“A little bit of this, a little bit of that” is what you’ll find here. First and foremost, opinion, commentary, and analysis you simply won’t find in the dead tree media. The Blog was started to offer “other side” thoughts on local governance and related subjects, unconstrained by the boundaries of the “free press.” Useful information, diversions, humor, and other distractions from the daily grind will make regular appearances as they occur to me, and as others contribute them.
We told you it would take a while to get the normal mojo going and re-establish our customary publishing routine. As it turns out, our mojo is already in overload mode, and we’ve got so many plates spinning we’re not sure which ball to catch first.
So, lacking coherent guidance from our Board of Directors, we’ve decided to take things under our own personal cognizance, and provide you with the reference documents that underlay what will follow from this point on.
One of the things that convinced us we needed to do so is the phone call we received from Dale King, owner of Brunswick Taxi, “a Maine Corporation,” on Wednesday this week (21 August 2013). We’ll have much more to say about that conversation, but for now, we tell you that he asked why we were ‘picking on him, instead of Gelato Fiasco and Cool As a Moose and MRRA,’ all of whom were getting help from the BDC.
Side’s answer was that we didn’t know anything about those transactions, but that we would as soon as possible. We now have all the relevant documents in hand, ready to pass along to you. (Ed. note: we don’t care for the word ‘share.’)
So here they are, as your homework assignment for what will be forthcoming when we decide to ‘move’ the story, as professional journalists like to say. Trust us; there is lots of moving to be done that we already know about. We suspect that the moving to be done will increase by leaps and bounds in the coming weeks. So stay tuned.
The foundational documents for the Brunswick Development Corporation are these:
The aggregate document describing the loans to Gelato Fiasco (half of which is forgivable); Cool As a Moose (128 Maine Street LLC); and the grant to MRRA:
We have faith in you, loyal readers, and trust that you will digest these documents and discern the very ‘essence’ of the sausage recipe from them. All while we are preparing subsequent posts on the subject, which we will do with great relish.
Don’t disappoint us; it won’t be pretty if you do. And nobody likes ugly pigs. We much prefer ours with ample lipstick, mascara, and false eyelashes.
And we’ve come to understand that Cape Brunswick has some of the finest costume designers and makeup technicians there are.
Pork comes in all sorts of forms, as we’ve told you before.
Well, dear readers, and the rest of you as well, after more than two months of inactivity, we come before you once again. There are many reasons why we took our sabbatical, but we won’t bore you with them now. But we reserve the right to bore you with them later.
The reactions to our absence have been interesting, to mince a word. We always knew we’d be coming back, but that it was probably gonna result from a real swift kick in our ample butt to get us moving. And it has. But before we tell you what the swift kick is, let’s take a little trip down memory lane.
Do you remember the TV Program “Queen for a Day?”
In the same vein, over the years, we’ve heard the term “If you were A King for a day, yada yada..” Some of you might think we’re asking “if you were Senator Angus King for a day….”, but we’re not.
Rather, it might be asked at work to get you thinking ‘outside’ whatever box you are in: “if you were a King for a day, how would you solve this problem?” Or in politics: “if you were a King for a day, what would you change?”
Now imagine being a King for three years! Which brings us back full circle to the swift kick in the butt we referred to in our opening.
As the fickle finger of fate would have it, we’ve just received a “King-sized” kick in the butt, and it’s more than enough to get our juices flowing again, though some of them may have turned to vinegar while sitting in the summer sun.
The kick, whose painful bruise may linger on for months, has been delivered courtesy of the Brunswick Development Corporation (BDC). They’re the separate little municipal entity set up by Brunswick to, among other things, including economic development, deal with (“convey”) a variety of real estate transactions. Recently, they were involved in the property exchanges that led to the clearing of the lots at the corner of Stanwood and Pleasant where the new Police HQ building is in its final stages of construction.
