Pretty Soon We'll Be Talking Real Money

To paraphrase Everett Dirksen, I believe, "$3 million here, $3 million there, and pretty soon, you're talking real money."

I can remember his deep, gravelly voice and unique countenance; too bad most of his orations predate the modern media archive age.

You may have read that our local authorities have eliminated the former Times Record building over by the Public Works yard as a candidate for use by the Police Department. If you didn't, you're out of luck, unless it's in the Forecaster, because the local daily didn't consider the item worthy of their web page.

The reason it's been eliminated is because "consulting architects" have estimated the renovations required at about $3 million. This would be on top of the $800,000 we've already spent to make the place pretty spiffy, at least those parts I've seen.

The Times Record building history as it relates to town governance has been "undistinguished," to use a euphemism, and provides a pretty clear example of just how ineffectual our government can be in handling capital acquisitions and construction.

The facility, comprising something like 33,000 square feet, more than 6 times the space now housing the Police, was acquired for less than $1.3 million a few years back. Apparently no-one in our government understood the words "due diligence," because shortly after the town bought it, it was announced that it would need more than $5 million in work to be useful as a town facility. This number was considered a deal breaker for such purposes, even though we owned the place by then.

The idea of "due diligence," in case you don't already know, is to look into such things BEFORE you close a deal, so that you know exactly what you're getting into. It's a "caveat emptor" kind of thing. This is why there are people called "building inspectors" and others of similar purpose. One might have expected this to occur to our highly compensated and certified town staff, and others, but apparently it did not.

End result: one 33,000 sq ft bag being held by all of us, with little apparent use for the future. And under the circumstances, very little chance for sale to someone else.

So, here we are. A white elephant for town purposes, and the sure probability that the solution for the Police will exceed the costs mentioned, but no doubt it will be "worth it in the long run, especially when community pride is considered." I could start writing the statements for the council right now. No matter who they'll be at the time.

My real purpose today is to ask you to come to grips with the concept of $3 million in renovations. I could be way off, but as I think of Police, besides the need for plain vanilla square footage for offices, lockers, and "interviews," the only unique requirements they have are for holding cells and all their communications gear.

The latter already exists, and simply needs appropriate space; the former, well, how much can it cost to build some holding cells? Especially if you "recycle" the bars from the current facility.

I've been made sport of for equating $1.8 million to four upper end homes in Meadowbrook. But I stand by that as a way of picturing things, absent other reference points.

So I'll leave you with this. $3 million to renovate the building is equivalent to buying 7 or so upper end homes in Meadowbrook, paint, wallpaper, kitchens, yards, and all. Is there anyone else who thinks that this doesn't pass a first test of reasonableness, especially after having spent $800,000 in renovations already? Is there anyone who thinks the Police need nearly 7 times their current space?

Am I destined to be out on a lonesome limb as the only one who thinks that our "public servants" and paid staff have become desensitized when it comes to spending OPM, and that they start off with "grandiose" as a minimum concept?

Yup, I think I am. But should you feel sorry for me in my loneliness, you could always post a comment, or even better, decide to ask some questions.

Not at any public meetings, though. You won't get any answers, and you could well be gaveled down for a breach of decorum.

And directed to publicly apologize for the TV cameras. And then you'd be a laughing stock.

Rest easy, though; it can be fun.

Record Low on 9/11 (and I'm not talking weather)

Its failings notwithstanding, there is much to be said in favor of journalism in that by giving us the opinion of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.
Oscar Wilde

It’s always a good idea to believe everything you read in the papers; it makes them so much more interesting. Author undetermined.

In an extraordinary combined display of duplicity, irresponsibility, insensitivity, and horrible judgment, our local newspaper yesterday ran a commentary called “A skeptic’s view of the 9/11 attacks,” by Steven Shaw of Brunswick.

In his “truther” essay, Shaw asserts:

“To probe the facts of that day is to discover abundant evidence of a fraud of mind-boggling proportions: that a faction within our own government must have been central to the planning and execution of the attacks.”

In so doing, Shaw joins ranks with Van Jones, the recently departed “Green Jobs Czar” in the Obama administration, and with untold millions who are willing to strain credulity beyond all human limits and dismiss what more lucid thinkers consider common sense. But when your very self-image depends on proving that George Bush and Dick Cheney are first cousins of Lucifer, you’ll grasp at any straw.

I’m reminded of September 12, 2001; the day after the attack. On that day, in the midst of great national fright, the Times Record ran a letter by Rosalie Tyler Paul, a leader in the local PeaceWorks coalition. In her letter, Tyler Paul confidently stated that the attack was our fault, (and as I recall, that we deserved it.)

I was taken aback by the clearly unsubstantiated claim, but even more, by the Times Record publishing such a toxic and insensitive letter while bodies were still being pulled from the wreckage. That single event elevated my view of the Times Record to a new low. It opened my eyes on their editorial policy and the local zeitgeist in a way that is permanently burned in.

