Tuesday, January 3, 2012

A breath of ‘fresh’ air…

For longer than we can remember, we’ve had to get by with the non-reporting, non-investigative efforts of the self-absorbed ‘mainstream media’ in Maine and Brunswick.

Their big-government advocacy has been reinforced by scores of organizations in the non-profit industrial complex that promote, prolong, and expand dependency on governmental benefits.

These are the hundred or more professionally staffed entities that claim ‘the disadvantaged have no voice,’ while they earn their living providing that voice.  Look here to see who they are.  Note the “Maine Can Do Better” mantle.

In contrast, we’ve often wondered who provides ‘the voice’ for working families who labor day after day to generate the revenue that funds the benefits for those dependent on government.

And we’ve never come up with a good answer.  But there is hope.

A new web-based news service has been created, intended to offer an alternative to the one-sided coverage of established media outlets.  It’s called TheMaineWire, and you can find it here. 

A relevant example of their reporting efforts, germane to Maine Can Do Better, follows:

http://www.themainewire.com/2011/12/254/

Below is a sampling of the CEO salaries for some of the Maine Can Do Better groups:

  • Avesta Housing – $128,811 ($11 million in government funding)
  • Disability Rights Center – $95,955 ($1.6 million in government funding)
  • Family Planning Association – $102,454 ($3.8 million in government funding)
  • Preble Street – $88,109 ($2.5 million in government funding)

Planned Parenthood of Northern New England ($3 million in government funding)  lists four executives on its 990 form:

  • Nancy Mosher – $201,888
  • Thomas Frank – $170,213
  • Cheryl Gibson – $204,955
  • Susan Smith – $150,845

Looks like you can do quite well providing a voice for others.

We hope you’ll visit The MaineWire regularly, and help them succeed in offering another ‘voice.’

Lord knows we desperately need it.

Technorati Tags: ,

Monday, January 2, 2012

Kestrel: Breaks, bulls, and suckers

Time for a 2012 update from Lake Basebegone:

W. C. Fields is credited with some pithy bromides:

“There comes a time in the affairs of man when he has to take the bull by the tail and face the situation.”

“Never give a sucker an even break.”

For some reason, these seem to fit the moment.

Because one of the bitter disappointments of the golden years is finding out just how gullible one has been, and almost always learning that lesson via government, politicians, and the myriad parasites and cronies that love to rub shoulders with them while picking the publics’ pockets.

We suppose it is the penalty of leading a sheltered life in a family with ‘old fashioned’ values, and having spent a career with professionals who acted with integrity and respect for customers.  So retirement came, and we had not learned the lessons that others may have along the way.

It’s especially painful when you find out that the word gullible is not even in the dictionary!

Our subject here is the recent news breaking on Kestrel Aviation.  We had been making notes on the subject for some time, and were planning on an ‘in-depth’ essay when time and priorities allowed.  We got waylaid by affairs at MSHA and other things we considered more timely.  And our personal life, if you must know.

We’re going to address the subject briefly tonight, with plans to come back to it somewhere down the 400 foot platform that is a metaphor for “the road,” with appropriate governmental symbolism.

We think tonight of the estimates of 17,000 jobs; Jim Horowitz and Oxford Aviation; FLee Bailey; and Johnny “Protocols” Richardson and his private discussions with ‘a half dozen or more Fortune 500 companies’ interested in locating on the former Naval Air Station.

By comparison, 100 train passengers a day coming to dine and shop in Brunswick is barely worthy of note.

The Chase:

Recent news reports indicate that the Kestrel Aviation ‘promise’ of a glorious aviation future for Brunswick is turning out to be so much hype and propaganda associated with milking whatever public (IE: taxpayer) funding cows are grazing in the fields.

This report appeared in the BDN last week:

BRUNSWICK, Maine — Kestrel Aircraft Co. is negotiating with development officials in Superior, Wis., to create 300 to 600 jobs initially envisioned for Maine, a local redevelopment official confirmed Friday.