And now they are involved in the transaction that will take the no longer useful Rec Center and Municipal Building on Federal Street, and ‘convey’ them to Coastal Enterprises, another quasi-governmental organization, at least as we see it. How many such ‘corporations’ and ‘enterprises’ are out there in the shadows we have no idea. But we’re sure it’s a lot more than any of us think.
If you’d like a bit more info on BDC, Councilor Benet Pols offers this description on his blog. There is no date on the post, but it clearly dates back to at least last year, since it lists Joanne King as one of the councilors on the Board of Directors. And note his explanation of how they spend their public money to save public money somewhere else. Moving the peas around is fun.
The other party to delivering the smarting kick upon our tukkis is the King family of Brunswick, the folks who own and operate Brunswick Taxi, and whose matriarch Joanne was, until the most recent municipal election, a long time town councilor and council chair.
Both the Kings and BDC delivered the kick in the form of a recently approved loan. In the promissory note, a copy of which we have in our hands, BDC lends $247,000 to Brunswick Taxi. The note is dated July 24th of this year, less than a month ago. It carries an interest rate of 4.25 %.
As best we can tell, the note says that interest will begin to accrue as of August 1, 2013, but loan payments do not begin until September1, 2016, or more than three years down the road. The payments are calculated on a “ten year amortization period,” but the note calls for a balloon payment of the entire amount then owed on August 1, 2018.
Now the really interesting part – the part that makes the swift kick feel like it was delivered by those pointy toed, sliver-clad Tony Lama boots our man, Senator Stan likes to walk around in:
THE LOAN IS FORGIVABLE….
In case you are wondering what that means, it means the loaned funds are considered a gift with no strings attached; the slate is wiped clean, and the borrower owes nothing.
Here are the actual words from the note:
3. On or before August 1st, 2016, one hundred percent (100%) of the original principal sum, equal to Two Hundred, Forty Seven Thousand Dollars ($247,000), and the accrued interest, in the amount of Thirty Three Thousand, Five Hundred Twenty Five and 07/100 Dollars ($33,525.07), for the loan term for months one through thirty six, and the accrued interest of Twenty Thousand, Nine Hundred Sixty One and 67/100 Dollars ($20,961.67) for the loan term for months thirty seven through sixty, will be forgiven, so long as the Maker is not in default of any of this Promissory Note’s terms and the following requirements have been met:
We find the presence of the words “On or before August 1st, 2016..” combined with the words “for months thirty seven through sixty…” cognitively dissonant, thank you very much. But you know us; we’re just a country class engineer, not a ruling class attorney or government official.
Now for the requirements that must be met for the entire owed amount to be forgiven, directly from the note:
a. Brunswick Taxi will retain the business for a minimum of three (3) years, from the date of this Promissory Note, with the exception of selling the business as Brunswick Taxi to Sara King, daughter of business owner, Dale King.
b. At any point in time, when Brunswick Taxi is sold, it must be sold as Brunswick Taxi.
c. Provide proof of current staffing levels as of the date of this Promissory Note.
d. Maintain current staffing levels for a minimum of three (3) years from the date of this Promissory Note. Create two (2) new positions within three (3) years from date of this Promissory Note.
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.
(image inserted by Side.)
· $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.
A full-time position works at least 30 hours per week. Maker and Lender agree there are currently 22 full-time equivalent positions, consisting of employees and independent contractors, at the Maker’s Brunswick location(s). Maker shall prepare and deliver annual statements as to job creation/retention and deliver them to Lender. The Lender retains the right to audit Maker’s financial records to ensure compliance with the job creation requirements of this Promissory Note.
If you add up the sums shown for vehicles and equipment, guess what….they total $247,000!
So there you have it. “Tough” as those requirements might be, it looks like in three years, the Kings will have received a gift of about one quarter of a million dollars ($247,000) in Brunswick public funds. Just like we hinted – a King for three years!
But we probably shouldn’t find this surprising. We’ve always understood that a princely share of Brunswick Taxi revenues derives from government vouchers for services provided via a variety of benefit programs.
