Polls, Pundits, and the 2014 Elections

I have been following the recent 2014 election cycle with some of the excitement reserved for the political geek I am. I have also been following it because of the effect it may have on the viability of the Republican Party and the history of the United States. While all elections have some effect on the history of the country, some elections have a more dramatic effect. As an example the elections that brought us FDR and a Democratic Congress ushered in a half century of social programs and the growth of the United States into a world power. The election of President Barak Obama broke not only the "white man president ceiling" but altered, hopefully forever, the US adoption of supply side economic policies.

Of course the attention grabbing pronouncement of the previous paragraph is my remarks concerning the continued viability of the Republican Party. Why do I believe this election could have such dramatic effects? I am sure many believe the Republican Party is so entrenched that it will remain a strong opposition for years, if not decades, to come. Such an attitude presumes the Republican and Democratic Parties are writ in the Book of Everlasting Truths. This is not so. Each construct is a product of human invention and can be easily discharged by the selfsame humans, particularly if the Party paradigms change too dramatically or become intransigent to change. There is precedent for this possible change. The Whig Party was dissolved and the Republican Party came into existence when the Whig Party's paradigms did not change and its ability to win were severely diminished by the Democratic Party. The same scenario as became the Whigs and other political parties is now confronting the Republicans. Their paradigms are changing rapidly and the elders, the keepers of the paradigms, have no control over the course of the Party. If the Republicans have an average or worse, below expectations, election cycle, internal dissension for control will reduce the Party to the irrelevance Whigs experienced.

I am aware that this possibility is at odds with recent polls and pundits proclamations, but I believe this election could have this serious effect. It could also have, as opposed to pundits and polls, little effect on politics and history at all. But I do not, as polls and pundits suggest, see a resurgence and restoration of the Republican brand. As things now stand I especially don't see a resurgence capable of taking on a Democratic nominee for President in 2016. Republicans have yet to face their own demons as the Democrats did in 1964 and again in 2004. Paradigms must change in order for any living thing to continue and entrenched Republicans have refused to acknowledge the paradigm changes they face in this current economic and social environment.

But my assessment, as earlier stated, is at odds with contemporary prediction processes. Current polls, including Fivethiryeight.com predict a tough time for Democrats in holding on to the Senate, even though it would take a dramatic loss of six Senate seats to have this possibility happen. Polls also predict that Democrats may gain a few governorships, but will not have the dramatic gain they hope to have. Pundits predict the House will remain in Republican hands and Republicans may even gain a few seats solidifying their position. All in all it appears to line up to be a good Republican year and a comeback from the disastrous Presidential elections of 2012, a resurgence of the Republican brand.

My opinion remains static in spite of these learned professionals estimations and statistics. Personal observation shows current polls are relying primarily on Republican leaning pollsters to make their predictions. In fact, Fivethirtyeight.com in recent articles have decried the lack of a number of left leaning polls that they could use to balance the polls they have. With only this polling available and recent historical data of only a few years at their disposal, they must conclude a stronger Republican result in 2014. Pundits are leaning on earlier results from recent off year elections to solidify their opinions. These results, most specifically including the 2010 elections, provide a basis for showing that during off year elections Democrats don't turn out as well as Republicans and Republicans win more races. Yet these same pundits seem to deny that the 2010 elections were an aberration of election results, a onetime happening due to extreme economic conditions. The 2010 elections were not a standard to be measured against, but the extremes of electoral results.

The current analysis of pundits and polls also miss the point of the TEA Party and the further right Ronald Reagan's. The growth of the group of voters labeled No Party Affiliation (NPA) should be more of a guidepost for the pundits. More of the party affiliated are moving to the NPA crowd as they cannot in good conscious support such extreme views. This has led many reliable conservative votes to feel unencumbered with political pressures and move to the Democratic column when executing their vote. This change will significantly alter predicted election results. Similar issues arose in the late 1800s and early 1900s with the advent of the Progressives. Progressives actually took seats in congress and only after over a decade of years were expelled by the voters. Their initial victories, like the TEA Party's, portended future influence. But it, like the TEA Parties, died after more conforming voices were heard.

