Brunswick Town Attorney: a ‘new direction?’

                   

A thoughtful reader of ours, who we once jokingly referred to as Ms. Mall, sent along this thoughtful message she submitted to the Brunswick Town Council:

Town Council,

Did any of you read the Grievance Commission Decision concerning Stephen Langsdorf that was issued in 2009? http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=mebar_overseers_discipline&id=89026&v=article

I long ago read the decision and immediately searched for it on the Board of Bar Overseers’ website when I read the article about the Town Council’s most recent meeting in the January 17 edition of The Forecaster.

The findings of the grievance panel clearly state: “On January 2, 2008, Attorney Jonathan S. Piper (Piper) of Portland [Preti Flaherty’s managing partner], filed a grievance complaint against Attorney Langsdorf. Attorneys Piper and Langsdorf are members of the same law firm.” (Emphasis added.) After the law firm’s office administrator demanded that Langsdorf  pay the $6,500+ bill that the firm had received from CMP in October 2007, he did “self-report” to the firm’s equity partners.

However, as of January 2008, he had still not “self-reported” to the Board, although he had had an obligation to do so from the time he named the firm as a guarantor of his personal CMP bill without its knowledge or consent in June 2003.

There can be no doubt of a lack of due diligence on the part of the Council. First, the Council failed to check Attorney Langsdorf’s disciplinary record before two members of the Council made the recommendation to hire him as municipal counsel.

Second, either: a) no member of the Council bothered to read the decision concerning Attorney Langsdorf; or b) no member of the Council was willing to challenge Attorney Langsdorf when he made the misrepresentation that he had “self-reported” to the Board.

I must also question the Council’s decision to hire Attorney Langsdorf and then negotiate his fees. I think that, as a matter of strategy, the Council should have negotiated a fee arrangement before making the decision to hire counsel.

Michelle A. Small

Ms. Small, who we believe to be an attorney as well, raises some good points, and we have these thoughts in response:

- If you were even close to accepting the notion that the council was going to go in ‘new directions,’ this situation won’t do much to illuminate or substantiate such a claim.

- Based on our personal experience, and that of everyone else we’re familiar with, we doubt Michelle will get any sort of response.  And the same thing would happen if she spoke on the subject live in front of the council.

           

- The decision to hire the attorney and THEN negotiate the fees is a clear case of TRS (that’s a municipal malady we’re identifying as Times Record Syndrome.)  In the case that gives rise to this diagnostic term, the town purchased the old Times Record building for something like $1.3 million, and only later ‘discovered’ that it needed $5 million or more in work to be ‘fit for use’ municipal style.  So keeping with the theme of this post, you could think of TRS as ‘ready, buy, due diligence.’

- Accordingly, we wonder if the town will hire its next Town Manager in the same way, inking a contract with no compensation specified, stating a ‘mutually agreed upon’ package will be negotiated after the person is ‘on board.’

       

Like you, we suspect, we can’t wait to see what happens the next time our betters on the council get ready to ‘pull the trigger’ on an important piece of official business.

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,town council,town attorney

An Amtrak MLF Update

Briefly, the purpose of this post is to provide an update on the status of the relationship between Amtrak/NNEPRA and the Brunswick West Neighborhood Coalition regarding the proposed construction of a Maintenance and Layover Facility adjacent to the in-town Bouchard Drive neighborhood.

Click on this link, and you’ll find a letter sent by their Attorney to the Federal Railroad Authority a few days ago.  The first four pages document the lack of good faith on the part of NNEPRA in dealing with those affected by the proposed facility construction. 

Then there are 18 pages of the time-line best suited to the interested ‘student.’  Last is the civil complaint filed regarding the flawed permitting process by DEP and NNEPRA for storm-water management at the site, which only adds to the bad faith perception.

But if you really think about it, Amtrak, thy name IS ‘bad faith.’

Technorati Tags: Amtrak,MLF,NNEPRA,Brunswick

LT Ben Dover crawls out of his cave to address the coming ‘surprise’ and ‘new directions…’

                               

It’s been some time since we’ve heard from LT Dover, Benjamin, a young member of our staff who we casually refer to as LT Ben Dover.  We suspected that Dover had put on his cap and settled down for a long winter’s nap.  Heaven knows Side’s founder is prone to go off on long ‘naps,’ pretty much any time of year.

