Guarino

The Bonds on the Primary Ballot: When in Doubt, Vote No

I will not be launching into an extended discussion of each of the bonds on the primary ballot Tuesday.  I previously posted on the school bonds-- the behemoth proposal that should be rejected summarily.

With all the other bonds on the ballot, I think there should be a guiding principle.  When in doubt, vote no.  Remain mindful that in an area such as ours, a vote in favor of bonds is also likely a vote to raise taxes.  The elected officials that serve us, for the most part, are not of a disposition to hold the line on taxes.  Instead, they are continuously seeking ways to boost tax revenues.  The bonds would merely be another excuse for these elected officials to throw up their collective hands in despair, and pretend there is no option but to jack up taxes even further.

We also need to remain mindful of two factors the Rhino has pointed out.  First, when voters pass bonds, the county will be legally authorized to later borrow an additional 2/3 of the face value of the bonds without voter approval.  In addition, the new infrastructure the bonds furnish will inevitably increase operational expenses.  Both of these dynamics will tend to feed further tax increases well into the future. 

I am considering a vote in favor of one or two of the individual bond proposals.   But again, the guiding principle should be-- when in doubt, vote no.

County Commissioner At-Large Race-- Sawyer/Proctor

At the forum sponsored by Concerned Citizens of Northeast Greensboro last night, the candidates for the at-large seat on the Board of County Commissioners were to attend and participate.  Unfortunately, when they were called to the front, only one candidate-- Joe Rahenkamp-- was present.  I was hoping to hear an interesting discussion, and learn the candidates' positions more fully.  Unfortunately, that would not happen, so I left at that point.

The race has already generated some discussion at this blog and elsewhere because one of the candidates-- Rudy Binder-- is a developer who has sought and secured the endorsement of the Simkins PAC.  The PAC, of course, is Skip Alston's power base on the Board of County Commissioners.   

There are two other credible candidates in the race-- Wendell Sawyer and Larry Proctor, neither of whom, as far as I can tell, is beholden to the Simkins PAC or to development interests.

Wendell, a local attorney, is a long-time commenter at this blog, and has made some insightful contributions here regarding local politics and political history.  He is a former state senator.  He is a strong conservative who wants to reduce county taxes and hold the line on spending.  He feels so strongly about this that he even opposes the jail bond. 

Larry Proctor owns a local business and has been chairman of the Guilford County Planning Board.  According to a direct mail piece I received from his campaign, he wants to end tax increases, promote smart growth and emphasize crime and public safety.   I had a chance to meet Larry briefly at the Fred Smith rally. 

I have enormous esteem for Wendell because we go back quite some time on this blog, and I will be voting for him.  He would be very good at representing conservative principles on the Board of County Commissioners. 

Again, my recommendations in this race are Wendell Sawyer and Larry Proctor.   

Operation Chaos and Rush Limbaugh

I was tuned in to Rush Limbaugh on the radio over the lunch hour as I was driving just a short while ago.  Rush was playing audio from Chris Matthews' Hardball program on MSNBC.  My cousin, Susan Molinari, was Matthews' guest.  She said that, at this point, it appears Hillary Clinton may be the stronger Democratic candidate in the fall.  It therefore would appear that Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos efforts may be misguided, according to Susan's logic.

Beau Snerdley, Rush's assistant, made the statement that he did not know what had happened to Susan, that she had always seemed so level-headed.

Let me make this clear.  I may not necessarily agree with cousin Susan on every single issue.  But on this one, I think she may be right.  Obama's stock nationwide seems to have tumbled a bit due to the mess emanating from his pastor's mouth.

I am not sure, however, that purely utilitarian considerations should guide whether Operation Chaos should proceed.  I am not concerned about whether it would help or hurt one Democratic candidate or the other.  While I have always liked Rush, I don't think Operation Chaos is an ethical enterprise.  It is a form of mischief in which voters are persuaded to interfere with the primary of a political party to which they do not belong.

I would not like it if Democrats or unaffiliated liberals did it in a Republican primary.  And I don't think Republicans or unaffiliated conservatives should do it in a Democratic primary. 

Operation Chaos is plainly wrong.