Another failure, in my opinion, of current polling and punditry is the heavy reliance on the Presidents favorable/unfavorable ratings to suggest voter preferences in congressional, senate, and state races. Use of Presidential polling numbers are convenient, not predictive. In 2012, the President was polling at 51% favorability with a strong disapproval of 43%. The economy was in stagnation and yet he pulled off a significant victory while the Senate remained in the Democrats hands and the Democrats gained in the House. President Clinton had a favorability rating of 46% in 1994 and an unfavorable rating of 46%, but he lost the House to the Republicans for the first time in thirty years. President Reagan's approval rating was in the 60s when he lost the Senate to the Democrats in 1986. None of these favorability ratings portended the election results for the Congress as much as the ratings for the members of Congress themselves and the state of the economy.

This result points to my strong belief that only relying on Presidential or gubernatorial polls in picking or backing candidates or predicting potential party victories is a major mistake. We would like to think every voter is easily defined and manipulated based on one set of numbers, but they are not. In more than one location voters may choose a Republican or Democratic Presidential candidate or gubernatorial candidate, but choose a different party for all other races. Polls and pollsters are becoming too adapted to convenience. Considering the pressure on many of these pollsters to support current policies, procedures, and paradigms it is not unexpected. The 2012 Republican polling fiasco for Mitt Romney should be evidence enough for that argument. To really know a state or precinct and its proclivity to vote one way or another has to be based upon the results of all partisan elections, not just a simple few. After all, some parties just have a slew of bad candidates at the top, no matter what the national party thinks.

Further analysis continues my disagreement with current pundits and polls. Most polls, while using historical statistical data, deny history. Fivethirtyeight.com comes closest to acknowledging historical relevance when it evaluates midterm elections back to 1946. But this short historical window doesn't take in the macro elements of US political history. As first discussed in my book Inhale Fear, Breathe Anger, Dixiecrats, TEA Partiers, and Changing Political Paradigms, all major changes in the way we are governed have a basis in personal economics. The recession of 2009 was the most recent major change in personal economics, the Democrats were in charge and were replaced by the Republicans. The same changes happened in the 1980s, 1930s, and 1870s. In each of these instances the party holding the majority in the house at the time of the crisis was removed from power to be replaced by the opposition party. In each instance the opposition Party remained in power until another economic crises hit. The economy took a hit in 1994 and the Republicans took over, in the 2006 economy the Democrats took over, and in the 2010 economy the Republicans took over. There are no apparent economic crisis looming so it would appear Republicans are safe and in line to gain seats. But this would ignore the stagnation that has plagued the United States economy and the voting population in general. The stagnation in wages and shrinking of the middle and lower classes are in of themselves an economic crisis and portends a change in the same way the late 1970's inflation ushered in a Republican Senate.

Polling in Kentucky and West Virginia say Republicans will win the Senate seats. But polling ignores that even though President Obama is highly disliked in these states, Kentucky and West Virginia have Democratic governors and a strong history of electing Democrats. Both states have strong Union ties and these ties remain. Polling in Georgia puts the Democratic challenger ahead by almost a point, but pundits including Fivethirtyeight.com feel that it will go Republican because all statewide offices are Republican. This ignores the fact that Georgia has had a history of voting Democratic as recently as 2005. The question has to be asked about the quality of the candidates as well as the Party for which they are running. No longer can Republicans elect extreme conservatives as their standard bearer. The history of the United States indicates such candidates will not be tolerated if a stronger and better candidate exists. The polls, to be better, have to include local elections as well as the candidates themselves to be strong indicators of electoral success.