Recent news has made it clear that Ben needed to get back to his beat.  So we threw a pile of donuts in front of his cave in hopes of ending his hibernation, and it has.  He may still be a bit groggy and grouchy, so be gentle with him, please.  He was, though, lucid enough when we saw him to remind us that one of the favored warnings from the military is ‘stand by for incoming.’

Which seems entirely apropos our current circumstances.  Keep the thought in mind when you read his latest report:

The Coming Property Tax Surprise

Our editor sometimes likes to channel Gomer Pyle with a ‘well, suhprazz, suhprazz!’ comment.  And it looks like this is such a moment.

Cast your eyes upon this article and you’ll have plenty of time to ‘prepare’ yourself for what is about to come our way.  The first thing that should get your body hair standing on end is this:

The council is also expected to hold another workshop by March to discuss the possibility of a new property revaluation, which hasn't happened since 2000 and would attempt to bring equity to assessed values of different properties in town.

There are certain things you can count on when it comes time for revaluation.  First, no rationale against doing so has a chance, because it will always come down to ‘fairness’ and ‘we simply have no choice.’  Second, it will allow those responsible to brag about how they’ve lowered the tax rate while raising your tax bill. 

Third, it will ALWAYS, ALWAYS end up in a windfall in tax revenues for local government.  The last time we had a revaluation, property tax revenue increased by 9.2% in one year.  Property tax revenue that year was $23 million compared to $21 million the year before; this year it’s $35.6 million. 

Fourth, it will confuse the begeegus out of the vast majority of the population, leaving them scratching their heads as they try to reconcile their bigger tax bill with council bragging about ‘lowering the tax rate.’

Truth be known, the tax rate has been climbing rather steeply in recent years, and the thinking is probably that it’s time to make it look better so as to quell any popular uprising.  According to records in the Side office, it’s gone from $22.87 to $26.54 in just three years; an increase of 16%.  And it’s set to climb ever higher with what you’ll read here, and what’s ‘incoming,’ so to speak.

You know, now that Sally Sellitt is on the Town Council, you can expect her to be advising on how to make moving to Brunswick even more ‘attractive’ than it already is.  We already have ‘the best schools,’ but our tax rate is starting to look dreadfully high compared to surrounding towns of lower stature, and we mustn’t have that, must we.

No two houses are the same, so their two tax bills cannot be used as a measure of one town’s taxes vs. another towns.  The only ‘fair way’ to do it, authorities and salespeople will tell you, is to compare ‘mil rates.’  So here’s a chance to make a substantial reduction in the mil rate and take Brunswick down several notches in regional rankings.  All while increasing tax revenue at the same time.

    

If you’re in government and/or real-estate sales, this is called a ‘win-win’ proposition.  If you’re not, this is what we call a ‘lose-lose’ proposition.  And it’s even more attractive as a stratagem when you see intense pressure to increase taxes lying just ahead.  As the linked article clearly explains.

So let’s summarize the increases we’re looking at on the moment.  The article says this:

Councilors met for their annual day-long retreat on Saturday, Jan. 11, to discuss the 2014 agenda along with next year's budget, which is tentatively expected to cause a property tax increase.

This, simply put, is abuse of the word ‘tentatively,’ and an insult to informed town residents and readers.  You’ll quickly see that a 6% tax increase is already in the cards, and we are in the ramping phase of things.  Or, if you prefer, gently and progressively disclosing the assault to follow.

Consider this: the article does not mention anything about School Department demands, and you can be sure with their usual proclivities, the need for two new schools, adding universal pre-school, etc, etc, etc, that they will be coming in with both hands and numerous hats out.  Then there’s the possibility of further increases in the McClellan transition, which we’ll be addressing soon in a separate post.

We can easily see a 10% or higher property tax increase looming for the coming year, with similar increases in the several years following.  The important thing for you to keep in mind is not allowing yourself to be distracted by discussions of the mil-rate, which in all likelihood will be lowered.

The only things that matter are total expenditures, property tax revenue, and your individual property tax bill.  And if you can count on anything in this life and this perfect little richest town in America, you can rely on all three increasing, and by goodly, non-trivial amounts.

