All around

Anyone care to debate?  Seriously, is there anyone out there who wants to really debate?  Not with me, but it might be nice is the people running for office would get serious about it.

I am talking about the senate debate issue.  You know the one where the Democrats are up in arms over Senator Scott Brown, the incumbent Republican actually putting conditions on a debate.  Truth be told, they have a right to be raising one arm anyway.  For the story in the S-T see Monday's paper (I think) on page A11.

Normally, I wouldn't care too much about the candidates from two parties haggling over the terms and conditions of the debate.  The fact that the Republican wants conditions to debate at the site of perceived Democratic leanings, is not all that noteworthy as it is not that unexpected.

Of the two conditions I have heard about, I whole hardily agree with one, and strongly disagree with the other.  Yes the local media should sponsor the debate; absolutely in no way should the willingness to debate be conditioned upon former and deceased Sen. Kennedy's widow endorsing, or not endorsing a candidate.

No excuse for the second condition.

In the dumb and dumber concept, the last one falls into the entirely different category of one of the dumbest.

That being said, it caused me to smile a great deal over the irony of the situation which transpired locally.  Another national office at stake, but alas not a statewide election for it.  I guess one Democrat refusing to debate another Democrat with a Republican Moderator does not outrage the party stalwarts as much an opposing party member imposing conditions on a debate.

A dodge is a dodge, be it because you want to set the terms or you want to avoid having to deal with issues.  You don't have to be a talking head to see that Brown is angling for the best terms possible.  All you have to do is have a brain in your head to see that on the more local level, Keating was attempting to avoid having to drop a line in the water.

I keep hearing it would just be wrong to let a republican moderate a debate between two democrats.  I must be developing some mental block on this issue, because I just don't see why that would be.  Sure I can think of examples of specific individuals who maybe should not be allowed to moderate such a debate.  But they would be the same ones who shouldn't be allowed to moderate any debate.  Judge the moderator based on his character and integrity, you know the characteristics that we long for in Congress.

Still waiting for someone to point out just what principals would be violated by that one.  But I digress, I think.

If in fact Sen. Brown's demands constitute arrogance as stated by one Dem. party former leader, it is a deadly sin not simply practiced by the Senator.  In fact many attribute the Senator's election to office in the first place  to the arrogance of the Democratic party as a whole.  It was the Democrats seat to lose and lose it they did, in spectacular fashion.

If I were Senator Brown, I would condition the debate on a few simple things.  I would even let MSNBC sponsor the debate.  Just get a commitment for another one, let Fox News sponsor it and you get to pick the site.  Imagine the material from a set of debates like that.

Quite frankly a spin doctor in his or her residency could take the facts for the proposal for the first one (the where, when and who and how) and paint the Senator as Daniel entering the Lions den.  Brown's a sharp enough guy.  Unless he showed up tongue tied, I can't see how he wouldn't come out looking good.

If it is run on the complete up and up, and there is no reason to think it wouldn't be, he should be able to hold his own.  If there was any perception of bias, any slip up that could even be slightly perceived a a slight to a sitting Senator, or some bias against him, you would be talking total sympathy.

Personally, I think he is making too much out of a lot of things and if he isn't careful, may end up shooting himself in the foot.  Anyway ...

On to the local importance to this race:

It is big, really big.  We are losing Barney Frank as our rep. You may not like Barney, or you may think he is the best rep. we ever had, the simple fact is he was very good at dealing with issues of local significance.  He has been effective on fishing industry issues, and an also several Fairhaven related matters over the years.  Keeping a long story extremely short, West Island sewer may have never been but for Rep. Frank.

I realize we are talking Senate race and not the rep. race, but remember, from the fishing industry perspective, Brown has been fairly sympathetic. One of our potential new reps. seems gun shy about our area.  

The biggest concern in greater New Bedford right now should be the fishing industry. As beat up and as depressed as it is, it could be a whole lot worse.  Quite frankly, any vote you cast for federal office should be weighed heavily against the ability, inclinations and willingness of a candidate to take up the plight of the industry.

On the local front ...

I realize some of you tend to lose interest if the issues wander beyond Fairhaven.  I can understand that, but from time to time things outside our small town just seem to need to be addressed.  Besides, no one seems to be publicly hanging themselves at the moment.  That may soon change if the info trickling in turns accurate.

A little less locally, but still close to home ...

Westport voters gave their opinion on the a la carte override/debt exclusion concept.  Pretty resoundingly too.  All five (5) ballot questions were defeated.

If things were/are as bad in Westport financially as the voters were told, time will eventually tell.  The closest votes had what was reported to be a 6% swing (See S-T article in today's paper).

There was a telling statement in the paper from a voter, "if we ran our homes the way the school the school system is run, we'd be out on the streets."  I think the more apt statement would be as a general school would be to substitute government for school systems.

I don't know enough about the ins and outs in Westport, so I am not going to offer any opinion on the town specifically.

The statement though is indicative of how most people feel.

There is truth in the statement, but one must also measure it against the inescapable fact that school systems, and government cannot be run the same way we run our homes.  Mandated services, workers legal protections (and I mean the ones that go beyond those that non-governmental employees have), legal requirements actually keep government from being able to be run like we run our homes.

Let us not forget the little things, you know the programs, services and extras we all want and demand (and the we is not universal.  Vital and essential for me isn't always the same for you).