I've had many items published in the Times Record, and often they have demanded that I document or otherwise substantiate my assertions. Most recently, on the last item I wrote on Oxford Aviation, they came at me from all levels in the organization to challenge my effort.

From this experience, I was supposed to take away that they are scrupulous and diligent in making sure that anything they publish, specifically on the op-ed page, is ‘vetted’ for accuracy before publishing.

What a crock, if you’ll pardon a bit of “other side” language. I could cite case after case of official/professional/paid columns (Doug Rooks, various members of our Legislature, Paul Krugman, and others) where “healthy journalistic skepticism” was still putting on its pants when the paper went to the presses. And if you are a citizen or public contributor whose values and claims align with the editors, skepticism can’t even find its pants, let alone put them on.

The double standard is indisputable to anyone who reads critically and has had experience knocking heads with the editors and the “editorial board.”

That said, running Shaw’s piece in the prized central position on the “weekend edition” op-ed page, and on the very anniversary of the event, demonstrates an especially insensitive “in your face” attitude on the part of the editors. I can imagine many readers turned to the page while watching news coverage of the poignant memorial events taking place on the anniversary of this tragic event. How thoughtful of the Times Record to run an item that spit in their face, in a manner of speaking, as their hearts ached for those who were lost.

I have no doubt that in this area, there will be throngs who disagree with me, because they agree with Shaw. For my money, however, this is a new low in journalistic ethics and judgment at the Times Record.

I won’t link to the Shaw commentary. Most who follow Other Side would be repulsed by it, and those who agree with Shaw will have already read and framed it, or looked it up at the very least. If you think that promoting such theories is rare around here, you would be wrong. Our own community cable TV carries frequent content provided by PeaceWorks, including various academics theorizing on the “truther” view.

So in a rather sad commentary in itself, the Times Record is, in a way, mirroring the judgment, ideology, and sensitivity of the local “community.”

(editor’s note: Side has a reputation for a sharp tongue, and does not deny such tendencies. At the moment, however, said tongue is quite bloody from being bitten, and bitten hard.)

“The Speech” and Captain ObVeeous

Side is beside itself over the speech given by our President in front of a joint session of Congress last night. How could anyone not be?

Our take on the message was illuminated by a call from Captain O’Seau ObVeeous as bedtime neared. Dedicated readers are already familiar with this valued consultant to our blog.

Before elaborating on Captain ObVeeous’ reaction, Side wants to address “decorum in the chamber.” As readers know, the airways have been overloaded with shocked reactions to the supposed “breach of dignity" in the halls of our Capitol last night.

Here’s a suggestion. If they want dignity and decorum, have the President enter the chamber accompanied by US Marine side boys to symbolize the seriousness of his position as Commander in Chief. And proceed directly to the dais, rather than play meet and greet.

Instead, what we got was the equivalent of Rapper “Fitty Cents” entering a Hollywood nightclub. Except it was “Dollar Trillion Barry” entering a gathering of ego-inflated big spending junkies, each hoping that face time and camera time would advance their careers. And neutralize allegations of tax evasion, bribe taking, or promise breaking.

It went on for what seemed like an hour, insulting the concept of “public service,” and reminding us that the top priority of all too many in that chamber is serving themselves, not us. In a recurring theme, we wonder why they’re surprised that we little people don’t see them in a positive light.

Before you call me a partisan, I find this behavior inappropriate and shameful no matter whom the President is. Elected officials acting like teenaged bimbettes who have a chance to touch the garment of a Jonas brother is an affront to our Nation’s founding principles.

Side hated this ego frenzy when President Bush entered the chambers to give a State of the Union address. One could rationalize, however, that such an event was pro-forma, destined to provide gratuitous media coverage.

Last night was different; it was a political stage show, pure and simple, specifically designed to attract and influence a susceptible public. State of the Union speeches discharge a Constitutional obligation, which in and of itself is a near miracle in our day. Last night’s event was a blunt instrument attempt to sway public opinion.

Alright; let’s move on to the specifics.

“You won’t be required to give up your current Doctors or your current coverage.”

“Require” is an interesting word. The legislation may not include it, but it will likely include lots of other words whose net effect is the same. For example, suppose private coverage is taxed at 10% to ‘fund coverage for others.’ Think that’s crazy? I refer you to Maine’s revolutionary Dirigo health care, which is a bona fide failure.

Or, the feds could regulate private coverage to the point that it is unaffordable; once again, see Maine. If you want single payer, make the current system so unbearable that voters will flock to “government help.”

This reminds me of something I heard a while back. The concept was that Government can exercise gun control without actually legislating “gun control.” What do I mean?