As to those ‘new directions’ we’ve been hearing about?  It looks to us like in at least one sense, the new direction will be the same old direction, but at a higher rate of speed.  So you might want to get your signs ready for the upcoming budget hearings:

          

Yeah, we know, you’ve seen these visuals before.  Well, we’ve seen the same town behavior before as well, so what’s your beef? 

You got better?  Fine; send them along.

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,taxes,budgets,revaluations

“Mr. Manager”…..moving on

                       

We’ll have more to say on this subject in an upcoming post, but we decided to pass along the ‘hard data’ we have on the subject right now, for those who like to study the subject.

First, there’s this article, from which the above photo is lifted.

Then there are these documents that pertain to his employment and his separation:

The severance agreement

and the original contract under which he was employed:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/200245580/GB-contract-20131231121859

Having taken a pass through all three linked items, we’re left with only a few questions.  This passage in The Forecaster article would seem to suggest that Brown could end up with a severance payment amounting to a year’s salary along with some other ‘benefits.’ 

We couldn’t confirm that from the employment related documents, though we note that the term “accrued compensation time” seems to be totally unspecified, which suggests it is up to the ‘discretion’ of those involved.  Not that there’s ‘anything wrong with that,’ as the old Seinfeld show quip always said.

We did, however find two things of more than passing interest in these documents.  The first is the rather exhaustive listing of statutes and regulations cited in the severance agreement, which gives an alarming glimpse into the state of employment law, at least as far as we’re concerned.  

Unless you’re most concerned about full employment for labor attorneys, which is what seems to be the primary focus of these details.  We’re sure our local officers of the court, especially Johnny Protocols and Jacquie Piranha, hail this language as central to employment ‘justice.’

We were also uplifted by the language in the contract relating to “ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS” of the Town Manager, to whit:

Ability to see well enough to do job requirements.

Ability to read, speak, and write in English.

Ability to hear well enough to do job requirements.

Ability to learn at fast rate.

Strong knowledge of English language and how to communicate using it.

Ability to work independently.

Ability to supervise.

Ability to hear well enough to use phone.

Ability to handle mentally and emotionally disruptive or disquieting influences.

Ability to arrange or deal with tasks in order of importance.

We don’t see how anyone, having read these essential qualifications for a Town Manager, could have any doubts in the least about who we might employ to fill this role in the future, or who we might have employed in the past.  These ultra-discerning terms were obviously written by experts in human relations, with the advice of those determined to protect the interests of town residents.

Add to this the fact that no matter what led to the decision to sever employment, the town will provide a glowing reference for Mr. Manager, and Mr. Manager will not disparage the town.  We are confident this is the ‘standard’ for such circumstances.

Which makes us all the more confident in the search process that is about to unfold to find a replacement.  We’ll surely be employing and paying expert consultants, who will no doubt scrupulously avoid being influenced by similar contrived references from other towns for the candidates they put before us for consideration.

Which reminds us of the ‘old’ Times Record Building, for some reason.

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,Town Manager,contracts

Like we’ve said before, it’s good to be a King in Cape Brunswick

           

And elsewhere, we should add:

By now, you should remember without prodding that Brunswick Taxi (BT), owned by Dale King, husband of long time former town councilor and council chair Joanne King, who was also a BDC board member, received a quarter million dollar grant from the Brunswick Development Corporation in July of last year.  Or as they defined it, a totally forgivable loan.  With not a single payment due before the date on which forgiveness is effective (“on or before” Aug 1, 2016.)

No pain, no strain, as we used to say.

                 

We’ve also reported more than once that we can’t fathom the local governing elite stubbornness about locating the Amtrak MLF at the Brunswick West location, adjacent to the Bouchard Drive neighborhood.   We’re convinced though, that at least in part it relates to swallowing whole the conceit promulgated by NNEPRA that unless the MLF is built there, Amtrak/Downeaster service to Brunswick will disappear.  We’ll be expanding on that notion in the future.

                

We’ve also told you that the self-same Brunswick Taxi firm is providing transportation for Amtrak crews between Portland and Brunswick twice a day, seven days a week.  Which raises the obvious question of how much Amtrak is paying them to provide this service, and how much that has influenced the resolve of local influential parties to keep Amtrak coming to town, and therefore, ensure the MLF is built at Brunswick West. 

The cost for this service is just one more of numerous burdens of Amtrak operation  hidden from the public, and therefore masking the financial realties of passenger train service.