Steve Levesque, executive director of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, said Friday that Kestrel founder Alan Klapmeier confirmed a story in the Duluth (Minn.) News Tribune reporting on a Jan. 16 public hearing at which the city of Superior would consider a development agreement with Kestrel for the company to build parts for its new single-engine turboprop plane there.

A friend sent along further reports from other outlets:

The city of Superior is in the running for an airplane manufacturing facility that could create 300 permanent jobs initially and up to 600 jobs by 2016.

Kestrel Aircraft Co. — led by founder and former head of Duluth-based Cirrus Aviation, Alan Klapmeier — has been in negotiations with the city and state of Wisconsin since mid-July to discuss the possibility of siting a manufacturing plant in Superior.

Under the terms of the development agreement, the city would provide assistance with the project with the sale of land, grants, and tax increment financing to encourage the development.

In addition, the state could provide tax credits to make the project a reality, said Port and Planning Director Jason Serck.

And this from AVWEB.COM:

Kestrel Moving To Wisconsin?

Media in Duluth, Minn., and Superior, Wis., are reporting that a deal is close to site the new factory for Kestrel Aircraft in Superior, which is a few miles from Kestrel President Alan Klapmeier's home town of Duluth and just across the Wisconsin border. Klapmeier, who co-founded Cirrus in Duluth, took over Kestrel 18 months ago with plans to manufacture the turboprop single in Brunswick, Maine. It's not clear what happened with the widely publicized plans to build the aircraft at a decommissioned naval air station in Brunswick.

Kestrel was in line to receive an incentive package in exchange for the 300 jobs the facility would create. Wisconsin seems to be stepping up to the plate financially, too, and is hoping the plant eventually creates 600 jobs. "This is a significant number of jobs, right now, but it will continue to be a significant number of jobs in the years to come," said Jim Caesar, an economic development consultant contracted by the city told the Superior Telegram. "They have plans beyond this prototype that will require additional workers well into the future … this is an ongoing thing." A spokesman for Kestrel was not immediately available for comment.

In related news, MRRA directors are said to be looking for a new face to head the organization.  Rumors are that Ben Dover has applied for the job, but calls to his representatives met with a turned cheek.

The Ostrich is reported to be hard at work not pulling it’s head out of the sand, fully committed to keeping it’s ‘government watchdog’ record tarnished.

We hope you’re feeling suitably loved and respected as another year of continued growth in the town of Perfect begins.

And that’s today’s report from Lake Basebegone.

Technorati Tags: ,,

Saturday, December 24, 2011

“My Big Fat Greek Christmas”

 

We saw the movie “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” at Brunswick’s own Eveningstar Theater some years back, and howled at it.  A friend who went with us has a Greek sister-in-law, and knows her family pretty well.  She assured us that the movie was an accurate portrayal of Greek family character, traditions, and eccentricities.

It remains one of our favorite movies; if you haven’t seen it, you should.  If your sensibilities and sense of humor are even remotely close to ours, it will bring tears to your eyes, in more ways than one.

Our daughter’s neighborhood has a house that reminds us of the family patriarch’s house in the movie.

Well, you should see it at Christmas!  Now the parallel to “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” is truly compelling and unavoidable.

To prove the point, and provide some Christmas cheer appropriate to the season, we pass along these photos – one in daylight, and one at night with full, and we mean full, big, fat illumination!

 DSCN0310

DSCN0316

Trust us, the night time photo doesn’t do the place justice; our usually reliable professional photog just didn’t have his A-game tonight.  We may get him to go back and video the place so you can see all the motion characters and hear the music.

We’ll close with this for now: Merry Christmas, loyal readers!

And here’s hoping Santa brings a bottle of Windex down your Chimney!

Opa!

Friday, December 23, 2011

MSHA: is it time to come clean?

In this recent post, we wondered how the MSHA funded Elm Street “affordable housing project” (yeah, that’s a good one!) could have quickly gone from a projected cost of $314,000 per unit to an approved cost of $265,000 per unit.

The facts are becoming clearer, and they all point to ‘someone,’ as we speculated earlier, at MSHA.