Suppose Government says you can keep your guns, but you’ll be required to have a personal liability policy of $5 million for each firearm you own. And that a Social Safety Administration (SSA) will be created to administer this policy, and will withhold the premiums from your paycheck to make sure you comply, and otherwise administer the program.

“See….we don’t want to take your guns away.”

“We just want to make gun ownership fair and responsible.”

“There are hundreds of millions in fraud and abuse of Medicare.”

Is there anyone who doubts that? Well, then, why isn’t the administration attacking that problem independent of any reform legislation?

And why isn’t the state attacking the same problem in Medicaid?

“I won’t sign any bill that adds to the deficit.”

Did I tell you that the word gullible does not appear in the dictionary? That aside, there is a simple way to keep this promise: raise taxes in the amount that the program will cost (or more.) No increase in the deficit, but a major decrease in your income, which is to say, a major decrease in your right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

“If the savings we promise don’t materialize, we’ll cut elsewhere to cover the difference.”

Hey…here’s an idea: if there is spending that can be cut to fund this new program, why aren’t you cutting it now in order to reduce the ridiculous growth in our deficits?

Here’s another idea: how about outlawing taxpayer funded “gender reassignment surgery” in prisons, and what must be hundreds of other expenses that have nothing to do with “health care.”

And,yet another idea. It’s widely accepted that tort law and the consequent costs in our system add $100 billion or more to the national health care total. Dealing with this distortion has nothing to do with remaking the overall system; why aren’t you addressing it separately?

“My plan will not cover those here illegally.”

Given the political realities of our day, is there anyone who really truly believes this?

For starters, there goes about 30% of the “uninsured” problem. Which is the motivation to destroy our system and replace it with a government system.

One way to fulfill that promise is to issue an executive order declaring every illegal legal.

But that’s not necessary. We have Medicaid and the requirement to treat anyone who shows up at the ER. Add to that the prevailing trend to make inquiring about a person’s immigration status illegal. Law enforcement officials are prevented from questioning such status; why would health care providers be given greater latitude?

And if all else fails, there’s always the ACLU/MCLU, the LaRazas, and the rest.

Side has another question. We’re not sure how many folks are employed in the private health insurance sector, but it must be a million or so. Once the sector is destroyed, how will those unemployed be dealt with? Will they all become government employees?

There’s some heartburn, to recall a cute commercial of some years ago.

OK, it's time to wrap this up. But as we do, let’s agree that critical thinking is a lost art.

And that “end of life” counseling is called for at this point.

Specifically, that the current reform initiative should be declared dead on arrival.

Because it’s anything but life affirming.

Who'd have guessed?

Another one of those teaching moments slapped me in the face this afternoon.

Regular readers of this blog know well that the editorial policy of our local newspaper, and the inclinations of its op-ed page editor, are well established and anything but hidden.

And we aren't talking right-leaning or centrist. Which leaves only one remaining option.

That makes today's editorial quizzical. In it, the editor quotes a statement from the Glenn Beck show. Later in his essay he inserts a quote from the Rush Limbaugh show.

I must say I'm impressed. I know the editor to be a busy and engaged man, with above average intellectual curiosity. But I'm the last one to have guessed that he is a regular listener to conservative talk radio, and makes a point of recording statements by the best known talk-masters on such shows.

Which leads us to believe that even the most unrepentant "progressives" are open to new political thought, especially that offered on the most right leaning of the talk shows.

Unless there's some other explanation for including such quotes in his editorials.

You don't suppose I've "misread" the evidence before us, do you? You don't mean to suggest we're being "misled" as to the originality of the editorial's content, do you?

C'mon. What do you take me for, a fool?

A Train Comes to Brunswick; Maybe You Missed It?

There’s been much discussion and concern over whether Amtrak will make it to Brunswick, especially now that we have Maine Street Station opening. “Station” has many meanings, but there can be no doubt that the theme of this in town development is based on the classic definition of a depot for various forms of transportation.

It’s unclear, to this reporter at least, what the outlook is for a train that runs on actual rails to reach our Station and provide regular service. As you know, this service would be an extension of the Amtrak Downeaster that runs between Portland and Boston.

Those who know the background of Amtrak realize that it is anything but “sustainable.” It requires generous political capital to survive, on top of the more ordinary financial capital.

Brunswick’s Amtrak situation is ripe for meddling and political posturing, and rumblings on the rails are that both are occurring in full measure.

No matter; there is another train already making its presence known in the Brunswick area. It depends heavily on political backing and all that comes with it, but it has nothing to do with Amtrak. I refer to the Gravy Train.

The Gravy Train has already caused major excitement in our area. If you’ve been following the exploits of Jim Horowitz, F. Lee Bailey, and Oxford Aviation, you know they’re expecting a sizable tank car full of gravy to arrive soon, compliments of redevelopment of the Naval Air Station, or to be more specific, taxpayers.

They’re not the only ones. Others are already dining on a gravy shipment that arrived a few months ago. The whistle didn’t blow when this train came in to town, so most don’t know about it, but it arrived just the same.