Attempts have been made for some time by interested local parties to find out how much Brunswick Taxi is being paid.  Official channels, FOIA procedures, and our state delegation have all been avenues of inquiry.  

After a good deal of bureaucratic shuffling, delays, obfuscation and other machinations, the result to date is that Amtrak will not disclose what they’re paying for the service. Like good bureaucrats, they use multiple layers of ‘private parties’ to place the contract, as we told you before,  like Wichita, KS based Crew Transportation Services, etc.

Lacking hard data, we’ve decided to make our own estimate of how much Brunswick Taxi is probably receiving, based on two factors: this is the government; and how much limo service between Portland and Brunswick goes for.

Our estimate at this point is that BT is probably getting in the neighborhood of $300 for each round trip, since as many as 4 or more crew members are being transported.  Twice a day, seven days a week, and you’re looking at $4,000 a week, or about $200,000 a year.  Compare that to the cost of leasing a vehicle for the same purpose, at say, $1,000 a month tops!

Quite a deal for BT, especially when they’ve been handed $247,000 gratis for buying new vehicles.  In a prior post, we asked if any reader believes that the idea of such a grant just popped up out of nowhere after Joanne left office and her post on the BDC board.

In the same vein, we ask whether the contract for crew transport came out of nowhere after the same transition, keeping in mind that train service began in November of 2012.

Any way you look at it, it’s pretty clear that the prosperity of at least one local business interest is coupled very tightly to Amtrak continuing to come to Brunswick.  Not that this would effect anyone’s lobbying with the right authorities to see that it does.

We suppose our estimate could be off, but since the FOIA process yields no results, our guestimate will have to be good enough, at least until such time as Dale King chooses to release documents showing how much the government pays to further subsidize Amtrak service to our little outpost.  Keeping secrets is all the rage, you know, especially among the ladies, who often learn the lesson at a very early age.

One more thing; we have to wonder whether this lucrative contract was factored in to BDC deliberations before deciding that a quarter million in free money was necessary to keep BT alive, ‘for the good of the community.’

Technorati Tags: Brunswick Taxi,BDC,Amtrak

How soon will Maine’s Medicaid Bubble burst?

Your humble correspondent recently had another item published on The Maine Wire, and you can read it here.  And we hope you do, because we fervently endorse The Maine Wire, and it’s increasingly comprehensive coverage of the news in Maine, and we’re hopeful you will become a regular reader like we are.

As they have in other cases, they edited our submission to be more in line with their publishing sensibilities.  We’re not even sure what that term means, and rather than ponder it, we decided to just give you the raw version of our column.  In particular, we think the visuals are worth the extra space here on our little media outlet.

So, with out further uhdew, here you go:

A Medicaid Bubble - and how to get there

Maine Wire (and Other Side) readers should be well aware that the most controversial policy issue at the State level this year is sure to be Medicaid expansion (or Mainecare, as it's called here in Maine.) In fact, the legislature has scheduled a public hearing for LD 1578 on Wednesday of this week (violating their own rules, we should note.)

Medicaid expansion is not new to Maine; from 2002 to 2012, enrollment increased from 200,000 to 338,000. Compare that to New Hampshire, a state of similar size, where enrollment is 160,000. Maine has the 3rd highest enrollment nationally, at 27%. The New England average is 18%, and the national average is 19%.

Expansion advocates want to enroll another 70,000 in the program, raising our total to nearly one third of the population - 408,000 - more than twice the 2002 level.

Advocates for the expansion claim it will cost virtually nothing to Maine Government, and in fact, can provide savings and economic expansion. (One wonders, of course, if enrolling people "saves money and expands the economy," why we don't just put everyone on Medicaid; think of the boom! We hear similar claims for unemployment benefits; the same conundrum applies.)

This sounds very enticing on its face; especially to those in the 'caring sector.' It also brings to mind recent history - in particular, the 'great recession' and its purported causes. The most frequently cited of those is the "housing bubble," which is still working itself out of our system. Graphically speaking, it looks like this:

The party line explanation for the bubble was that 'predatory lending practices,' perpetrated by the 'big banks' etc, sucked supposedly innocent, unsuspecting borrowers into taking out mortgages they couldn't possibly afford. This was done, it was explained, by offering artificially contrived and highly unrealistic loan terms at the front end that would elapse in just a few years, and leave the borrower with a lasting obligation they were completely unprepared for and unable to afford.  Things like 'sudden increases' in monthly payments due to 'shocking' interest rate increases, 'balloon payments,' and a need to refinance the debt under extremely stressful conditions.