MSHA held a board meeting this week, on Tuesday the 20th, and this very subject came up.  Dale McCormick, the Director of MSHA, provided a rather low key explanation.  It wasn’t so much about reducing the cost of the project as it was about increasing the number of units in the existing building, meaning the average size of the ‘affordable units’ was decreased to lower average cost to politically acceptable levels.  The total cost of the project, while lowered a few percent from the worst case n number, is still significantly higher than the initial estimate.

This is not unlike the property tax game, where two variables are involved: mil rate, and assessed value.  Periodic reassessments, that drive housing values significantly higher, allow local officials to ‘lower’ the mil rate, and claim they are somehow lowering the tax burden on local residents.  This isn’t lying in the literal sense, but it’s close enough for horse-shoes.

The other items cited to lower the final Elm Street per unit price include a reduction in ‘developer fees,’ and ‘value engineering.’

These terms are nebulouse, which makes them perfectly suited to the purpose of so-called public servants trying to squirm out from under a very heavy rock.

We’ll watch for a detailed written summary from the Authority, but until we see it, you can bet the monkey is only sitting on one back, and said monkey was whispering in MSHA’s ear for some time, to no avail.  Here’s hoping the monkey is listened to in the future.

Or is it time to clean up?

At this same meeting, an embarrassing subject arose: reports of squalid conditions in subsidized ‘affordable housing’ in Norway, Maine, involving what most would call a slum landlord, who would often take advantage of taxpayer provided rent payments via government programs.  And relatively helpless tenants.

Follow the references here to get a ‘picture’ of what’s been going on:

State stops Section 8...

“I'll tell you right now, the people we're dealing with today should not be in new construction," she said. "You should see these houses when they move out.” She cited trash, dirty “flushes” and other unsanitary conditions brought on by tenants. “It's not fair; there's not much we can do about it,” she said.

Pratt no more

NORWAY — Landlord Madeline Pratt will no longer be allowed to participate in the Section 8 housing program, state officials confirmed on Friday. Pratt's daughter Beverly Kimball, who helps to manage her mother's apartments, said that the state is not giving them a fair chance to bring their apartments into compliance.

slumlords

Imagine renting an apartment where, when a neighbor flushes the toilet, waste bubbles up in the bathroom sink. Or living in a third floor apartment with the only way to get out being down the stairs because the exterior fire escape is barely attached ... its nails pulling out of the wall. Or living with everything you own plugged in via various power strips and extension cords to an outlet outside of your apartment.

Please note that Avesta Housing, headed by Brunswick’s own Dana Totman, is a leading player in this drama.  Dana is often seen in various civic leadership posts, including the board guiding the highly successful MRRA efforts to turn the former Naval Air Station into a vibrant and dynamic economic engine.  As if anyone in the area wants such a thing.

We’re confident Dana will have a cogent and defensible explanation of how his organization has been victimized and made the subject of a witch hunt in these reports.  We’re biting our tongue really hard right now; we’ll just promise to print his defense here when it is issued.

MSHA and Totman are no doubt finding the way ahead more treacherous than they have previously encountered, since the Norway SNAFU has been elevated to federal attention levels.

Senator Susan Collins was contacted by local Norway officials.  Here’s a report from another source:

The Maine Wire has obtained a copy of a letter sent today by U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, asking for an investigation into the recently-reported Section 8 housing violations at an affordable housing complex in Norway.

From the letter:

“I am writing to request your assistance in investigating the property inspection and fire code enforcement practices for federally subsidized properties in Oxford County, Maine. I have been contact by the Fire Chief of the Town of Paris, Maine, about serious safety violations in units that receive federal payments under the Section 8 program.

You can find the letter from the Senator here.

What’s the old saying about may you live in interesting times?

In this case, I think we’ll get our wish.

 

Technorati Tags: ,,

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Cross words for the Ostrich

In the lingering days of our paid subscription to the Brunswick Bleep Bleep, the only thing that provided any value of note to this reporter was the daily NY Times Crossword Puzzle.

As best we can tell, the new, full and complete web version of The Ostrich does not include the NY Times puzzles.