And besides, as you look at what they’re going to do with the money, you and Side will be the real beneficiaries of this transaction. We will be, won’t we? Say it’s true!!!! We’re too old to lose faith in our government and public servants at this point.
And you thought there was only one golden goose in town, riding in on a rail.
Which gives us some ideas. How about if we get together and discuss a plan to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to the BDC? I’m thinking we might want to hire Johnny Protocols and FLee Bailey, on a contingency basis, of course, to package the deal for us.
And maybe Senator Stan will loan us some boots so we can make it a real ‘kick-ass’ deal.
(Ed. note: we expect to be reporting further on this story, along with other ‘related’ items. But you’ve got to give us some time to get the flywheel spun up.)
You’ll recall, of course, that reactions statewide to DOE’s issuance of grades a few months ago for Maine’s public schools elicited all sorts of reactions. Most notably, shrieks of horror, a near epidemic of the vapors, gnashing of teeth, and wringing of hands.
Followed by the usual suspects seeing to it that the story had no legs, so that our famously short public memories would come into play, and we’d get back to having the very best schools, at least here in Cape Brunswick, where everything is above average, which is why people move here.
(We need not remind you that virtually no one ever tells us why people leave our fair town, which is what creates the market supply for those true believers to move here.)
Here and there across the state, though, some folks took the bull by the tail and faced the situation. A case in point is the student body of Cony High School in Augusta, which decided to grade their school themselves. You can read the story here.
The article makes an important point:
In general, the state's letter grades for high schools were based on standardized test scores, proficiency and growth, as measured by the Maine High School Assessments, as well as graduation rates.
That is, the DOE used measurements of academic achievement and progress in that regard. The students, on the other hand, given no real alternative, decided to grade their school on everything but academics.
Which raises the important question of to what purpose do we fund government schools with our taxes. The report we linked you to the other day talks about the need to “treat student achievement as an unrivaled priority.”
We have written till we’re blue in the face about how everyone has an advocate except for the children, and how we never ever hear the school department discuss student achievement as a priority.
In a similar vein, the report ends with this compelling paragraph (emphasis ours):
Improved student achievement and the best interests of “the children” are always the nominal goals but the results speak for themselves. Pay, benefits, and facilities go up—but not test scores. School board elections are mostly focused on what education’s internal stakeholders want, not what the public wants for the next generation. The net effect is continuing cultural, social, political, and economic decline facilitated by educational surrender.
It is a frank and compelling response to the feel-good distractions forwarded by the Cony students and their ‘advisors.’ We especially enjoy this passage:
These kids are in for a rude awakening. After graduation, they will find that grading yourself isn’t an option in the job market, or in higher education. And your employer won’t much care about the wonderful relationship you had with the staff at Cony, or the great sports programs, or how good you feel about tolerance and diversity. Your bubbly self-esteem won’t trump your lack of basic skills when you emerge from the cocoon at Cony. Even if you have tons of musical talent, nobody will be impressed with your crooning of the Sam Cooke R&B classic:
Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book
Don’t know much about the French I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be
Predictably, and sadly, Augusta area legislators, from Rep. Lockman’s own party, no less, were quick to label his column “intimidating, mean-spirited and inappropriate.”
With this kind of apologetics from our elected betters, who clearly don’t want to face reality because it may ruffle some feathers, the prosecution rests, having provided evidence of where official priorities lie. And the primary thesis of the Education Consumers Foundation report is confirmed yet again.
Is it any wonder we can’t get anywhere in turning things around? Why is it no one in authority cares about ‘the children?’ We mean really cares, not just mouths the words.
Those advocating ever higher spending like to remind us that “you get what you pay for.” You’re damn straight; if you increase teacher pay, you get higher paid teachers. Further, if you increase school spending, you get a more expensive school system.