By the time an innocent public came to understand the "fine print," the bubble burst, and a tsunami of foreclosures swept over the country.

We assert this is the political pathology at play in the movement to expand Medicaid. The Feds are promising to pay "100%" of the cost of new enrollees for a three year period. So why not go ahead and blow the bubble up even bigger? At least that's the way innocent and well intentioned legislators are being sucked into supporting programs that neither federal nor state taxpayers can realistically afford. What we have here is 'predatory cost sharing' policy that completely masks the real costs of taking on Medicaid expansion under the guise of good intentions. And plays to the weakness of our entitlement culture and its related professional enablers.

By the time the fine print becomes legible ("we'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it") and cold reality is at the doorstep, the bubble will have no choice but to burst, and economic and social chaos will reign. Or worse.

If the housing bubble was the cause of the great recession nationally, why are Democrats and their allies in the Entitlement/Non-Profit Industrial Complex working so hard to subject Maine to its own great recession following the same road?

Given the seriousness of this issue and the long term implications for everyone in the state, not just the uninsured, we think it's appropriate to challenge the numerous supporters of the proposed expansion to go on the record in a very public way. And so we propose that this Certificate of Medicaid Expansion Advocacy be completed and made public by each and every advocate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Affirmation of Support

for

Medicaid Expansion in Maine

I, (choose one of the following)

( ) Representative (name) of District X in the the 126th Maine Legislature.

( ) Senator (name) of District Y in the 126th Maine Legislature.

( ) (name), (position), (organization) of (city) Maine

do solemnly affirm that I wholeheartedly and unequivocally support the expansion of Maine's Medicaid enrollment by 70,000 as proposed.

I further affirm that I wholeheartedly and unequivocally believe and support the federal promise of 100% funding for three years, and 90% funding in subsequent years, regardless of the fact that we are a permanent, structural debtor nation, and have no existing revenue streams to take on and fund increases in entitlement costs. Accordingly,

I (do) (do not) support printing of federal currency to finance the cost of expansion.  (see figure A below)

I (do) (do not) support borrowing of funds from other nations to finance the cost of expansion.  (see figure B below)

I (do) (do not) support raising federal taxes to finance the cost of expansion.

Additionally, I hereby affirm that

I (will) (will not) vote for increasing Maine taxes to finance the cost of expansion.

I (will) (will not) vote for or support shifting state revenue streams from other obligations to finance the expansion.

I (will) (will not) vote for or support deferring payments to Medicaid/DHHS service providers to free up finances for expansion.

Signed:

--------------------------------------------------

Affirmant

--------------------------------------------------

Witness

Date: ___________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a serious suggestion and request. Those who are determined to weigh the federal and state economy down with an increasingly unsustainable entitlement burden should be willing to stand up and go on the record with their intentions, including clear delineation of the details of how they would pay for it.

We suggest that this process begin at the hearing on Wednesday, by providing the above form to committee members and those who testify in favor of the proposed expansion. After all, isn't transparency what good government is all about?

Figure A:

Figure B:

Technorati Tags: Medicaid,bubbles,Maine

Community Ethics: Brunswick Development Corporation Style

We shouldn’t have to remind you of the sordid goings on over the last year as the Brunswick Development Corporation doled out public monies to the very well connected and some who were less well connected.  If you’re feeling in the mood for a modicum of self-flagellation, you can scan this prior post compilation to get back up to speed.

As you do, you’ll see we assured there was nothing untoward going on at BDC; just public servants serving the public, in a manner of speaking.  We were also told that the BDC board had been working on by-law revisions since well before they made news with the Brunswick Taxi $247,000 grant, so the public interest in such was coincidental, and frankly, tardy.  The public kerfuffle was driven by “a political agenda” according to Councilor John (Mr. Speaker) “Johnny Protocols” Richardson, the Cape’s own politically driven agenda laureate.

Well, lucky us; the BDC has adopted a new set of operating guidelines, as reported in this article just before Christmas.  (When you read the article, be sure as well to read the reader comment below it by “Queenie42,” which sets a damn fine example of being pithy.)