This brings us to this year's elections. Republicans, unbelievably, believe their strategy to deny the President any movement on his policy initiatives is reducing his numbers and showing him to be weak. They believe his low approval numbers portend their success at the polls, totally ignoring their numbers are much lower. These selfsame Republicans are also convinced the extreme leap to the far right will not have a significant impact on their chances as long as the voters don't approve of the President and in association, his Party. This may, in the end, prove true in a number of races. But I believe they are ignoring history, the volatility of the TEA Party lurch to the extreme right, and the liberalization of social issues. In effect the history of the Progressive Party and the history of personal economics. My belief is the regular voter, the reliable voter is very tired of the TEA Party and the stagnation. They blame the Republican Party for both, regardless of the Presidents numbers. The close races, even the Senate's close races will go Democratic. It is only gerrymandering that has allowed the Republicans to retain control of the House in 2012 and that will be rectified in 2014. The Democrats are prepared and the people will vote against the Republicans and their hard right conservatism.

If returns in the fall strongly favor Democrats, look for the Republican Party to slowly disintegrate, just as the Whigs did in the 1850s. This will not only be a defeat for the Republican Party, but the current Republican Party paradigm. Without a solid paradigm in which to follow, there is no viable Party. This is not a normal vote for the Republicans, this could be historic, for them as well as the country. This fall's elections are ones they need to win so their Party does not become irrelevant. This year's elections could be quite historic. Or not. But they do not portend a Republican resurgence.

Time to Organize for Florida?

                 There is a troubling troll that sits on the efforts of Democratic success in Florida.  We have been told by authoritative pundits, experienced campaign operatives, and knowledgeable media operatives that Democrats cannot achieve Legislative victory in Florida.  Too many gerrymandered seats, too many apathetic voters, and little financial ability all combine to doom our efforts before they begin.  A younger Barack Obama heard similar stories about Florida in 2008 and 2012.  These arguments did not dissuade him on his road to victory in Florida and they should not dissuade current Democrats and their supporters. 

                We can take over the State House in 2014 and we can make a good run at taking over the Senate as well.  Seventeen seats separate Democrats from House majority and 7 seats separate us from Senate majority.  But to succeed we need to fight like Democrats and not mirror the efforts of our opposition.  We have to trash old paradigms, old power bases, and engage new technologies.  We have to organize for Florida as we have Organized for America.  

                The current Democratic Party is still enduring its organizational roots of 1972. Little has changed in its infrastructure and frameworks over the last 41 years save the numerous activists, chairs, and party leaders.  It is an autocratic, dysfunctional, mechanistic system that cannot recover from the beatings the Republicans engendered in the early 1990’s.  The Party concentrates on minor improvements and short term outcomes.  Over twenty years have passed and we still hold onto paradigms that have never worked to try regain a prominent position in the legislature. 

                In ever annoying infighting the Democratic Party tries valiantly to harness the House Victory Committee and Senate Victory Committees to unite the Democratic message under one roof.  They fail and rightfully so as they add nothing to the effort to regain the Legislature for Democrats.  The Florida Democratic Party remains isolated and fixated upon the state wide seats of Governor, CFO, Agriculture, Attorney General, and United States Senators.  Even with the best intentions and efforts to support down ticket, powers that be take all available resources to promote these races above all else.  One needs look no further than recent fundraising efforts and the annual Jefferson-Jackson rally to verify the intent.  All publicity was dedicated to the efforts to defeat “Pink Slip Rick” and those that would challenge his position.  Charlie Crist, a Democrat-come-lately gained more attention than the efforts to take over the state legislature.

        But we mustn’t overlook our House Victory and Senate Victory committee’s inadequacies.  They too are mired in past paradigms.  To this day state house candidates must raise substantial sums independently before they are considered for viable support from either committee.   Meanwhile, although having neither endorsed nor been openly chosen by the Republican Party, the Republicans have originated a way to find, finance, and support Republican candidates well before a single primary.   Embracing Emily’s lists mantra of “early money is like yeast it makes the dough rise” Republicans have been able to ensure they have known, viable, well financed candidates in any race they choose.  They are not out begging for little or unknown individuals capable of investing tens of thousands of their own funds to run races against greater odds than more just gods and goddesses would allow.