==============================================
Government is the only form of human enterprise that has no competition, never goes out of business, or terminates employees for incompetence. And no human enterprise more needs these influences and consequences for ineptness.
We don’t know how long you can hold the touching your toes position. But don’t feel bad; we’re pretty sure we can’t even ‘assume the position,’ let along ‘hold the position.’
Personal considerations aside, we’re here to tell you that the almost certain outcome of tomorrow’s School Budget Referendum will have the effect of requiring you to “hold'” the pose for three years.
That’s because our elected betters, at the same time they enacted legislation calling for taxpayers to approve school budgets, thoughtfully added language that would allow voters to choose not to vote on the budget for the coming 3 years. How’s that for a schizophrenic voter engagement policy?
After January 31, 2008, the procedure for approval of the annual budget of a regional school unit must be in accordance with this section and section 1485. [2007, c. 240, Pt. XXXX, §13 (NEW).]
1. Budget validation. Following development of the annual regional school unit budget and approval at a regional school unit budget meeting as provided in section 1485, a referendum must be held in the regional school unit as provided in this section to allow the voters to validate or reject the total budget adopted at the regional school unit budget meeting.
Every 3 years, the voters in a regional school unit shall consider continued use of the budget validation referendum process. The warrant at the budget validation referendum in the 3rd year following adoption or continuation of the referendum process must include an article by which the voters of the school administrative unit may indicate whether they wish to continue the process for another 3 years. The warrant for the referendum to validate the fiscal year 2010-11 budget is deemed the 3rd-year warrant. A vote to continue retains the process for 3 additional years. A vote to discontinue the process ends its use beginning with the following budget year and prohibits its reconsideration for at least 3 years.
An article to consider reinstatement of the budget validation referendum process may be placed on a warrant for a referendum vote by either a majority vote of the regional school unit board or a written petition filed with the regional school unit board by at least 10% of the number of voters voting in the last gubernatorial election in the municipalities in the school administrative unit. The regional school unit board shall place the article on the next scheduled warrant or an earlier one if determined appropriate by the regional school unit board. If adopted by the voters, the budget validation referendum process takes effect beginning in the next budget year or the following budget year if the adoption occurs less than 90 days before the start of the next budget year. Once approved by the voters, the budget validation referendum process may not be changed for 3 years.
Note this phraseology: '”prohibits its reconsideration for at least 3 years.” We’re not the least bit clear on what THAT means, which was probably the intent of those who enacted it. At the minimum, you probably have to be a lawyer, or worse, to understand it. So here’s a shout out to Johnny Protocols: how about explaining this language in terms little people can understand, repulsive as the concept may be?
Not withstanding Councilor Richardson’s response, which we are sure will arrive post haste, we can shed some light on things.
As you should be well aware, our school establishment (and we mean that in the worst possible way) is trying to figure out how best to advance a $50 million or so school capital construction program, while, if you believe Board Member Rich Ellis, trying to ‘minimize’ the effect on property taxes.
That’s like deciding to replace two or three family vehicles with new ones, at the same time you’re totally redoing your kitchen and bathrooms, and hoping you can ‘minimize’ the effect on your family budget.
Now here’s the kidney punch. If we had to approve the school budget each and every year, at the very least, voters would have to approve the budgets that include the capital project costs. That’s not much consolation, since historically, voters turn out for these referenda at roughly the same rate they voluntarily show up for half-price root canals.
But if our prediction for tomorrow holds, future budgets including the capital project costs WILL NOT go to the voters for approval in the next three budget cycles.
You know what the big government types like to say: “this is what democracy looks like.”
Even if you’re looking at it upside down in between your legs.
If there’s anything you can count on in this position, it’s that you are about to meet some folks who would like nothing better than to have their way with you, leaving their footprints on your back.
And take the ball away.
“Hut, hut; whiskey tango foxtrot two fiver seven. Hut!”