As you might expect, Johnny P. was appropriately laudatory of the effort, and once again chided ‘some people’ for criticizing rather than praising the BDC’s work.  No-one is prouder of his humility than Richardson, and it’s always refreshing to see such modesty and restraint on the part of our public ‘servants.’

Here are the highlights of the new policy reported in the article:

The code of ethics policy requires BDC board members to:

• "Represent the interest of all people," including business owners and property owners;

• Not use the organization for their own personal advantage;

• "Do nothing to violate the trust" of the people they serve;

• Never use BDC to promote their own "partisan politics, religious matters or positions on any issue not in conformity" with BDC's policies;

• And never accept gifts from businesses involved with BDC.

We don’t know about you, but to us, these are about as broad and ambiguous as saying “go forth, do good, and prosper.”  And we’re confident that there’s enough wiggle room in the above so that even a modestly competent lawyer could help a client drive a 14 passenger van sideways through the holes in the language.  If they can’t find a Mack Truck nearby, that is.

Come to think of it, does anyone know if Brunswick Taxi has complied with all the conditions in its promissory note?  They read in part as follows:

e.  Work with Brunswick Downtown Association / Town of Brunswick for marketing and branding, not limited to painting the Brunswick logo on the back of the taxis; and purchasing an annual advertisement at the Visitors Center for three (3) years from the date of this Promissory Note.

f.  Purchase of the following vehicles and equipment, and provide proof of purchase:

• $150,000 - Purchase 6 new energy efficient taxi-cab vehicles to drastically reduce maintenance and repair costs, save and increase business and significantly improve the company’s and the town’s images.

• $30,000 – Purchase one new energy efficient handicap accessible minivan to increase revenues by expanding the services to the handicapped, seniors and educational and medical institutions.

• $45,000 - Purchase a new 14 passenger van to retain business and to meet the projected increase in corporate and institutional demand from Bowdoin College, Mid Coast and Parkview hospitals, the Brunswick Transportation Center and Brunswick Landing.

• $10,000 – Add GPS systems to all taxi-cab and van vehicles to improve efficiency, safety and tracking capabilities.

• $12,000 - Purchase compressed natural gas conversion kits for all taxi-cab vehicles to reduce emissions and to reduce operating costs.

We are no official authority on the matter, but so far, we think we’ve seen at least three of the Ford transit vans in the Brunswick Taxi paint theme, and a 14 passenger van as well.  The other van we’ve seen, a ‘mini-van’, does not appear to be handicap accessible (wheelchair ramp), and as we recall, was in their roster before the BDC deal was put in place.  But we’d have to check on that.

The funny thing is that as we read the promissory note, Brunswick Taxi has until August 1, 2016 to comply with the above obligations, which means they aren’t exactly under a lot of pressure to comply.  Not that this would allow for any mischief, since town authorities are surely keeping close tabs on the whole affair.  The little people have a short attention span and memory, but thank goodness, the public enterprise never, ever forgets to follow through.

Don’t you feel better now, Shirley?  Coupled with the ‘new directions’ narrative emanating from the town council, the public interest and public trust should be more secure than the Social Security Trust Fund.

We’ll close with this thought for today:

"It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters " - Daniel Webster

Technorati Tags: BDC,Brunswick Taxi,ethics

Obamacar: taking central planning to new highs

Late last year, we  had an item published on The Maine Wire that took the “Obamacare” concept and extrapolated it to an “Obamacar” program. It appeared here, modified for length at their editorial discretion.  This was a follow-on to our more learned piece discussing why Obamacare introduction was so predictably problematic.

Realizing that we have our own editorial discretion available, we hereby post the unexpurgated version of the Obamacar column:

Obamacar: Building on Obamacare's runaway success

Giddy over the devastatingly successful introduction of Obamacare, Debbie Wasserman Schmaltz, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, recently insisted that Democrats will proudly base their 2014 campaign strategy almost entirely on socialism's resurgent popularity. The public's enthusiasm for coercive utopianism, with associated loss of personal liberties, has Democrats in Washington festively planning the next great advance in European style social democracy.

Emboldened by Schmaltz' manic outlook, party luminaries and caucus leaders are working with the Father of Obamacare to design a transfixing sequel to the current blockbuster. They've even directed that history be ignored, so as not to compromise chances for successful bamboozling of the electorate.