As if any more nails were needed.

Technorati Tags: ,

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

There are TIFs, and then there are TIFs.

Not that Ostrich editors can tell the difference!

In a fit of editorial pique, The Ostrich recently ran this editorial:

Peter Anastos of Yarmouth, a partner in the firm that operates hotels in Bath and Brunswick, believes the Brunswick Town Council erred in agreeing to a tax-increment financing (TIF) deal with the developer of the Inn at Brunswick Station.

Anastos has made his displeasure known in court cases, at Town Council meetings and in letters to the editor.

He certainly has a right to voice his opinion, but it’s time for Anastos to end his long-running tantrum.

In agreeing to the downtown TIF, Brunswick’s town councilors simply followed through on a commitment made by their predecessors. Their predecessors included the TIF, a common economic development practice, in a plan that successfully achieved development of a contaminated, decades-old eyesore in the heart of Brunswick.

While Bath city government used a different form of TIF during development of the hotel that Anastos’ group built in that city in 2009, his firm gained a $387,000 contract to design sidewalks and streetscapes around the hotel. That’s a very similar government-aided competitive advantage to the one for which Anastos lambastes Brunswick officials.

It’s disingenous (sic) for Anastos to blame the Brunswick TIF for hard times at local inns while ignoring the Bath deal. He would be better served by devoting his energy to touting his own properties.

An angry innkeeper alienates guests.

Turns out the editors had done their usual quarter-inch deep research on the subject, and a ‘clarification’ was published a few days later.  Even that was not fully accurate.

We submitted a letter on the subject, and didn’t even bother to hold the editor to account for his spelling gaffe.  It read thusly:

To the Editor:

On a visit to your web site, I read the item “Hostility trumps hospitality,” published December 12th.

It addresses hotelier Peter Anastos and the City of Bath, and alludes to ‘a different form of TIF,’ without explaining further.

There are, as you point out, different forms of TIF. For example, some require no application or approval; only the benign neglect or tolerant benevolence of current town councilors and their predecessors.

For a case in point, one prominent Brunswick business, known well to you and your readers, owes more than $220,000 in property taxes, dating back to 2009. This business did nothing to qualify for this ‘tax increment financing,’ other than fail to pay their taxes on time. While not a common form, this ‘TIF’ has benefits similar to other types, in that it defers tax obligations that the rest of us are required to meet.

Others might suggest that the holder of this form of ‘TIF’ is engaged in a quid pro quo with town officials - an exchange for amiable and non-critical reporting on Brunswick town governance. This notion is unseemly, to say the least, so I will not make this claim.

If I did, I’d have to counsel you that editorial hypocrisy alienates readership and advertisers, which could easily lead to declining revenues and the dreaded consequences one might expect.

And even worse, my doing so might cause you to throw a tantrum. Goodness knows Brunswick doesn’t need or want that.

Apparently, the letter got lost in the mail, because we got no response to the initial submission, nor a subsequent inquiry on the letter’s disposition.   Must be they’re overwhelmed with reader submissions, or the new web site thingy is driving them bonkers.

(Note: if you can guess who the ‘prominent Brunswick business’ is that owes the $220,000 plus in taxes, you’ll be entered in our drawing for a free one year subscription to Other Side.  Losers will be referred to The Ostrich to sign up for a paid one year subscription, in hopes it will help them pay their delinquent taxes.)

The Ostrich’s webbed footprint; one day at a time.

We reported here, almost two weeks ago, that our beloved local rag, The Ostrich, is headed down the road of the paperless business model.  We could start an office pool about how long they’ll have any business model, but why trouble ourselves?

Something like two and a half years ago, about the time we founded this publication, the folks over on Industry Road who publish said Ostrich gave us a hint as to what was to come.

They had, until that point, a fairly stable web site that carried the most important content from the daily print version,  And they had an archive function that was years deep, and which we found very useful for researching various local issues.

The site carried several days of highlights, so you could catch up on things if you hadn’t read the  paper in several days, or were out of town.