In running our houses, money gets tight, we cut things out.  We don't need permission.  We are not required to participate in impact bargaining (although your kids may feel otherwise).  We don't have to worry about the call from somebody across town about why you aren't doing something.

I am all for living within a budget.  I am all for requiring departments to live within a budget.  I personally am against a la carte appropriations for operations.

Taking all of that into account, everyone needs to realize that living within that governmental budget means at best doing the same with less money to do it, and often being required to do more with less.  The point has been reached in many places where that however is no longer possible.

In most communities, even assuming zero for increase in contracts for base salaries, existing requirements still push employment costs up.  Fixed expenses still keep going up.  Mandate service costs keep going up, and more are imposed every year.  All out pace the ability to raise funds and taxes.

We have reached the point where maintaining the status quo is not an option.  Where the term "cutting back the fat" has now reached the point where you are cutting more than just fat.

In a time where we are reducing police, fire and school budgets, people are looking for dog parks.  Groups continue to look for free services that can no longer afford to be provided, and are indignant that you even suggest they have to contribute anything to their own existence.

We are all going to have to decide if we want to spend the absolute minimum and maintain everything, or do we start getting rid of what we don't need and what is not mandated.

Okay, I was given a 6:00 A.M. deadline this morning, so before it gets to one minute past, that's it for today.

O.P.M.

A late start for me this morning.  Had a meeting last night, and as much as I hate to admit it, there appear to be times we do in fact need someone to step in and save us from ourselves.

No, not from something spectacular, but rather the size of my preferred soft drink as of late when I go to my meetings.  NYC Mayor Bloomberg might be on to something.  Either that or a got to find the caffeine free version.

I really am not serious (just in case you weren't sure).

Anyway, today's topic is O.P.M.  if you don't know what that is now, hopefully you will get it by reading on ...

First, how you get to spend it ...

One of the ways will be decided by voters in Westport in the near future.  A reader sent me an e-mail wanting to know my opinion on the a la carte approach being taken there on the various overrides and debt exclusions.

It was noted that "it seems most of the time overrides are all or nothing".

Isolated, an override vote is all or nothing.  It is a permanent (unless there is a subsequent under ride) increase to your tax base.  You are entitled to raise that amount year in and year out.  For the first year of the vote only, the funds can be designated for a specific purpose, thereafter the money becomes part of the general fund.

Debt exclusions are specific purpose votes, authorizing expenditures for specific purposes for a specific duration.  Once you have paid off the amount, the cost of funding is removed from the tax bill.

Very simplified but should do as a basis for discussion.

The a la carte approach is used more often than people may realize.

You are faced with a bunch of big ticket items in a given year.  You feel they cannot wait to be done, but you don't have the money to do them.  You don't want to pick and choose from the list so you go to the voters and say here is what we need, what are you willing to do.

You are free to included override matters and debt exclusion matters on the ballot, but all are voted separately.

When you pile them up like that you are essentially looking to get somethings done and are willing to sacrifice others.  The more items on the list, the more likely some will fail, but believe it or not, you also increase the chances of getting something approved that standing alone on the ballot might not pass.

Why is that?  Simple human nature.  Put five things on the ballot that, standing alone, most people would save no too.  Combined, people are inclined for a variety of reasons to vote yes for something.

Makes them feel good.  Let's them say hey, I looked at it, but a, b and c really can wait, but d, well we need d.

Think of the Christmas list concept, I want this that and the other thing. You know you won't get everything, but it will still be a good day if you get something.  Makes the receiver feel good, makes the giver feel good.

Again, a simplified explanation due to space and time constraint, but I think you get the picture.

My personal opinion, running government should not be as simple as preparing an a la carte menu.

I am not talking about really big ticket matters here, such as new schools or multi-million dollar new projects.  Equipment replacement, new roofs, maintenance are all things that should be built into short term and long term planning.  Unfortunately it doesn't happen the way it should anywhere, Fairhaven included.

Yet I understand why it is done at times.  The a la carte is needed when you propose debt exclusions.  My personal opinion is such matters either need to have at least seven figures attached, with the lead off number being a 2 before you do so, otherwise the borrowing costs don't make sense.      

I am just not a big fan of it because it leads to choices being made and not being made for the wrong reasons.  Yes it gives the voters the right to decide what they want.  There is always appeal to that.  But it also tends to ignore the reasons behind why you need the votes in the first place.

That being said, there is a fundamental flaw in the whole 2 1/2 process to begin with.  In a nutshell, a 2.5% adjustment on a base number established decades ago does not keep pace with the reality of life.

One could write a book on what is involved in prop 2 1/2, no one would want to read it, but you could write one.  The digest version would contain a statement though about the fact that the law contained the mechanism to leave it to the local level to make adjustments to the amount of the base to meet needs through overrides.

But in terms for Fairhaven, based on the law, we could essentially double the amount collected in taxes based on present valuation and the rules of 2 1/2 if we choose to do so, by an override vote (so when you fell on the floor reading that, it is pretty safe to get back up.  Don't see anyone going to the polls to double taxes).

We all complain, myself included, about how high taxes are, that they go up every year, etc.  We all expect however the same level of services.  We will soon reach the point though were continued operations at present levels will not be possible.

Thus we will be faced with the same options as some of our neighbors and communities everywhere: an override, operations determined by debt exclussions, or cuts.

So now that I have zigged zagged all over the matter, I will let you let me know whether this helps you out with how to spend O.P.M.