(Ed . note: What follows may seem confusing, contradictory, and difficult to navigate. If so, please consult the notes at the end of the column.)

We set out to learn what we could of the new concept. Impeachable sources, speaking on promise of Dunkin Donuts coupons, have told us that the embryonic concept's working title is “The Driver Deception and Affordable Car Act (DDACA).” Given the growing popularity of the President's brand, we fully expect it to be called Obamacar, though 'ACA' might be used by the more wonkish and illusory.

Our sources slipped us copies of handwritten notes from the earliest planning discussion, reportedly held at Restaurant Nora in Washington, DC on a recent Friday night. The cover story was a soiree to celebrate Valerie Jarrett's birthday, replete with radicchio, kale, and all things vegan. The introductory meme the group settled on is this: “for too long, too many have gone without a full ride. We need to make sure everybody can roll in their own. Period.”

We've done our best to interpret and summarize the main points of the new initiative from these notes, and here they are. (The word 'period' after each declaration is implied though not shown.)

• If you like your car, you can keep it.*

• If you like your mechanic, you can keep him.*

• If you like your car dealer, you can keep her.*

• The average working family will see the auto excise tax paid to their town decrease by half.**

• Most Americans will save ($2,500) a year on their transportation expenses.**

• Based on established reputations with local residents, DMV's in the 57 states will become the primary implementers of vehicle purchase exchanges, and for arranging individual transactions. This ensures Obamacar will hit the ground where the rubber meets the road, maximizing the chance of a face plant on the scale of Obamacare.***

• To provide credible leadership and oversight, a federal DMV will be created to oversee and coordinate operations of the state DMV's, guaranteeing that citizen expectations are not only met, but exceeded.

• You have the right to a fair and speedy repair. If you cannot afford a mechanic, a federal public mechanic will be appointed to represent you the next time he travels to your location. You will be placed on a waiting list for repairs, and will be notified by the USPS and DMV when you must bring your vehicle to the regional federal center for repair. Notification is guaranteed to be a minimum of 12 hours in advance.**

• An Office of Vehicle End of Life, headed by Crash Kevorkian, will be established to oversee challenges to and deliberations over remaining cash value of 'elderly' vehicles. Kevorkian will have sole authority to determine when vehicles have reached end of useful life and must be relegated to the smelter for recycling.*******

• Gecko the lizard will be offered a senior position with the federal DMV to spearhead the merger of auto insurance with Obamacare to yield an overall insurance cost reduction averaging minus $5,000 a year per family. A planned major improvement is guaranteed issue of auto coverage regardless of pre-existing collision damage. Another is that young drivers will be covered from age 8 and up.

• Family offspring will have first use rights of parental vehicles on weekend nights, or any other time they like, until age 45.**

• Keeping the 'tank' full is the responsibility of the primary parent or guardian owner.

• Routine service, wear item replacement, and covered repairs are included, subject to an annual deductible of $5,000.*

• A Federal 'common good' authority will establish state and local sub-authorities to pass judgment on the merit of any proposed repairs for which the estimate exceeds $100.*

• Vehicle purchase is mandatory, with non-compliance fines ranging from $1,000 to $3,000 per year. Live downtown, with everything within walking distance? No excuse; you must purchase an Obamacar. Have no parking available, but access to great mass transit? Sorry..you must buy a vehicle to help others afford theirs.

  • Vehicles purchased through Obamacar will include features that everyone wants and needs, including but not limited to: built in infant seats, bike racks, ski racks, wheelchair ramps, scooter mounts, etc.**

• Special tax credits will be available to those who sign up to buy hybrid and fully electric vehicles because of carbon footprint elimination.

• Concerns about battery power are deemed irrelevant; those whose cars begin to get into the low charge range can plug into their neighbor’s fully charged vehicle to refuel their own, or into any compatible vehicle in nearby parking areas. This is 'spreading the charge around' so that everybody gets a fair shot.

• Details of the government's mandated vehicle design have been elusive, but we believe this concept illustration (code-named "Klutz") is indicative of the utilitarian delights of centrally planned public choice:

     

• An undetermined number of car czars will be appointed; the final count depends on how many friends of the White House could use a boost forward on the gravy train of public service. Which is why rumors have it that the production name of the vehicle will be Czar Car.