That’s the intriguing “hook line” in an item just passed along to us by a loyal reader. He sent this article, which is rather brief. But the last line provides a link to a 23 page report; the hook line shows up on the cover:
The greatest barrier to a factual understanding of local school performance is the widely held perception that all is well. Surveys have repeatedly shown that most people understand that there are problems with public education but they believe that their local school or district is the fortunate exception.
And another (again, emphasis ours):
School Boards: Agent or Double-Agent?
The heart of the challenge faced by schools is unfocused local leadership. School superintendents and supervisors have neglected the educational plight of economically disadvantaged children by failing to insist that teachers in the earliest grades adopt practices that are equal to the challenge—particularly in the area of reading instruction. Instead, they have accepted the excuse that poverty, dysfunctional families, community apathy, inadequate funding, and other factors outside of the school thwart effective teaching—all despite evidence that effective schooling can substantially mitigate these factors.
We haven’t yet read the entire report, but we have read the two Appendices from which these passages are lifted (pages 16-23).
All we can say is that the narratives there-in are a near perfect match to what we’ve observed in more than 15 years of Brunswick School Department ‘watching.’ Right down to the establishment of a School Board Political Action and Media Committee, as reported in this post over two years ago.
There’s even mention of “the Lake Woebegone effect,” in which the achievement score averages of every state were above the national average. Which should be no surprise here in Cape Brunswick, where all the teachers and all the students are above average.
And while Brunswick Clueless United (or Community Unionists) isn’t mentioned by name, you’ll surely recognize them from their profile.
It’s tough coming up with something more ‘laughable’ then Rich Ellis’ statements of concern about how to mitigate the effect of major property tax increases on behalf of the school department.
So we’ve had to search far and wide for something in the same class. The best we could come up with is this item, which, as the Fickle Finger of Fate would have it, was posted by Ms. Ellis on the Brunswick Clueless United Facebook page. Our focus in this post is on the latter portion, which we emphasize:
Watching TC meeting. Interesting to note about this year's town School Budget vote in June - there will be two questions on the ballot. One is (not exact wording) "Do you approve the school budget approved by the TC on 5/23?". The other is "Do you want to continue to approve the school budget with a town vote for another 3 years?" Approving the budget with a town-wide vote is not required and not something we used to do, they said. So if folks vote no to question 2, then there won't need to be a town wide vote on budgets going forward. There is a cost to the taxpayers to have the public vote - the town clerk estimated about $6-7000 to hold the vote (especially on a year like this one where the budget is the only thing folks will be voting on as opposed to a primary year). Additional non-monetary costs include disruption of schools to move teacher parking, have buses go to other areas, etc, while folks vote a BJHS. Some TC expressed their opinion that folks should vote no on question 2 so we can stop the public vote and eliminate the cost of it.
You know the BCU; those lovable and irascible folks who think no amount of public spending on our ‘best schools’ is too much, and who firmly believe that constantly increasing spending is sustainable, with no consequences in other regards. For example, increasing spending by about $2 million in the coming year.
Ever heard of the phrase ‘penny wise, pound foolish?’ It’s filed under “Old fashioned wisdom and common sense.”
A perfect example of the concept is working hard to increase spending by millions, while expressing deep concern over ‘$6-7000’ for a referendum election on the proposed budget.
“Oh my, Mable! Get the smelling salts, would you please dear? We’re about to spend almost one half of what we spend on each and every student per year to conduct an election so taxpayers can have a say on the school budget! Have you ever heard of something that dumb?”
We’re reminded of the old saw ‘this is what Democracy looks like,’ but we know it only applies to those special circumstances where enlightened big spenders want to overwhelm those who favor careful stewardship of public funds.
So as we often do, we have a constructive suggestion to offer. Since the School Department will gain millions in funding, and nearly all of their employees will see substantial increases in their compensation, why don’t they fund the election cost out of their budget?
That figure currently runs about $35 million. Spending $7,000 to get voter buy in on a $2 million increase seems like a pretty small ‘invest and imagine’ price to pay.