        We have to break free from the paradigms and we have already been shown the way. We have been taught for two presidential elections in a row how to go street to street and door to door to get out the vote.  While Republicans plow the known fields for votes, we have learned to harvest the rare voter.  We know how to get to and get out the votes that Republicans do not.  This next election cycle will see the number of voters that go to the polls diminish by 30% statewide.  But the voters are still there.   They just aren’t voting.  We need to plow that field and grow those votes for Legislative victories.  

        There are to be sure other barriers in the way.  We have to make Democrats understand the value of state legislative seats.  We have to focus Democrats on more than just one race.  We have to get voters that will vote Democratic to seek the names in the middle of the ballot and vote for these legislators.  And we have to find candidates and funds to make it all happen.  But we can.  The state of Florida has been waiting for us.  We are the answer to the issues. 
   

       We cannot change the Democratic Party.  It has been tried too many times to no avail.  But we do not have to accept defeat before we begin.  If we want women to be in charge of their own bodies, if we want schools dedicated to learning instead of tests, if we want same sex couples to marry and form families, if we want to end this downward spiral of negativity and oppression we need to act.  Now is the time to organize for Florida.  Now is the time to begin.

Financial Aristocracy

In feudal monarchies there were often multiple posts in the administration of the court. One of these fine posts and appointments was that of chamberlain. This was the person responsible for the accounts of the court and he received his title from the act of receiving or paying out money from the funds kept in the royal sleeping chamber, or the chamber where the money was lain, or in today’s terms,laid. In other words this person could be said to have literally ‘gotten in bed’ with the Aristocracy when it came to dealing with money. I mention this because the pipers and proclaimers, (Republican legislators opposed to tax increases and right wing pundits), that deride the requested 4.6% tax increase on the rich seem little more than the bygone eras aristocracy’s men who greatly benefited from the largess of the King. In short they, Republicans legislators opposed to tax increases and right-wing pundits, have a vested interest and it is not the people’s interest. They are working the will of the aristocracy in hopes of being first to the scraps left behind.

Deriding the tax increase as“class warfare” is the pot calling the kettle black. There has been and continues to be class warfare in this country perpetrated by the rich against the poor. It is evidenced by the accumulation of the majority of wealth in this nation into a very small percentage at the top of the food chain. This warfare has always been sanctioned and acceptable as long as it was warfare against the lower class. However, any class warfare against the elite is obviously unacceptable, just ask the chamberlains. Alexander Hamilton proposed a type of aristocracy to run this country, Thomas Jefferson opposed it. It seems we must still oppose it as power and wealth is just too great a tonic to some. Barred from title, lands, and privilege by birth, aristocracy has done an end around to take their place at last. They have found the missing aristocracy via tremendous wealth. With this claim cannot privilege and title by birthright be far behind? If it succeeds we have no one but ourselves and the chamberlains to blame.

This country was not founded so monarchy could rule. It was founded on the principles of democracy and freedom. All citizens shall be heard and all citizens shall pay their share. No one class shall be protected above all others. All give so all have a chance to succeed. Those at the top did not get there without help. They are not self-made men or women. They all partook of the bounty of this land to make their fortunes. The roads, bridges, governments, educations, police, fire and society were all provided by the whole of the United States. Without that whole, they never would have succeeded at all

A financial aristocracy created by the protections of a privileged few by a favored few is in violation of the spirit, freedoms and principles by which we live. There is class warfare and the chamberlains started it to protect their favored status. Denounce the propaganda, reject the tortured logic. They tell us these privileged individuals are the “job creators”. Well after 10 years of favored status, where are the jobs? If this is so good why are the chamberlains the only ones with jobs? These are not job creators, they are money takers. Stand with Jefferson and Washington and reject Financial Aristocracy. Raise the taxes and tell the Chamberlains, these Republican representatives and their right wing pundits, no more favored statuses. We know the game and now the Emperor stands unclothed.