Here I go again being a tease, for no good reason, right? OK, I’m talking about the traffic study “designed to investigate traffic alternatives related to redevelopment“ of BNAS, as reported recently in our local paper.

It’s a $1.2 million effort “commissioned by the Maine Department of Transportation in partnership with the governor’s office, the Maine Office of Redevelopment and Re-employment, the towns of Brunswick and Topsham, and the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, the civilian entity charged with leading civilian redevelopment of the base.”

Clearly, all relevant local agencies and entities are involved in the commissioning, signaling that they all support the cost of the effort. The performing firm is VHB, operating out of its office in Bedford, NH.

Let me digress for a moment. I spent my career in the defense industry, and I’m no stranger to outrage over “$400 hammers” and “$800 toilet seats.” If you like, I can give you an explanation of how our government sponsors such apparent idiocy.

But we’re not talking about special hardware or systems here; we’re talking about a study. The only tangible product involved is paper on which intellectual content is recorded. And it’s about traffic and highways, not defeating the subsurface threat or ICBM’s.

My employer’s price structure for labor, including studies, was transparent. You took actual labor cost (salary) and added overhead (benefits, security, plant operations, and all sorts of things) at about 125%, and to that total, you added “general and administrative expense” at about 17% and “fee” at about 10%. The net result was that a dollar’s worth of labor went “out the door” to the customer at somewhere between $2.50 and $3.00, depending on the labor category.

Using this as background, I wondered what a $1.2 million traffic study was buying in the way of services. If it was a one year study, they would be spending $100,000 a month. If the average study employee was making $1500 a week, a very nice income, thank you, and the overhead structure of the consulting firm was as outrageous as the defense industry, the study would be employing 5 full time individuals for the year to conduct the study, all while the parent firm was earning a tidy profit.

But those figures aren’t appropriate in this situation. There should be a labor mix of technicians and computer analysis operators, along with a few senior engineers and a program manager or two. And the “loaders” on their salaries should be nowhere as high as an aerospace firm.

I suggest that the average salary for a study participant should be about $1200 a week, still a far above average income, and that overhead and fees on top of that should elevate the total out the door price to no more than $2500. Do the math, and that should mean a full time staff of 10, start to finish, on the study.

That’s a lot of people working for a year to figure out how to re-route our traffic.
Now the plot thickens.

I followed the study link given in the article, and guess what. The study has a 7 month schedule. Given the holidays, we could expect the actual work duration to be 6 months. That makes the “burn rate” $200,000 a month, or twice what I assumed in the prior paragraphs.

That equates to a full time staff, start to finish, of 20 on the study. If you’ve spent a good part of your life spending other people’s money, these figures probably sound reasonable. But if you haven’t, you might find it troubling to say the least. Will there be 10 people standing by the side of the roads monitoring traffic 40 hours a week for 6 months, while 10 others chew away on the data and prepare a report to deliver at the end?

I said when I established this blog that “oxen would be gored, sacred cows would be skewered, and dead horses would be beaten.” I bow to no-one when it comes to cynicism about the conduct of the public’s business by “public servants.”

Now it’s time for you to ask yourself whether the specifics of this study pass a test of reasonableness. Or are we simply being taken advantage of by a system and special interests that know how to ride the train?

As for me, I’ll be looking at my local representatives far more carefully the next time I see them to see who has gravy stains on their shirts, ties, or blouses. And keeping an ear to the ground for a train whistle telling us of the next gravy shipment.

I can’t resist one more observation. While this study has a $1.2 million tab, the city of Portland is proposing a $1.8 million project to build sleeping quarters for four crew members of their new fireboat. To give Brunswick readers a sense of scale, that’s the equivalent of four upper end Meadowbrook homes dollar-wise. That is reasonable, isn’t it?

It’s a sad commentary when the excesses of one government body make the excesses of another look reasonable by comparison. Like it or not, this is how we all go to hell in a hand basket.

One teeny-weeny excess at a time.

Afterthoughts…Saturday, September 05

On “For the Children”

In this piece I pointed out that “for the children,” the all purpose incontestable rationale for public spending, has a far more worrisome relevance in our current era of huge government overspending, borrowing, and currency printing.

I was going through my ‘stack’ when I came across a comment someone had made at the Fiscal Sanity event.

It’s far easier to spend OPM (other people’s money) when they’re not old enough to vote, or not ever born yet.

Which reminds us of why our politicians love to “export” our tax burden to “tourists.” Even if you and I put on our tourist hat anytime we get something to eat at a commercial establishment; something as simple as a donut and coffee qualify. The theory, of course, is that “tourists” don’t vote in Maine. And there’s no more preferred targeted for tax abuse than those who don’t have a vote with which to rebuke the taxer.