At-Large School Board Race: E.C. Huey

I had the opportunity to attend the candidate's forum earlier this evening sponsored by Concerned Citizens of Northeast Greensboro.  Participating in the forum were Sandra Alexander, Alan Hawkes and Michael McKinney.  Unfortunately, E.C. Huey could not attend.

I will not attempt to provide a blow-by-blow account.  However, I have some observations.

It would be a bad mistake to elect Sandra Alexander or Michael McKinney.  Both are cheerleaders for the enforced "diversity" ideology that currently prevails.  They both appear to support forced busing through manipulation of district lines rather than neighborhood schools.  They try to make the point that it is necessary to prepare students for a global environment; but in reality forced busing as it is practiced locally is not a global exercise.

McKinney would grant full taxing authority to the county school system, which would be a disaster.  Alexander is unable to muster any sense of outrage over the irresponsible manner in which school construction has been handled.  McKinney claims to want to achieve management efficiencies and goals of various types, and may have some good ideas in this regard.  Both McKinney and Alexander banged their respective shoes on the table regarding black contractors getting their fair share of school construction business.  McKinney spoke in terms of a target percentage of minority contractors getting work-- which is essentially a set-aside. 

Both McKinney and Alexander do not appear to want to remove the misbehaving student from the school setting unless there is an alternative setting in place for that student that meets their specifications.  They claim to want to enforce safety-- but what if that alternative setting is not in place to their satisfaction?   What will they do about recalcitrant misbehaving students then?   McKinney went out of his way to emphasize that he did not want these misbehaving students put out "on the street". 

It should be noted that Michael McKinney is the endorsee of the Simkins PAC and Dot Kearns.   These endorsements raise red flags.

Today the Rhino endorsed E.C. Huey, as I have done previously.  Many of us have had the opportunity to watch Erik's thought process unfold on his blog on a daily basis for a long time; and he appears ready to serve with the right principles guiding him.  He is a vast improvement over McKinney and Alexander. 

I had the opportunity to watch Alan Hawkes tonight.  His platform is fairly comparable to that espoused by E.C. Huey.  He is another conservative who speaks very well regarding school construction costs, setting higher expectations for students and parents,  maintaining order and discipline, and emphasizing neighborhood schools.  He refers frequently to the successful approaches taken at Greensboro Academy, a high-performing charter school where he has been a board member for a number of years.   

Hawkes talks much about the educational process taking place at the classroom level-- where accomplishment needs to be emphasized, teachers need to be empowered, and resources need to be directed.  He emphasizes the imperative nature of kids acquiring fundamental skills-- reading, writing and math.  He warns against coddling, patronizing or indulging students.  Instead, he wants to get them excited about learning, and obtain the buy-in of parents.

The risk, of course, is that conservative votes will be split between Huey and Hawkes.  We don't want that to happen, because it is imperative that one of these two candidates survives the primary.  I received a direct mail piece from Hawkes at my home yesterday, and he is a good candidate.  Even though I liked Hawkes' presentation tonight very much, I am urging my readers to unite behind E.C. Huey because he has demonstrated over a prolonged period the rightfulness of his positions, his grasp of the issues and his passion for the job. 

Civic Education

The nation's universities are failing at the task of educating young Americans on the fundamentals of civics and citizenship.  Various parties have attributed this failure at least partially to the absence of a core curriculum in the vast majority of university settings.  Thomas Lindsay, a deputy chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, said this needs to be turned around.  Otherwise, we risk becoming subject to a "soft despotism".

Says Lindsay:

To establish such an education, the professoriate must dare to tread territory still scorched from the campus “culture wars” of recent decades and revisit the discussion of a required core curriculum. To do this, perhaps we can begin by agreeing that there are at least certain core questions that all students should examine. Here, I offer a half-dozen, along with some of their ancillaries.

First, what is the meaning of human equality as articulated in the Declaration’s assertion that “all men are created equal”? Equal in what respects? What view of human nature does this presuppose? Does the Declaration mean to include African-Americans, as Abraham Lincoln, along with Frederick Douglass and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., insisted?

Second, what does the Declaration mean by asserting that we possess rights that are not “alienable”? Who or what, precisely, cannot alienate our rights? Are all rights deemed inalienable, or only some? And why?