Suddenly, the archive function was ‘redesigned’ to carry only two weeks of recent content, which means it was no longer an ‘archive’ in any meaningful sense.

For us, this diminished the already marginal value of the web site, if not the print version, to the near worthless level.  None-the-less, we were still able to visit the site every week or so, and skim the major stories and op-ed page content of recent days.

So much for that.

With their latest enhancement, The Ostrich has decided to live up to, or should we say exceed, our very low expectations.

The latest version of their web site, which will cost you $89.95 per year for full access come January 1st, has one day’s content, and that’s it.  So if you don’t check the site every day, you’ll be completely shut out from yesterday’s news.  Which, come to think of it, is their specialty.

We suppose there’s a method to their madness; they want to force you to come to their web page every publishing day, thereby increasing their ‘hit count’ so they can maximize their internet based ad revenue. 

Good luck with that.  We sure love going out of our way to read advertising on the web, and expect you do too.

We’ve also noticed that their archive feature is now even more useless than it has been in recent years, which is almost impossible.  Unless you’re trying to alienate whatever is left of your readership as you exit the publishing world.

Damn; how are we going to keep current with Paul Krugman and the other balanced viewpoints they publish?

Don’t worry; we’ll find a way.  And save money in doing so.  Like we’ve said before, we don’t recommend paying for a year in advance; that creates risky financial exposure.

If you just can’t control your addiction, at least don’t pay for more than a week at a time.  Or tell them you’ll pay after the service is delivered, not before.

Or even better, after they pay up on their property taxes.  That would be ‘journalistic justice,’ to coin a phrase.

Technorati Tags: ,

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

"Eid Mubarak,” loyal readers.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to those of you who stop by our festive and well decked publication.  (It wouldn’t make much sense to wish this to those who don’t come by, would it?)

To get you in the spirit, we offer this Christmas Greeting photo from our distant past:    

1987 puppy jpg

We delivered this litter of 9 English Springer Spaniel puppies in our home, with the help of our kids.  The delivery and weeks that followed were quite a circus.

So much for making nice.  We want to tell you about an ‘incident’ with our wonderful US Postal Service.   Mrs. Poppycock traveled to the local branch to buy some Christmas Stamps for our outgoing cards.

She was offered Kwanza stamps, Chanukah Stamps, and Madonna and Child Stamps.  She said she just wanted ‘ordinary’ Christmas Stamps, perhaps something with a Christmas Tree.

She was offered this stamp -

and mindful of the line waiting, she took it to be a stylized, ‘artsy’ Christmas Tree.  She made her purchase and came home.

Your correspondent noticed them on the kitchen counter and decided to take a look.  What we found, on closer examination was this:

When we told the missus that she had purchased Islamic themed stamps, she was incredulous.  After we applied smelling salts, and lifted her back to a vertical position, she jumped in her sleigh, and headed back to the Post Office and asked to exchange the stamps for something else.

Ever helpful, the person she spoke to said “we’re not exchanging them.”  Admirably persistent, our spouse finally got another counter agent to make the exchange, which cost her about a half hour of personal time, not to mention the wear and tear and fuel for her sleigh.

Not long after she returned, she was telling her friend about this, and you guessed it, she had also come home with the Eid stamps without realizing it.  Said friend went through the line twice at the in-town branch trying to exchange the stamps, but had no luck.  So she headed to the satellite branch on the other side of town, where they were easily traded in.

We wonder how many of you were sold the same stamps, and without realizing it, sent off your Christmas cards carrying an Islamic holiday salute.

Lest you think this is a multicultural, politically correct ‘Christmas Holiday’ stamp, the Postal Service issued it in August, well before even the most ambitious card senders might need it.

You may be wondering just what “Eid” is.  According to Wikipedia, it is an Arabic word for festival, and there are two such festivals:

Eid ul-Fitr (Arabic: عيد الفطر ‘īdu l-fiṭr "Festival of the Fast Breaking"), marks the end of the month of Ramadan.

Eid al-Adha (Arabic: عيد الأضحى ‘īdu l-’aḍḥā "Festival of the Sacrifice"), Greater Eid, or Eid-e Qurban , celebrated to commemorate prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son for God.