It’s a known fact that state residents pay the lion’s share of this so called “exportable” tax burden. So the next time you’re in Portland or somewhere else in the state looking like a geeky tourist, dumping your tourist money into the state coffers, remember that you do have a vote with which to issue a rebuke.

On Berry Flavored Kool-Aid

In this item I discussed Rep. Berry’s proposal for a “do-over” law, and how incredulous his position on “tax reform” is. I addressed it further in the recent moral hazard discussion.

Adding to the “Berry doth protest too much, methinks” perception are disturbing reports that Berry has been harassing folks collecting signatures for the people’s veto of the tax reform legislation. And House Majority Leader John Piotti has been encouraging such behavior at various locations around the state.

One report adds that “There was a representative at the school union vote in Freeport who was telling people that if they sign this, the state's going to lose $57 million." This correlates with the suspicion raised earlier that the “tax reform” plan will actually increase state revenues, in spite of protestations by Berry, Piotti, and others.

They want us to believe they are desperate to cut state revenues, and even more desperate to give us more coin in our pockets, and they’re willing to travel around the state to make their case, and even risk disturbing the peace in some cases. They can sell this crazy somewhere else; Side isn't buying.

I’ve collected signatures on a variety of petitions in the past, and have even had the honor of being thrown off the Naval Air Base while doing so, at the direction of John Richardson, who, naturally, had jurisdiction over federal property during his tenure as Speaker of the House.

I can’t think of anything that does more to create fear and disrespect of the democratic process than having state officials harass those trying to collect signatures on petitions to which such officials object. This behavior is chilling and shameless, and reaffirms the perception that “public service” has gone the way of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

This behavior is from the same caring souls who have changed election procedures to cite not only “voter intimidation,” but “fear of intimidation.” Which in today’s climate, includes simply being there to observe and challenge per accepted practice.

Side wonders whether Berry, Piotti, and the rest were trying to sell Kool-Aid shooters at the fair without obtaining the appropriate permits. They should know better; but maybe they were wearing their “Do You Know Who I Am” buttons, and intimidated officials in charge of such matters.

Just a reminder.....

Just a reminder - American pride can boost the spirit, especially when displayed by our finest young people.

Moral Hazards, Berry Kool-Aid, and Obama Care

Our lively culture frequently decides to elevate certain words and terms from relative obscurity to common use, or in some cases, overuse. In recent months, the word “narrative” and the term “moral hazard” rank at the top of a list of such preferred expressions.

In the case of “moral hazard,” the individual words are easy enough to comprehend. But based on how the term was most frequently employed, I sensed that a more specific understanding applied.

My instincts were good. A visit to Wikipedia yielded this result:

Moral hazard is the prospect that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk.

Moral hazard is a special case of information asymmetry, a situation in which one party in a transaction has more information than another. The party that is insulated from risk generally has more information about its actions and intentions than the party paying for the negative consequences of the risk.

More broadly, moral hazard occurs when the party with more information about its actions or intentions has a tendency or incentive to behave inappropriately from the perspective of the party with less information.

Moral hazard also arises in a principal-agent problem, where one party, called an agent, acts on behalf of another party, called the principal. The agent usually has more information about his or her actions or intentions than the principal does, because the principal usually cannot completely monitor the agent. The agent may have an incentive to act inappropriately (from the viewpoint of the principal) if the interests of the agent and the principal are not aligned.

Fascinating stuff. Although the term appears to have originated in the insurance world, the concepts described above have superb relevance to our political circumstances. In particular, “information asymmetry” and the “principal-agent problem.”

Let’s examine how these concepts might illuminate the offerings and protestations of Rep. Seth Berry relating to “tax reform” and the ensuing citizen initiative. Berry is certainly a beneficiary of information asymmetry; he clearly knows more about the consequences of the proposed legislation than we do.

Berry is “the party that is insulated from risk” and “generally has more information about its actions and intentions” and we are “the party paying for the negative consequences of the risk.” Berry is our “agent,” and we are the “principals” in this debate.

And in Side’s view, Berry, the agent, has ‘an incentive to act inappropriately,’ because the ‘interests of the agent and the principal are not aligned.’ In so many words, Berry’s interest is maximizing state revenue, while taxpayer interest is preserving income free from state confiscation.

In this sense, Berry and his proposals are a “moral hazard.”

Now let’s turn to the huge national debate over “health care reform,” or as it’s become known in response to public reaction, “health insurance reform.”

Generally speaking, when you purchase insurance in the private market, you receive a copy of the policy along with appropriate endorsements. Yeah, I know, they’re page after page of fine print and complicated language, but at least you have them in front of you. You can study them, and if you wish, hire someone else to translate them for you.

Fast forward to the current national policy discussion. What do you think would happen if you asked one of the advocates of the proposed legislation to provide you with a copy of the insurance policy that you would be signing up for?