Disgusted and Ready to Make Changes

 

There were a lot of times during the last month I was tempted to make comments about the deficit ceiling crisis.  The absolute ignorance of some of the participants earned Congress its current reputation.  But it seemed that so many of the paid pundits were making such a noise that any comments would be lost in the vapor. However, a conversation with someone that took the time to ask and another conversation earlier with someone that also wanted to understand caused me to reconsider my position. 

Now that the deal is done, there are numerous opinions about who won, who lost and who held ground.  Let there be no doubt.  The people lost.  This didn’t have to happen.  It was a manufactured crisis that could have easily been fought where it deserved to be fought, in the budget debates coming up in the fall.  It happened because ignorant representatives wanted to flex their muscles and force a confrontation with the President of the United States.  They wanted the confrontation so they could give notice that they were now in charge.  Funny thing.  They weren’t and never were. 

TEA Party representatives, far right conservatives, party over country politicians, whatever you want to call them, believed their own press.  They believed they had taken over Congress, not just the House of Representatives but the whole Congress, and were going to tell President Obama how it was.  But they really hadn’t.  They were a solid voting bloc that made up 14% of the House of Representatives and less than 10% of the Senate, far from a majority by any math.  However they did make up 26% of the Republican Party of the House of Representatives, a significant margin, if you want to pass legislation that is only supported by one party.  And this is where they get their power.  The Republicans want to pass only legislation they want, they do not want to water down any of their ideas, (note: compromise) with liberal ideas.   So instead of 435 representatives governing the country in the U. S. House, we had 241 representatives making the decisions.   Nice of them to remake the Constitution in their image without letting the citizens know.

This single-mindedness and the ignorance all came together in the deficit debate.  Unwilling to compromise, insisting on a Balanced Budget Amendment, (see prior post), and unaware of their own complicity in the process, these conservatives held up raising the debt ceiling.   It is a simple process, a simple piece of legislation, and a routine vote.  The debt ceiling has always been raised so we can pay our bills.  So why not raise it again?  Ideologues will tell you it was an effort to create a new direction for our country.  They claim it was an effort to get spending under control.   But it was purely and simply a power play. 

Conservatives blamed President Obama and the Democrats for out of control spending and wanted to highlight their fiscal conservative bona fides.  They stood in horror of the amount of stimulus spending and the seemingly lack of evidence of a booming economy for the effort.  Yet it was the act of conservatives hell bent on avoiding any increase in revenues, (tax hikes for your novices), that created this mess.  And it was the conservative agendas for the last decade that placed us in such a hole that an influx of trillions of dollars did nothing more than stem the tide of complete financial meltdown.

Those in Congress should know it, but they don’t.  They were totally unaware of their complicity in the current financial crisis.  They were ignorant of the fact there are two sides to the budget this Congress passed in March.  Yes, this Congress.  This Congress with the Republican House passed the budget that required the debt ceiling to be raised, not a Democratic Congress.   The two sides they are unaware are revenues and expenses.  This Congress concentrated on expenses, on what we want to spend.   But they didn’t spend any time on revenues or how much we have to raise to pay the expenses.  The budget they passed said we were going to have $1.2 TRILLION dollars less coming in than we needed.  But instead of finding the money to pay the bills, they CUT the amount of money, we were going to get.  Why?  Because of their adherence to the insanely false idol of supply-side economics and the implicit belief that cutting taxes raises revenues.  Even a child knows that is wrong.  CUTTING TAXES DOES NOT RAISE REVENUES! 