We trust the recipients of your cards, should you have sent them off with this stamp, will receive it with good cheer and thanks that you would remember them in such a distinctive way.

We can’t wait to hear how it goes; please report back to us.

And prepare yourself for Eid Mubarak greetings sometime in the coming year(s) in response.  This is the greeting used by muslims during the two holidays described above.

You might worry that Eid Mubarak cards will be hard to find, but don’t shortchange the USPS, which needs all the revenue generators it can muster.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.  They could of course come up with another special stamp that would be a big seller:

1987 puppy jpg

You can decide which would add more cheer to your cards.

Monday, December 12, 2011

So which is it, MSHA: did you over-spec, or did your developer over-price?

You may have come across this item published on the Bangor Daily News website yesterday; it provides some ‘closure’ to a contentious public discussion about a particularly pricey ‘affordable housing’ project under the auspices of the Maine State Housing Authority.

Controversial Elm Terrace development gets OK at $265K per unit


By Kevin Miller, BDN Staff
Posted Dec. 11, 2011, at 5:52 p.m.

The head of the Maine State Housing Authority has approved plans for a low-income housing complex in Portland for $265,000 per unit, roughly $50,000 below an earlier cost estimate that has sparked a political showdown with state Treasurer Bruce Poliquin.

Dale McCormick, director of MaineHousing, said Sunday evening that she signed a letter of commitment with the developer late last week to construct a 38-unit Elm Terrace complex after the developer managed to lower the costs from $314,000 per unit.

“It has been approved to go forward and that happened because they found the $50,000 in cost savings that we said they had to find,” McCormick said.

Included in the report is this bizarre statement that perfectly embodies the logical and moral divide between private sector taxpayers and government benefactors in the public sector:

McCormick said there are reasons why affordable housing complexes cost more to build….

Excuse me??  ‘How dare they’ doesn’t even begin to capture the ‘we’re not like you, we’re the government’ arrogance endemic to such agencies.

Tough at it is, we’ll put that aspect of this discussion aside, and instead, dazzle you with a blinding flash of the obvious. We must ask MSHA officials how the price per unit suddenly and inexplicably dropped from $314,000 to $265,000. 

Specifically, has the scope of the Elm Street Project been reduced to drive the price down, or is the scope being held firm?

If MSHA took $50,000 in scope out of each unit, why was there this much unnecessary content in supposedly 'affordable housing' for 'low income' families?  Was this a gold plated, green agenda 'statement' project, at the cost of more housing units for the needy?

Or was the developer about to sign a deal for a price inflated by $50,000 per unit, and if so, how could this be allowed to happen? 

As the saying goes, we report, you decide.  From where we sit, there doesn’t seem to be an answer that doesn’t make ‘somebody’ look bad.

And ‘somebody’ works at MSHA.

Technorati Tags: ,,

Sunday, December 11, 2011

How dare they??

We’ve been sitting here today watching football, napping, and feeding the fire.  The Pats got kind of lucky; they didn’t look like a commanding presence on the field.  The Packers look like they are.  We predict an unfavorable playoff outcome for our New England team.

No matter the distractions available to us, including snuggling with the pups, we couldn’t seem to avoid thinking on the MSHA issue.  You know the posts we’ve published in recent days, and if you don’t, we’re not going to force them upon you now.

What really got to us as we tried to relax is the ‘how dare they’ aspect of this situation.

Here we have 140 plus bureaucrats, all of whom earn well above the average income for Maine residents, who have Cadillac benefits, and who have job security beyond the imaginating of all who don’t work for government.  And with all these advantages, they cloak themselves in the moral superiority of ‘public service.’

How dare they.

Even worse, they have the incredible arrogance to use their taxpayer funded web site to complain about their compensation.

How dare they, times two.

To make things worse, their so-called leaders are going public expressing umbrage over efforts to examine and rationalize their stewardship of vast sums of other people’s money.  They’ve been dispensing, by their own account, more than $1 Billion in federal funds per year. And spending who knows how much more on their operations and other expenses.