Surely I jest, you’re probably thinking. Most of the promoters have no clue what the legislation says; they couldn’t understand it if they tried; and they’re not worried about having to sign up for the results. They’ve got theirs, and they’re not going to do anything that puts it at risk. Meanwhile, they’re telling you that a pig in a poke is what’s best for you.

Even Richard Chapin, who I recently mentioned in less than glowing terms, is on to the scam. He writes this in a recent Times Record letter:

“In other words, we are being asked to approve a giant public program with no idea what it is going to cost and no idea where the money to pay for it is going to come from.”

I hereby revise my opinion of Chapin, who, by the way, is a Harvard graduate, on the basis of this statement alone. Maybe they do have coffee out there where he lives.

That aside, I conclude that “moral hazard” as a concept has its highest relevance in the relationship between citizens and their elected “public servants.” There is probably no more perfect example of information asymmetry, nor of misalignment between the interests of we principals and our agents.

So stay alert as you traverse the waters of public policy. It’s the last place you’ll find hazard markers and other aids to navigation.

Moral or otherwise.

From the Dooryard: "For the children."

Herewith, a passing thought from my time just spent outside with Sweety-Bitch and Boo-Boo as they alternated between following their nose and chasing tennis balls, as their canine whims dictated. One of the joys of spending time with them is their blissful ignorance of the larger issues that confront and confound us. In spite of failing eyesight and skin irritations. Happiness is a warm puppy, and as you get older, it can become delightful fully grown dogs.

I've grown weary over the years with the repeated use of the all-purpose political cover that "it's for the children."

In view of our current circumstances, though, I have a different take on this bromide.

As we watch our public servants lead us into a spending and borrowing free-for-all that breaks all the records, and even worse, lacks any brakes, we need to remind ourselves that "it's for the children" has a perverse relevance in stark contrast to its more traditional use.

We are indeed signing up for heaps of long term debt, huge interest obligations, and in all likelihood, national bankruptcy "for the children" as our public servant benefactors chase Utopian fantasies, free lunches, and tooth fairies on our behalf.

The older you are, the less their behavior will traumatize your standard of living and future outlook, because the future is within view. The younger you are, the less awareness and grasp you have of the unsustainable burdens and obligations being taken out in your name. And by the time you mature enough to comprehend them, it will be too late.

So what. "Don't worry, be happy - it's for the children." Don't question, don't challenge. Your children are too important to interfere in progress, government style.

And I hope my lunch tomorrow is free; I deserve it.

Don't I?

Local heroes

Side is hereby adding Richard Lord of Brunswick to it's list of those who exemplify the principles on which this blog was founded. Specifically, speaking out to challenge the accepted politically and culturally popular public "consensus."

Richard has been submitting letters regularly to the local paper, and this week has an item appearing in the Coastal Journal.

In every case, he challenges the positions taken by the purportedly government watching print media. And he does so with articulate and detailed responses.

I was tempted to say that Richard has "found his voice," but I suspect he has always had a fine voice. So I choose to say that he simply needed to clear his throat to allow his voice to return to its full clarity and force.

In his latest offering, he corrects the record on the CJ's party line propaganda on the number of "uninsured" in this country. And by inference, undermines the notion that we have a moral obligation to meddle with the coverage of the vast majority in order to address the coverage of a small minority.

The same issue contains a letter by a well known business owner in Bath on the same general subject, in which she demonstrates an utter lack of understanding on how our state government benefactors have driven up the cost of insurance in this state, to the point that folks like her now believe they deserve to have someone else pay for it. Shouldn't we expect better? Apparently not.

Kudos to you, Richard. And I know you have the thanks of the legions who loiter here.

Berry Flavored Kool-Aid: Do-Over Laws

In my life, I have prayed but one prayer: "Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
-Voltaire

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
-Queen Gertrude, Hamlet Act 3, Shakespeare

Jeez, we live in a target rich political environment! Make yourself a promise right now that you’ll never say “Now I’ve seen it all!” when it comes to politics, because Side is here to tell you that you haven’t, and you never will.

We have tax evaders at the highest level of our federal government strutting in front of cameras as though the worst they’ve ever done is leave the Congressional Dining Room with a bit of tar-tar sauce on their chin, or in extreme cases, explaining that the dog ate their tax records.

I’m sure I haven’t seen it all, but Side may have seen more than most, having spent a career working with our federal government. Closer to home, I’ve had occasion to research various elements of Maine State Law (Statutes) using legal reference books that provide details on the repeal, addition, or amendment of laws over the years, and this gives you a really clear view of who has been meddling in the fine print area and how. It doesn’t do much to make you feel better about things, I’d like to add.

In particular, looking into election law, specifically as it regards registration and voting procedures, will dumbfound you. Rational requirements have been undermined or removed outright to the point where if Edgar Bergen showed up with Charlie McCarthy at a poll and could make him fog a mirror, he’d probably be allowed to register on the spot and vote.