So now we have a Congress that voted to spend trillions more than the country takes in.  But a Congress that refuses to allow us to pay these bills with the country’s credit card.  Hello, deficit ceiling crisis calling! This has been going on since supply-side economics was introduced under Ronald Reagan.  We have always had to raise our debt ceiling because we keep refusing to raise taxes.  Once again, folks, we went to WAR, two wars, and didn’t have a war bond campaign or a tax hike.  We had a tax CUT.  When are we going to INCREASE our revenues?

It’s about time the representatives that were voted in stopped being so ignorant and actually learned the reasons for our position.  Blind dogma and propaganda is only good for conspiracy theorists and vested interests.  We need real representatives, not ignorant puppets, or the future of our government’s debates will only devolve even further than the past deficit debate.

But there is hope.  The hope only a true Republic can provide. The noise has awakened the electorate and the citizens are starting to ask questions.   They want to know why their social security and Medicare are in jeopardy.   They want to know who caused this fiasco.  If my contacts are any indication the voters want to know who’s to blame.  These voters aren’t relying on ideologues to make their decision.    It looks like the next election will bring learned voters to the polls.  It’s time for mommy and daddy to take charge.  We can only hope.

Amateurs in the Sandbox

The nation is facing an unprecedented crisis that doesn't need to happen. The debt limit ceiling has to be raised so we can pay our bills. We can do this with a simple vote. We have done it previously and we can do it again. However, the TEA Party conservatives have decided to use this opportunity to advance their agenda instead of taking care of the serious business of the country. Unable to have their issues addressed by more capable legislators they continue take advantage of inopportune times to force attention to what they believe are important matters. Constant media attention and kowtowing by their own Party leaders has given them the impression they are important. The fact that they occupy less than 11% of the voting seats in the House of Representatives and the majority of the people of the United States does not want or agree with their agenda is of no consequence to these TEA Party members. This minority is obviously right and the rest of the larger majority of the country is wrong.

The TEA Party has not learned even after six months of inaction on their agendas that they must convince others in the legislature of the value of their position. Debate argument and compromise is required in this Republic they hope to help govern. Absolutist positions and entitled attitudes are not the tools of a democratic process. The reason no one takes their positions realistically is because they aren't realistic. Their positions are devoid of historical understanding, financial competence, or intelligent critical thinking.

The latest recent example is the debt ceiling negotiations. Unaware that their own Republican leaders are using them as tools for elections, the TEA Party has insisted that a Balanced Budget Amendment to be added to the Constitution of the United States. It must be added as an addendum to the bill to raise the debt ceiling if Congress wants' their votes to raise the debt ceiling. Can you imagine? An amendment to the U.S. Constitution is being voted as an add on to a financial patch to the annual budget. Worse yet, we are supposed to accept their wording of the amendment. No debate, no discussion, just their ill conceived expression of what is required. Their defense? It's politics. You use what leverage you have to get your agenda passed. Really? We bankrupt the country and pass fundamental changes to the Constitution with tricks and high jinks.

Their response. We need it. They know best. The states still have the ability to say no. Arrogance, ignorance and entitlement all rolled into one. What if we do need a Balanced Budget Amendment? Should we not go to the states to push for its acceptance? We should present to the States an amendment to the U. S. Constitution, supported by only 11% of Congress, passed under duress as if a gun was held to our collective heads, as an afterthought and hope the states have the temerity and dignity to study the need of this amendment as something of substance? The TEA Party is not the savior of this great country. Their intentions are true, but their values reek of libertarianism. Their simplistic empiricism is not a means of government. It is a path to ruin. Here's hoping the American people rise and say "No!" to this continued attack on American values.

The Fallacy of Consensus

Many of my friends and colleagues know of my reluctance to use consensus to come to a decision. To me a consensus decision often means to come to the lowest common agreement. These are agreements that do not meet the vision of the most aggressive of the group and quite often prohibits the group from soaring to new heights. Consensus decisions offend no one. This group decision includes even the meekest objection.