Unless you compare it to nothing, nada, zilch, which is what it would cost to get the same increase without the election. Because we live in roll-over country…Cape Brunswick.
Either way, the outcome is guaranteed.
Just like spending more on our schools is guaranteed to maintain their excellence. Unless you hold to the view that they’ve lost their excellence, and need the increased funding to have any hope of regaining it.
Wait a minute; we just read what we just wrote. Can someone please explain why this has to be so difficult?
The following letter of ours was apparently printed in today’s edition of the Times Record:
The referendum to approve Brunswick’s School Budget next Tuesday epitomizes two axioms of municipal governance. The first is “Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as they spend their own.”
Per student costs have increased by 6.3% annually in the last 12 years; had the increase been 5%, the proposed $35 million budget would be $5 million lower. Spending increases on the subjective conviction that school ‘excellence’ is measured by how much we spend, and no one in authority, let alone taxpayers, question such unsustainable cost growth. This is like defining your excellence as a cook by how much you spend on groceries.
The second axiom is “What belongs to you, you tend to take care of; what belongs to no one or everyone tends to fall into disrepair.” If you can compel money from others to replace something, you don’t worry too much about taking care of it, and may even be motivated to do the opposite.
Jordan Acres School became unusable because of uncleared snow buildup on the roof. Now two other schools need replacement because they were not adequately maintained and kept in good repair. Broken toilets and other dreadful examples of poor stewardship abound.
As they say, “you can govern or you can spend.” In Brunswick, the latter always triumphs over the former. It’s clear that serious introspection, and disciplined analysis of budget trajectories and asset stewardship is long overdue.
Defeating the proposed budget is a good way to make that point.
Let us emphasize, dear readers, that if you don’t vote, you can’t make the point. So you can either vote early at the Town Hall, tomorrow (Thursday), or you’ll have to head to the poll at BJHS on Tuesday. Not doing so is rolling over to regular, unsustainable property tax increases.
If you’ve been paying attention, you know that the beloved Internal Revenue Service is front and center in the national news, at least on some media outlets. In all too many others, it’s a non-story.
It’s important that you keep in mind as the story unfolds that the IRS has a major role in implementing and enforcing Obamacare. We can hear your shouts of joy. Imagine having a colonoscopy at the same time you’re filling out your Income Tax form, and you’ll have some idea of how thrilling the prospects are. The thought of an IRS Audit takes on a whole new level of excitement.
To help you comprehend the wonder of it all, we’re passing along an article we just read in The Weekly Standard. It’s appropriately titled “A Toxic Combination.”
Herewith a few passages to peak your curiosity:
Price, a doctor, sensibly writes, “When it comes to . . . health care decisions, no American should be required to answer to the IRS—an agency that just forfeited its claim to a reputation of impartiality.”
====================================
To quote from the Treasury audit:
Section 9007 [of Obamacare] requires charitable hospitals to conduct a community health needs assessment at least once every three years and adopt an implementation strategy to meet the community needs identified through the assessment. The IRS is responsible for reviewing, at least once every three years, the community benefit activities of each hospital affected by this provision.
So the judge of whether hospitals are meeting community needs will be the IRS. What could possibly go wrong?
We could be wrong, but we take the term “charitable hospitals” above to mean those designated “non-profit,” which we believe both of ours in Brunswick are. So they can expect "help” from the IRS soon; we hope they enjoy it. We trust it will make our future health care experiences all that much more delightful.
And another passage:
Moreover, Obamacare will require Americans to update the IRS regularly on what’s going on in their lives. Marriages, divorces, job changes, moves, pay raises, even changes in numbers of hours worked—these are all things on which the IRS will expect to be kept well informed. During congressional testimony last summer, Rep. Tim Walberg (R.-Mich.) asked IRS official Nina Olson, “Do you believe that most Americans are going to update the IRS or state exchanges when they change jobs, get married, move states, whatever?” “I think it’s going to be a very great learning curve,” Olson replied. “I think it will be a surprise to taxpayers if they don’t update their information.