The depth to which our servants will flaunt their chutzpah is essentially unlimited. But this shouldn’t surprise us. They’re either lawyers themselves, or have so many lawyers in their midst that tip-toeing through the legal tulips is almost sport for them, with high fives generously exchanged when the “game plan” results in victory.

As case in point I give you the previously discussed Seth Berry here in Maine. And of course you’ll remember Side’s Consultant Captain O’Seau ObVeeous who enlightened us on Berry’s beloved free Kool-Aid for all bill.

Did you see yesterday’s paper? Just to make sure we haven’t “seen it all,” Berry is proposing legislation that would meddle with the citizen’s initiative process to provide a “do-over” option for repentant petition signers. Berry has filed a bill he “hopes will strengthen ballot integrity in the state by allowing voters to retract their signatures from petitions when they feel they have been misled about a referendum or initiative.”

Berry was inspired to do so by his disgust over the citizens veto effort being pursued to overturn the new tax reform law. He does understand that signing a petition does not consist of voting to support a proposal, but only to put it before the public for a vote, doesn't he?

Inquiring minds should ask why on earth Berry is going to such lengths, and is so incensed about the effort to repeal the law which he glibly tells us will put money back in the pockets of Maine taxpayers, and therefore, reduce the revenue available to his beloved benefactory in Augusta. Or won’t it, Rep. Berry?

Berry trying to outmaneuver the public to force “tax reform” upon them is on its face suspicious, leading Side to dramatically intone “Berry doth protest too much, methinks.” One finds it easy to suspect that Berry knows more about the realities of the proposed “tax reform” than he is letting on, eh Brute?

When’s the last time you saw a politician bend over backwards and say “pretty please with sugar on it” to get us to take our money back from government? Why isn’t Berry just saying “fine….if you want the state to keep more of your money, that’s your choice, and it’s fine with me!” He’s of the political persuasion whose glee is proportional to the amount available to spend, so what’s the problem?

On the other hand, there is a certain appeal to Berry’s proposal that registered voters should have do-over or withdrawal privileges. Given that many of our officials think it’s no big deal to disregard their oaths of office, it’s understandable they would think this way. So here are some suggestions on how to take Berry’s good idea and make it better:

- Allow voters to annul or reverse their vote for up to two years after any election if they sign an affidavit saying they were misled or overly-schmoozed by a candidate or their advocates.

- Allow voters to adhere to the promises that were made by politicians who are elected, but whose promises evaporate. Remember Issue 1A some years back that would “lower property taxes statewide by 15%?” I do, and I haven’t seen a nickel of the 15%. Wouldn’t it be fun to short the town by 15% the next time your property tax bill comes, and tell them you are invoking Berry’s Law of Do-over?

- Allow individuals to renege sales and mortgage contracts, credit card agreements, and anything else that turns out to be bothersome or otherwise inconvenient after it was entered into.

Side is sure that if you asked Representative Berry, he’d tell you that he is a well-intentioned, compassionate, and caring public servant always looking out for the public interest. Which seems like reason enough to expand his caring and compassion to those situations suggested above.

And if the citizen’s veto succeeds, Berry always has the option of proposing a law that will issue rebate checks to Maine taxpayers in an amount equal to the savings they would have realized under his favored “tax reform.” One way or another, he has it within his grasp to see that we get those benefits he promised.

So if Berry is a man of principle, we can’t lose. In a related story, reports are that he will use Kool-Aid envelopes personalized with his photo as a promotional item the next time he runs. Oh the wonder of it all.

New News from Lake Basebegone

It’s been a quiet several weeks in Lake Basebegone. Summer corn is finally here, and what there is of local tomatoes are in as well. The kids are heading back to school, and the night air is reminding us that fall is pushing summer out of the way. But there is news to report.

Oxford Aviation’s “Brunswick Jet Division” Update

In late spring of this year, The Times Record printed a series of commentaries by this reporter on the Oxford Aviation plan to set up a Division in the mammoth new hangar at the Naval Air Station. Oxford was so confident that they photoshopped a hangar picture to make it look like they were already there, and used it on their web site. I posted the series on this blog in the ‘early days.’

Updates were posted from time to time, triggered mostly by F. Lee Bailey sorties into the local area.

The columns were prompted by a sense that something didn’t seem quite right. This reporter is an uneducated and untrained slacker in matters of journalism. What the situation needed was attention from someone who knew how to dig into a story.
Fortunately for us, Steve Mistler of the Forecaster applied his considerable investigative and writing skills to the challenge, and his product was posted today on the Forecaster web site.

We are most fortunate that he did, and I implore you to read and ponder the entire effort. It throws more fuel on the fires of doubt by going well beyond anything in the earlier commentaries. I found a few lines in Steve’s column particularly memorable.