Consensus decisions do have their place. If done properly they elevate the group and move the entire organization forward. But too often in reaching a consensus decision group politics are played, irrelevant issues are enjoined, and personal agendas are played out. It takes a skilled leader to use consensus decisions, but usually the leaders are neither skilled or leaders. Rather the supposed leader uses consensus decisions to hide the responsibility for the decision behind the group in case anything goes wrong.

In Democratic circles this attitude does not get you far. Consensus decisions are sought as an all inclusive goal to make the group move as one whole towards success. We want everyone to feel wanted under the big tent. We want the all important volunteers to feel wanted and important and respected. Even to the point that nothing gets done save by a few diehards. Because that is what happens when you don't reach consensus in a consensus driven decision organization. The only way you make a decision is if everybody agrees. If all don't agree, the default is no decision. Therefore no action will be taken by anyone, even if you have those that are willing to move ahead. Rule one. All must agree to move forward together, or no one moves forward at all.

That is the reason I am stead fast for the President and his decision to go into Pakistan and find bin Laden. There was no consensus. By all accounts from everyone in on the decision making process there never was a consensus. If this group was ruled by consensus, the default decision would be to do nothing. But it wasn't ruled by consensus. It was ruled by a leader. One that was able to take all the information that could be had and take the responsibility to make a decision. His presidency, lives of men and women, and political relations around the world and at home were on the line. He made the decision and it paid off.

If we, as a country are too truly continue and grow and become greater than we are we need more capable of leading and less concerned about consensus decisions. Hear from others. Consider other opinions. But lead. Make the decision that could allow you to fall, because only when you take the leap to fly can you really soar.

Eighty Million to become Governor, Eight weeks to find out you can’t do the job.

That is the roughly the quote from Rod Smith, the Chair of the Florida Democratic Party Saturday the 2^nd of April. Chair Smith went on to state that as of that date our erstwhile governor had a 31% approval rating after only 8 weeks in office. That rivals President George Bush number 2's approval ratings in the last two years of his 8 years in office. Now that has to be some kind of record.

The comments by Chair Smith and the low ratings gave rise to a discussion about the difference between running a business and running a government. Nobody will be successful at running a government until they acknowledge that it cannot be run like a business. Republicans will continue to fail in government affairs as long as they fail to perceive the differences. My spouse, who can challenge the best of them when it comes to political discussions, made the same point in the above mentioned discussion. As she so eloquently pointed out, in business if you fire someone you fire employees. In government if you fire someone you fire your boss as all employees are voters, members of the state and in essence your boss.

Having owned my own business, and still owning one, run for office and worked in politics as well as government, there can be no doubt that running a business is not like running a government, no matter how you wish it so. Take for instance the governors latest effort to trim the budget. He is planning on taking $1 billion out of the state prison system by closing prisons and firing up to 8,000 personnel. Now as a liberal, I have to admit that a Republican governor cutting back on a Republican sacred cow like prisons is impressive. Especially since it is acknowledged that we have too many of them and they are not fully utilized. Makes sense in a very utilitarian way. But those prisons are in rural counties that are very susceptible to job losses. These prisons are usually the largest employer in the county and the only one with decent benefits and pay. Cutting 8,000 jobs puts 8,000 people on unemployment and skyrockets the state unemployment costs because these people are in areas where there are no other employers, industries or jobs.

That is one of the problems with trying to run government like a business. In business you just get rid of, fire if you will, the people from the department that are excessive or aren't doing their jobs. No more cost to you and the bottom line improves. Maybe your unemployment experience rate moves up, but no other real cost. That's it, you're done. Back to work. But in government you never really lose those employees, they become the unemployed and you have to take care of them also. It is also your job to try to get them new jobs, if for no other reason than you got elected on the promise to 'get to work'. Firing state employees is not the same as firing those in private business, you just add to your costs and work. And really, if we are going to have to pay people anyhow, why not just let them have a job? Better to pay them to work than pay them to sit. Besides it gives them a little something called pride to be able to bring home that paycheck. We could do with a bit of that in the state right now.