‘Witch hunt,’ they and their big government disciples, activists, and ‘non-profit’ crornies are quick to proclaim.  Their enablers in the mainstream media attack any such efforts as a war on the homeless.

How dare they, times ten. 

This whole snafu is a case study, nay, a poster child for what government by bleeding hearts and busybodies has given us in the way of ‘unsustainability.’

Personally, we don’t buy any of the rhetoric about cutting them some slack or claiming ‘we don’t understand'.’  We’ve had it up to here with the bloviation emanating from entrenched bureaucrats and career hacks.

For now, we’ll leave you with this previously posted, pithy essay that perfectly captures the attitudinal pathology at MSHA.

==========================================

Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own.

Ever wonder about those stories of $600
hammers and $800 toilet seats that the
government sometimes buys? You could walk
the length and breadth of this land and not
find a soul who would say he’d gladly spend his
own money that way. And yet this waste often
occurs in government and occasionally in other
walks of life, too.

Why? Because invariably, the
spender is spending somebody else’s money.

Economist Milton Friedman elaborated
on this some time ago when he pointed
out that there are only four ways to spend
money.

When you spend your own money
on yourself, you make occasional mistakes,
but they’re few and far between. The
connection between the one who is earning
the money, the one who is spending it, and
the one who is reaping the final benefit is
pretty strong, direct and immediate.

When you use your money to buy someone
else a gift, you have some incentive to get
your money’s worth, but you might not
end up getting something the intended
recipient really needs or values.

When you use somebody else’s money to
buy something for yourself, such as lunch
on an expense account, you have some
incentive to get the right thing, but little
reason to economize.

Finally, when you spend other people’s
money to buy something for someone
else, the connection between the earner,
the spender and the recipient is the most
remote — and the potential for mischief
and waste is the greatest.

Think about it — somebody spending somebody else’s
money on yet somebody else. That’s what
government does all the time.

But this principle is not just a commentary
about government. I recall a time, back in the
1990s, when the Mackinac Center took a close
look at the Michigan Education Association’s
self-serving statement that it would oppose
any competitive contracting of any school
support service (like busing, food or custodial)
by any school district anytime, anywhere.

We discovered that at the MEA’s own posh,
sprawling East Lansing headquarters,
the union did not have its own full-time,
unionized workforce of janitors and food
service workers. It was contracting out all of
its cafeteria, custodial, security and mailing
duties to private companies, and three out of
four of them were nonunion!

So the MEA — the state’s largest union of
cooks, janitors, bus drivers and teachers —
was doing one thing with its own money and
calling for something very different with
regard to the public’s tax money.

Nobody — repeat, nobody — spends someone else’s
money as carefully as he spends his own.

==========================================

There you go.  And as we’ve seen on numerous bumper stickers on Subarus, Volvos, and Piouses around town over the years,

“If you aren’t angry, you aren’t paying attention.”

Which is just the way the ‘public servants’ at MSHA like it.

Saturday, December 10, 2011

More ‘firsts’ for Maine

Depending on how you define ‘first,’ that is, especially as it relates to whether you have the page right side up or upside down.

By now, you may already have heard about or seen the 2011 Forbes report on the best states for business and careers.  Just in case you haven’t, though, we want to pass it along.

We’ve got plenty of ‘don’t worry, be happy’ types around here, and in our state overall.  Fine.  But ignoring our systemic economic challenges, and that whether you like it or not, states are in competition with each other, is whistling past the ash heap of history.

So take a look at the data in this report.  Any such summary survey is bound to have margins of error, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pay attention to the outcomes, especially when they track pretty consistently with other sources and prior year results.

You can rationalize that your doctor or nurse didn’t take your blood pressure exactly by the book, but if the numbers are elevated year after year, you’d be a fool to ignore them, wouldn't you?  You can think of the numbers in the Forbes report as Maine’s annual checkup and go from there.

In this case, instead of two numbers, there are six.  Rankings in business costs, labor supply, regulatory environment, economic climate, growth prospects, and quality of life.  These are combined to come up with an overall ranking for the 50 (or is it 57??) states.