MRRA Executive Director Steve Levesque worried last week that "negative press" could kill the deal for Oxford to lease a 166,000-square-foot hangar built in 2005.

‘Negative press?’ What is that supposed to mean? Does Lévesque equate inconvenient facts with ‘negative press?’ Is he afraid that facts and past experience will “kill” the only deal currently on the table?

This comment alone should raise our level of vigilance much higher, in spite of John Richardson’s “protocols” request. If the Oxford deal will die from a little sunlight exposure, what does that tell us?

If that one doesn’t get you, maybe this one will:

Tenenbaum felt Horowitz wasn't someone he wanted to do business with.

That’s a comment I heard more than once as I rooted around before writing my columns.

Similarly, I find this statement by Horowitz fascinating:

"I haven't met anyone in public office, whether it be commissioners, governors or federal agencies," he said, "that hasn't felt good about the projects we've done."

To suggest otherwise, of course, would be to suggest that “commissioners, governors” and other officials would admit they were misled or otherwise didn’t deliver on promises. Not to mention that this claim by Horowitz is impossible to confirm.

I don’t know how many “governors” come in to play here, but the only one I know about is John Baldaccci, the current captain of our sinking ship of state. Perhaps Steve Mistler can find time to contact the governor to see if he feels good ‘about the projects we’ve done.’

Reading the article in light of what I found earlier convinces me that there are at least two solid bets if this deal goes forward. First, very large sums of taxpayer money will be at the heart of the deal, and Horowitz, Bailey and company will minimize the skin they have in the game. Second, the glowing promises and possibilities showered upon us will turn out to be wildly exaggerated. But so what; it should be fun to watch each newly painted jet fly out of town with a box full of local and state taxpayer money. You don’t mind, do you?

You know, all those commercial jets that just can't find a decent paint shop somewhere else in the world. Who wouldn't want to fly to a remote corner in our country, winter weather and all?

This seems like the right time to talk about language abuse in such circumstances. On the one hand, we have terms like “speculation,” “corporate welfare,” “loopholes,” and “tax breaks for the wealthy.” You’ve heard them many times; demagogues use them to demonize greedy capitalists working against the common good, and those advocating for them.

On the other hand, there are terms like “public investment,” “Pine Tree Zone tax-incentive program,” "public grants and loans,” “public assistance,” and “Community Development Block Grant.” In some indecipherable word game, these are terms used by those advocating for suddenly non-greedy capitalists working for the common good.

I defy you to explain the difference in terms the common taxpayer can grasp. And when you do, please post your explanation here for all to see.

Droning on About Drones

Turns out the Navy had the unmitigated gall to fly a Global Hawk UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) into our local Naval Air Station recently. It’s "flown" remotely from hundreds of miles away. Generically called “drones,” the presence of the aircraft, nay, its very existence, brought out drones of a different stripe.

The local peace at any price crowd went into high dudgeon, since to them, military systems, personnel, hardware, ships, aircraft, weapons, and anything else related to national defense, exist only to cause or start wars and kill humans by the thousands. These are the folks who convinced me that a goodly portion of the local population is giddy over base closure, figuratively if not literally carrying “Good Riddance, Navy” signs on their shoulders.

Always tempered in their remarks, they were quoted in the local paper thusly on the drone situation:

This war mentality is not sustainable.

…..concern about the implications (of drones) for our community and how we’d be right smack in the middle of aggressive warmaking.

Similar thought patterns would suggest that law enforcement causes crime.

These good folks would like to see Bath Iron Works forced out of the shipbuilding business so that their “swords” can be beat into wind turbine blades. They’d like to see BNAS redeveloped into a wind turbine campus. I suspect they’d like to see the old Grand City and Bookland converted into wind turbine facilities too, just to make sure private enterprise and the defense sector doesn’t sneak back into our presence “like thieves in the night.”

If you’re big on wind turbines as our economic knight in shining armor, you might want to do a little reading before you jump on his horse with him. You’ll be surprised by what you read here. From what I’ve heard, certain local elites stand to make a windfall, if you’ll excuse the slip, from promoting the concept and lining up public funds to "invest" in the technology. At least one said individual showed much promise in another pursuit on the public behalf not too long ago, and demonstrated a fascinating proficiency at spending taxpayer resources. In so doing, he set the stage for the fiscal crisis the state now faces.

You know what they say: the only reason socialism hasn’t worked elsewhere is because the wrong people were running it. The same thought comes to mind here – wind power has not delivered elsewhere only because the wrong people were in charge, and we won’t let that happen here. And you can trust our benefactors on that; they’re not like all the others.

As for our peaceful friends, I continue to wonder just how much freedom they’re willing to trade for what they see as “peace.” There are multiple views of what peace “is,” and not all are appealing, or for that matter, “sustainable,” to use a fashionable concept in such matters.

Understanding the difference is vital, history reminds us, but I don’t see that sort of circumspection very often.