Third, why does the Founding generation consider government just only when it is instituted by the consent of the governed? Is justice for the Founders merely consent-based? If not, what might trump consent?

Fourth, why did the Founders opt for representative democracy over the “pure” version of democracy practiced in ancient Athens? What did The Federalist (penned by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay) assert was the inadequacy of ancient democracy?

Fifth, how does the Constitution seek to reconcile democracy, which means rule by the majority, with the rights of minorities? Stated differently, how do we do justice both to the equality of all and to the liberty of each?

Sixth, and finally, what economic conditions make American democracy possible? Why does the Constitution protect property rights? Why do its critics, such as Marx, believe private property to be the root of injustice? How would Madison and Hamilton have responded to Marx’s and his followers’ critique?

Implicit in these questions are at least ten fundamental documents and major speeches that every American citizen should study.

It seems to me that much of the political ignorance we see, and the false perceptions that exist regarding how the citizen should most optimally relate with the state, are rooted in a failure to absorb and transmit the basic ideas of the American founding and, of course, its primary founding documents.

We can do much better than all the erroneous perspectives that seem to prevail.   

Vote NO on Guilford/Rockingham Sales Tax Increases

Sales taxes can be good policy.  They can provide a more equitable method of taxation to counterbalance confiscatory progressive income taxes at the state level, or even theoretically at the federal level.  They can also blunt the effects of property taxes at the local level. 

Local taxes in Greensboro and Guilford County tend to be taken disproportionately from those that own their homes.  Renters also pay the property tax indirectly; but they do not perceive that they do.  It only makes sense, therefore, that renters can feel insulated from the effects of increased local governmental spending.  Among this population, there can be less feelings of vulnerability to property tax increases; so an appetite for local spending can be artificially increased.  And because renters are also voters, this creates distortions in the political process.  Having more renters can lead to more political decisions to increase local spending.

Sales taxes help remedy these problems at the local level.  But they are an effective counterbalance only if property taxes are reduced to a commensurate extent so that net local tax revenues are not overall increased.  Otherwise, sales taxes are just another way for politicians to increase tax revenues to further whet the appetite for higher local governmental spending.

Both Guilford and Rockingham counties will be voting on a sales tax increase next Tuesday.  In Rockingham County, Jeff Sykes has taken on this issue with a special blog; and my friend Bert Jones has been waging a lonely battle at its Board of County Commissioners against efforts to promote the sales tax increase.  In Guilford County, inexplicably, even some Republican members of its Board are supporting the tax increase.

The revenues from the sales tax increase in each county will merely be used to facilitate more spending.  There will be no property tax cut.  We will just get bigger, more expensive government.  It may seem more "fair" to have a higher sales tax, but in reality it just increases the size of the pie. 

We should not over-intellectualize the alleged benefits of the sales tax increase.  Achieving higher local tax revenues through this ballot measure is not a worthy goal.

Vote no.

NC Court of Appeals: Tyson and Poirier

I have had the opportunity to review the candidates for the NC Court of Appeals.  What concerns me most is the judicial philosophy that would guide the prospective juror in making decisions.

I looked at all the available websites for the candidates; read the local press coverage; and also had a chance to review the candidates'  responses to the North Carolina Family Policy Council questionnaire, which inquires about basic judicial philosophy.

It appears to me that there are two candidates who are preferable: John Tyson (for the Tyson seat), and Dean Poirier (for the Wynn seat). 

Many of their opponents in these two races deliberately give pained, prolonged explanations why they could not complete the questionnaire.  The response offered by Sam J. Ervin IV, who is running against Tyson, was particularly overwrought.  Ervin is presumably kin to the late Watergate senator.

It is very important to have judges who will interpret the text of the constitution faithfully.  There are many reasons for this.  But one example is the ongoing debate over gay marriage.  At some point in the future, the North Carolina courts will likely face this question.  We do not want judges who will be amenable to creating a new right out of thin air. 

That is an example of why it is so important for citizens to be able to assess what the judicial candidate's approach to constitutional interpretation will be, and to vote accordingly.  Candidates who obfuscate on this question should not receive the support of voters.

Why Obama Is So Popular in Greensboro...