Whoopee, Maine ranks first overall!  At least if you hold the page upside down.  If you don’t, we rank dead last.

Why?  Because we rank 44th in business costs; 28th in labor supply; 45th in regulatory environment; 42nd in economic climate; 50th in growth prospects; and 17th in quality of life.

Based on what we’ve observed in the way of public opinion over our years here, we’re confident that many area and state residents find the last place ranking overall, and the last place ranking in growth prospects, perfectly to their liking.

Why?  Because they can’t see beyond next year.  And they think that Maine’s ‘quality of place,’ touted by the anti-growth, anti free-market, big government crowd trumps every other consideration.

We assume they don’t have children and grandchildren they’d like to see stay here and build their futures where they were born and raised.  We also assume they are immune to the risks of high blood pressure.

We’ll close with this: ponder the difference between ‘quality of place’ and ‘quality of life.’  And what factors contribute to each. 

If you think they are the same thing, you probably don’t come here often. 

And you aren’t very good at remembering to take your blood pressure medicine, if you even have any.

Technorati Tags: ,,

Are you getting YOUR ‘fair share,’ fella?

Hey there, Bucky, this is the old Poppycock philosopher with some questions for you.

Assuming you’re still working, are you being paid enough?  Are you friend?

Look at that; almost everyone has their hand up!  Not much surprise there.

Next question: if you had control of your employer’s web site, would you proclaim on it, for all the world to see, how underpaid you are?

Well…what happened?  No hands up; you’re not so brave when it comes to criticizing your employer on his own web site, for all the world to see, are you?

Not everybody is as sheepish as you, friend, when it comes to speaking up. To prove the point, consider the Maine State Housing Authority, about which we’ve posted many times.

We hear a lot about not ‘paying our fair share’ these days, as the federal government tries to find a plausible excuse for spending way beyond their means.  But our friends at MSHA are out there publicly proclaiming that they aren’t getting their fair share, and they’re happy to tell you why.

Just visit this page at their web site.  You’ll find such as this:

The Maine Department of Labor published three salaries for each position: average, experienced, and those in the top 10% of the field. MaineHousing employees with less than 5 years experience in their position are compared with the average market salary, those with 5 to 20 years of experience in their position are compared to the experienced market salary, and those with more than 20 years experience in their position are compared to the top 10% of their field.

  • MaineHousing salaries average 15% below the average market salaries for the same position. (The salaries for the 20 employees who were employed at MaineHousing for less than a year were not factored.)
  • When experience is taken into account, MaineHousing salaries fall to 25.7% below the comparable market position with the same level of experience.

Note that what most would consider ‘entry level’ employees, those with less than 5 years experience, are compared with ‘average’ market salary.  No rigging the outcome here, right?

If you want position by position ‘proof,’ you can look at individual salaries.

What term is appropriate here: unmitigated gall?  Brass ones?  Big cajones?  The nerve of some people?

Polite language is ineffective at characterizing the chutzpah of government employees brash enough to complain about their compensation on their agency web site.  Where they gush about addressing the needs of the less fortunate. 

We bet those using the web site to find the help they need to get by are just thrilled to see the list of salaries used to emphasize staff complaints!  Great expression of compassion, folks.

This is the same MSHA whose compensation growth in recent years was publicized by the Maine Open Government activity at the Maine Heritage Policy Center, based on information provided by MSHA itself.  Staff compensation there has increased by 30% in the most recent five years:

Do you find this troubling, friend?  Well lift your head up high, and tell everyone you’ll never give up -- that ship!

But don’t expect those at MSHA to be troubled, because they’ll say you just don’t understand the difference between the public sector and the private sector.  That you don’t appreciate their sacrifice as ‘public servants.’

We don’t know about you, but the staff here at Side sure as hell doesn’t understand.

We don’t understand why those with all the benefits, job security, and absence of competition of government employment can grumble about their circumstances.

And we are pretty sure we never, ever will.

Technorati Tags: ,,