You’ll have to admit, this sheds a whole new light on the concept of “playing doctor.” One thing is for sure, loyal readers.
Child’s play this ain’t. Be afraid; be very afraid.
We’ve recently come across two reporting ‘segments’ from John Stossel, the well known challenger of ‘myths’ willingly swallowed by the general public. Each of the items we pass along here have to do with the folly of ‘government help’ as it relates to infrastructure.
Particularly in the form of Amtrak expansion and subsidies, which is especially applicable to our town. If you think about it, Cape Brunswick seems to be increasingly defining itself as a node on the great federal network of non-self-supporting rail routes.
Maine Street Station is seen as the crown jewel of our identity. The danger, of course, is finding ourselves a one trick pony, just about the time that pony rides are no longer a favored federal enterprise, because windmills and hot air balloons have become the favored cuts of pork.
You know the old saying: live by the subsidy, die by the subsidy. While we weren’t here for the events that led to it, we assume that the failure of the prior ‘Maine Street Station’ stems from a similar fickle transition in favored charitable community developments.
Unfortunately, we’re having trouble posting YouTube clips in the usual fashion, for reasons we can’t explain. So we ask for your indulgence in clicking on the links we provide, and otherwise following our instructions.
Here’s the first one, which all of a sudden is working as we would like:
Here’s the second one; you’ll have to move the time marker to 30.15 minutes to start at the point we want you to see:
After you watch both, let us know what you think.
And be sure to clean up after your pony. There’s nothing less welcoming than stepping off a train and stepping on a pony-pie.
We attended an event this week where we were given a copy of a relatively short book titled “After the Welfare State,” which in itself is enough to trouble one’s mind.
Many approaches to the welfare state focus exclusively on the intentions of those who support it, or offer mere descriptions of current income transfer programs. This essay draws on the economics of common pool resources to examine the welfare state as a dynamic and evolving system, a “tragedy of the commons” that has created incentives for its own exhaustion.
The welfare state has something in common with fishing. If no one owns and is responsible for the fish in the lake, but one does own all the fish he or she can catch and pull out of the lake, everyone tries to catch the most fish. Each reasons that “if I don’t catch the fish, someone else will.”
Each of us may know that catching lots of fish now means that the lake will be fished out, but so long as others can catch whatever I don’t catch, none of us have an incentive to limit our fishing and let the fish population replenish itself. Fish are caught faster than they can breed; the waters are fished out; and in the end everyone is worse off.
Environmentalists, economists, and political scientists call that the “tragedy of the commons.” It’s a serious problem and is at the root of a great many of the environmental crises facing the world today, from depleted ocean fisheries to air and water pollution and other problems. But it’s not limited to environmental problems.
The welfare state operates like a commons, too, and the tragedy is unfolding as you read this. In modern welfare states, everyone has an incentive to act like the irresponsible fishermen who fish out the lake, except that the resource we’re plundering is each other.
Each person seeks to get as much as he can from his neighbors, but at the same time his neighbors are trying to get as much as they can from him. The welfare state institutionalizes what the French economist Frédéric Bastiat called “reciprocal plunder.”
Because we can plunder each other, people reason, “if I don’t get that government subsidy, someone else will,” and each has an incentive to exploit the resource to exhaustion. They justify taking government funds on the grounds that they’re “just get-ting back what they paid in taxes,” even when some of them are getting a lot more than was ever taken from them.
Everyone has an incentive to take. This tragedy has a dimension not present in the case of the depleted fisheries: because we’re plundering each other, we not only spend resources to plunder our neighbors, but we also spend resources to avoid being plundered by those same neighbors, which makes us all worse off to that extent.
Not only are we plundered, but we are increasingly being plundered beyond all sustainable levels. The result is exhaustion. It’s where we’re heading now with welfare states.