It has been an interesting phenomenon that Barack Obama seems more popular in Greensboro, both among blacks and whites, than Hillary Clinton.  What explains it?  Perhaps the demographics.  But Fred Siegel offers some interesting observations about Obama's relationship to Chicago machine politics. 

Could it be that Obama fits so well in Greensboro because the politics here are so similar to the politics in Chicago?

Siegel writes:

Chicago... is the city of political and cultural tribalism. 

Blacks adapted to both the tribalism and the corrupt patronage politics that accompanied it... In Chicago, racial reform has meant that today's Mayor Daley has been cutting blacks in on the loot.  Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama are all, in part, the expression of that politics.  It hasn't always worked for Chicago, which, under the pressure of increasing taxes to pay for bloated government, is losing its middle class.  But it has served the city's political class admirably...

For all his Camelot-like rhetoric, Obama is a product, in significant measure of the (Chicago) political culture... At no point did Obama, the would-be savior of American politics, challenge this corruption, except for face-saving gestures as a legislator.   He was, in his own Harvard Law way, a product of it.

Why, you might ask did the operators of Chicago's political machine support Obama?...(H)e needed to "perfume the ticket".

Obama first played a perfuming role as a state senator.  His mentor, Emil Jones, the machine-made president of the senate, allowed him to sponsor a minor ethics bill.  In return, Obama made sure to send plenty of pork to Jones' district...

Obama repaid the generosity.  When he had a chance to back "clean" Democratic candidates for president of the Cook County board of supervisors and Illinois governor, he stayed with the allies of the Outfit.  The gubernatorial candidate he backed, Rod Blagojevich, is now under federal investigation, in part because of his relationship with Tony Rezko, the man who helped Obama buy his current house.

The Chicago Way has delivered politically for Obama even this year... Some of his (big advantage in the Illinois primary) came from the efforts of Obama's political ally, the flame-throwing reverend James Meeks, a political force in his own right.  Meeks... is an Illinois state senator, the pastor of a mega-church, and a strong supporter of Jesse Jackson's political operation, which has put its vote-pulling muscle squarely behind the Obama campaign...

(Obama) won his U.S. Senate race in 2005 not only because his opponents self-destructed, but because of the machine's ability to deliver votes (this minimized his need to campaign among working class whites downstate).

Indeed, it seems that Obama could have easily been a product of Greensboro's local politics if he had started here.

Family Integrity and Foreign Competition

A study released about 10 days ago, briefly reported in the media, estimates that out-of-wedlock births and divorce cost all three levels of government combined about $112 billion per year.  That is a huge impact.

Of course, this justifies a response.  The report's executive summary suggests family strengthening programs.   That might be helpful.  But an economic impact of that magnitude suggests that a concerted effort must be made to reconsider the entire framework of law and public policy that causes divorce and out-of-wedlock rates to be so high.  These rueful cultural developments have numerous adverse impacts; and maintaining the integrity of the nuclear family unit should have primacy. 

But what is becoming increasingly evident is that our nation is going to be less equipped to compete with rising nations like China and India.  We have huge segments of our population educationally impaired and dependent on governmental charity because of the effects of being raised in single-parent households.   We need to turn that situation around.

Greensboro's Role in Nixon defeat to Kennedy, 1960

Jack Betts of the Charlotte Observer has an interesting tale of how Richard Nixon became incapacitated due to an injury that took place at the Greensboro Coliseum during August, 1960.  He suggests the effect of this injury on his campaign may have been enough to change the outcome of the election.

Volkswagen 69 mpg Car Not to be Marketed Here?

I was surprised to learn that Volkswagen has developed an automobile that achieves a gas mileage of 69 mpg.  It is the Golf diesel hybrid.  A new generation of diesel vehicles might offer certain advantages at a time of increased gasoline prices-- including 33% greater fuel efficiency per gallon than gasoline, and the ability to use biodiesel.

Unfortunately, however, Volkswagen has no definite plans to market the vehicle in the United States; and instead it is my understand that  the plan is to market it primarily in Europe.  I am not sure why.  It may be worthwhile for American consumers to advise the auto manufacturer of their interest.   If the company can meet American regulatory requirements with that vehicle, it might have a gold mine on its hands.