• Per our sources, the leading candidates for czar positions are friends from the President's transformative days at Harvard, all of whom have extensive experience in the personal transportation field on a number of different scales.

Explanafuscatory notes:

(Note: the following items were intended to be shown in progressively smaller font sizes; unfortunately, this authoring program does not provide sufficient flexibility in that regard.  To get the effect we intended, remove your glasses and step back 6 feet or so from your computer screen.  Or try to read through 3 sheets of wax paper.)

* Some*** restrictions may apply; for details, contact the White House, the Senate Majority Leader, the House Minority Leader, the Secretary of Transportation, and the appropriate Czar's office. Or, you may simply log on to CarCare.gov.

** Payments to sustain the program and provide access to cars for working families will be made by the wealthy via additional tax penalties, confiscation of retirement plan assets, and any other method deemed necessary. The reduction in municipal excise tax must be paid to the federal government, along with a $100 processing fee.

*** The meaning of the word 'some' has not yet been established in a court of law.

**** Government reserves the right to modify all program provisions without notice.

***** See USC code 27WTF.31.86 for more detail.******

****** Note ***** only applies for unrestricted circumstances.

Technorati Tags: statism,central planning

Hold ‘em? Fold ‘em? New directions?

Wow!

We just realized how long our publishing absence has been.  Our last item was this on December 21st, and before that, the most recent one was on November 21st.

The funny thing is that we don’t feel the least bit guilty for this.  Well, maybe just a little bit.

During this hiatus, we left town for the Thanksgiving holiday for more than a week.  Then, before you know it, Christmas was here with a houseful of kids and grandkids.  Followed by a sinus/head cold that is still lingering on.

The simple fact is that we don’t do this for any sort of financial gain; none is available for what we do.  Come right down to it, we’re not really sure why we do it, other than a compulsion to ‘say our piece.’  There are some things that just have to be commented on, no matter how limited the readership for those comments.

So…why are we here today?  Good question.  Our ‘stack’ of news that merits attention is tall, and we’ve decided that today is the day we start to get back in our ‘groove,’ or as many would call it, our ‘rut.’

We confess that ignoring whatever obligation we may have imposed upon ourselves has been easy to cast aside.  It’s not always fun to meet self-imposed deadlines.  But as best we can, this post indicates that we are going to try to get back on the rails.

So stay tuned, if you can find our station on your ‘dial.’

Technorati Tags: posting,blogging

American Thinker: Column from a “Brunswick Thinker?”

             

Your faithful correspondent spent the vast majority of his career working on the Aegis Combat System.  This is the command and control element deployed aboard the U.S. Navy Cruisers and Destroyers built at BIW over the last 30 years or so.  As well as the same type of ships built in Pascagoula, MS, wherever the hell that is.

While the details may not excite you as much as they do us, here is a photo of the technology on which we invested our career energies:

Our career was a marvelous experience, during which we worked with superb team-mates, made many lasting friendships, and learned enduring lessons about how to execute complex mission critical system engineering developments. 

Based on this experience, we and a colleague from those years decided to compare what we learned to the rather embarrassing ‘roll-out’ of ObamaCare in recent months. 

So we wrote up an article that lays out the primary keys to a successful development process.  We compared them to what we have seen in recent months as the DHHS led introduction of the ‘Affordable Care Act’ unfolded in a very public way.

     

The article was published on the American Thinker web site today, and we are posting the details here so you can read it, and if you wish, comment.  Here’s an excerpt:

We're watching government at its most harmful and ineffectual. This is not rocket science -- no risky new technology is required; no laws of physics have to be invented or repealed. While the technology itself may present some challenges, problems like this more often than not stem from poor leadership, discipline, and accountability.

We were privileged to spend our careers on a team responsible for the Aegis Combat System, a complex, mission critical system. Like the ACA, or as the President is fond of calling it -- ObamaCare, Aegis has life and death consequences, which is why there was such attention to strict design, development, and testing policies. We are resolute believers in these immutable principles for successful system development, and we are saddened and appalled by the government's incompetence in undertaking total restructuring of the American healthcare system.

Along with their related credits and the link to the full article: 

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/why_obamacare_is_off_the_rails.html#ixzz2nIzbP92G
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Aegis,American Thinker