem Journal
Published: December 20, 2011

With no public notice and no public input, the Winston-Salem City Council on Monday night considered temporarily changing the city ordinance governing free speech and public assembly to prohibit such activities on City Hall grounds

This was proposed by Dan Besse, city council member, who some may remember for his campaigns for Lt Gov.

In the sleepy dual township of Carrboro and Chapel Hill, NC, we like to think that our thoughtful brand of progressive leadership provides an homogenous and caring exemplar of efficient local government. Events of the past few months have left me wondering if the reverse is true.

We are not homogenous. Not in our demographic or political make-up. Nor even in our alleged single brand of caring progressivism.

In Carrboro, all we imports (I am from England, by way of Rhode Island, Georgia, Texas and South Carolina) have become so taken with our over-enthusiastic efforts to engineer a social and artistic nirvana, that we quite forget to ask if we have the permission of the many thousands whose families have been living here for generations.

New study on privatization claims it simply does not work, and documents it. In fact, privatization sucks.

Here are some impacts the Cornell University Hebdon Report found that result from privatization:

-diminished quality and access to services

-lower employee morale, productivity and training

-worker exploitation through lower wages and benefits

-increased discrimination against minorities and women

-loss of government control and sovereignty

-lost constitutional and other legal rights

-decreased efficiency as a result of difficulty monitoring and administrating contracts

-loss of accountability and control

lost infrastructure

-increased corruption, bribery, kickbacks, bid-rigging, campaign donations, low-ball bids, and contractor bankruptcy

-higher direct costs or hidden costs to pay for the loss of pensions and benefits of public employees

-increased conflict, strikes, grievances, and arbitrations

I have a serious question that I really don't know the answer to and would appreciate some comment from those who might be able to quote some references.

You hear all the time from the Regressives on the Right(as well as a few the so-called "Conservative" Dems) that it is not the role of Government to help people who are unemployed or who need healthcare or anything when it comes to social services. That kind of Government assistance is commonly demagogued as being "welfare."

Yet, those same people never seem to have a problem with Government doing everything it can to help corporations and businesses, whether it be through trade legislation or regulations (or the non-enforcement thereof), and in fact, it seems like it is accepted as common knowledge that "creating jobs" is the No. 1 priority of Government. At every level, whether local city councilman to Governor to President. You always hear that concept: "we must do this to spur job growth."

My question is: where in the Constitution does it say Government's job is to help spur job growth? Or further than that, where did that concept arise and why is that not seen as Government intrusion? I know the reality is that it is most likely because government is corrupt and corporations have armies of lobbyists, but from a philosophical or historical point of view, just where did that idea that the U.S. Government's job is to help business begin or evolve from?

What with all the attacks on Labor in states like Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, there has been just so much misunderstanding out there these past couple weeks about what things are actually like for State workers.

Are the conditions decent?
Is there excessive pay?
Is there even a need for State workers?

Well, I can’t answer every question, but I can sure tell you what it’s like in our house…and the reason my words carry the “voice of authority” is because The Girlfriend has been working for the State of Washington for the past 16 years.

Bona fides established, let’s get to telling the story:

It is about time for the 112th House to come back into session, and the first thing on the agenda appears to be an effort to take away any healthcare reform that have been passed by this Administration.

Next comes an effort to slash Social Security and Medicare, an effort to reverse financial reforms, and proposals to “slash” spending—but only on domestic discretionary items.

If the House majority had its way there would be no restrictions on offshore drilling, no rules designed to prevent climate change—in fact, few if any environmental protections at all...and all of this is intended to bring to life the philosophy that government, for all intents and purposes, should just go away and leave us all alone.

I don’t buy into that kind of thinking—not even a little bit—and today we’re going to look around the world and see if we can’t figure out why.

Much of our (more rational) current political discussion about reviving our economy seems to revolve around a simple-minded question of what got us out of the Depression. For the sake of argument, let's grant that it was WWII and not the New Deal's social safety net that revved up the economy again. Does that prove that we don't need government?

If our Party is indeed interested in serving the interests of the Citizens of this great country of ours, it may be time to consult the Founder and greatest Democrat to ever grace our soil, Thomas Jefferson. What Would Jefferson Do?

Does anyone have a story about how our government has done things of a ridiculous nature? Some of the things I have seen are just so "off the hook" and "mindboggling". Some are cute and so ridiculous they just make you cringe. Some just make you wonder WTF? and make you smile.

Anyone else have a story or pic or example?

Here's mine:

I'd like to invite comments about the value of public service experience, specifically including elected office, in evaluating candidates.