As we read, this passage in particular struck home:
Because we can plunder each other, people reason, “if I don’t get that government subsidy, someone else will,” and each has an incentive to exploit the resource to exhaustion.
While you may have forgotten its relevance, we have not. This is EXACTLY the argument that many made when the possibility of the state providing ‘free money’ to construct a new elementary school in Brunswick was being discussed. “We must take that money, because if we don’t, someone else will get what should rightfully be ours.”
This ‘free money’ Tooth Fairy view of reality continues to pervade local thinking as exemplified by Brunswick Clueless United. The Tooth Fairy is normally presumed to live in the fantasy land that is Augusta, but when it can’t be counted on to send funds from the state house, it’s presumed to have relocated to our ‘town commons.’
So you need to contact your Fairy Godmother and let her know you’re going to need a cash infusion to cover your property tax increases from here on out. In perpetuity, if that hasn’t already dawned on you.
Tell her ‘it’s for the children.’ It works with everyone else; maybe it will work with her.
Everybody needs a good laugh (in) from time to time, and Side may need it more than most, given the dark and humorless underbelly of the subject matter on which we typically report.
So we thought we’d delve into the annals of TV comedy for inspiration.
This week’s “Fickle Finger” goes to Rich Ellis of the Cape Brunswick School Board, who somehow evaded the attention of The Ostrich in the Abelmann op-ed on which we just reported. But he more than made up for it with this gut-buster stand up routine highlighted in The Forecaster.
The best one-liners include these (punch lines highlighted so you know when to laugh):
Board member Rich Ellis, chairman of the facilities committee, said the meeting will effectively serve as a "reboot" for the board's process on the school facilities plan, because its estimated cost is far more expensive than what the board was expecting.
"The size of the estimate that came back will require us to go back to evaluate our assumptions and our process."
When the board begins discussing the school facilities plan again, Ellis said the bond's impact on taxpayers over the next five to 10 years will be a major consideration.
"How do we roll that into a budget in a way that doesn't adversely impact taxpayers?" he said.
All of which reminds us that there is more than one meaning to the term ‘punch line,’ if you think about it.
We trust you know what straining credulity means. In case you forgot, see the photo above.
We know one thing for sure; Ellis has a uniquely personal understanding of what the meaning of “adversely impact taxpayers” is, is. He’s been the most reliable “money grows on trees” voice of the school board since he was elected.
He’s found every imaginable distraction to prove that Brunswick is thrifty and spends less than any other town on the planet in its schools, and should be generously rewarded for allowing per student costs to rise from less than $7,000 per student a dozen or so years ago to something like $15,000 per student now. While at the same time making it clear (in his mind) that whatever budgetary distress we may find ourselves in, it is not a function of spending, but instead, of failure of others to provide whatever is needed to cover the increases. He’s a real pencil whipper and spread sheet illusionist, twisting himself in knots to convince the public that thrift is at the heart of everything the school department does.
Who knows; may be he has ambitions for higher office, especially one that may be opening up very soon. At least he hasn’t yielded (yet) to the three and four name affectation so ‘en vogue’ at his favorite Facebook page, where other school board members, past and present, hang out.
We know this: if he keeps honing and polishing his ‘bits,’ we may be moved to start thinking of School Board Meetings as latter day episodes of Hee-Haw, where they often woke up sleeping dogs with their irreverent ‘shtick.’
Their meetings are beginning to look like an ensemble show anyway, when in the same week you get Ellis and his routine, along with the Chair’s audition as reported in The Ostrich item we posted on earlier today:
School board chairman Jim Grant says he had “no knowledge” of what was discussed during Wednesday night’s executive session, when Brunswick’s top in-school administrator was given a graceful out just weeks before graduation.
It’s amazing what a good swaller from a jug of Kool-Aid can do for you, ain’t it?
We’ll close with a paraphrase of the famous line from Laugh-In, one which our elected betters seem particularly fond of:
