Copy tax

[B]Light or dark[/B]

Everyone who lives here has been impacted by the power outages of the last few months. Let’s face it, though: it was an inconvenience, not a life-threatening situation. I was frustrated, you were frustrated, they were frustrated, we all wished we had 24/7 power. Life hasn’t been as convenient as it could have been, but no one was in danger, no one lost their life, no one’s house was washed out to sea.

I have noticed that those who wailed the loudest for “something to be done” continue to wail once something has actually been done. Apparently, the something was not what the wailers would have done, so like children who didn’t get it their own way, they continue the tantrum. A temporary solution was decided on by bringing new rental power generators to the island to restore full power while repairs are made to the main engines. This sounds like a reasonable solution to any reasonable person who wants to see the power turned back on 24/7, but the griping continues, and even increases. I would pose the question: Would you rather sit in the dark and bitch or would you rather have the power on while you find fault with the solution?

If all you are trying to do is discredit the current managers so you can try to become the executive decision maker yourself, then I suppose you would prefer that the rental generators not be here so you could gripe in the dark…it makes a better case for you. If you really want what you say you want, the power back on and a plan to keep it that way, then you should be happy to be sitting in that air-conditioned room googling on your electric computer. Power outages are bad for business but so is never ending public media dissension. That keeps public confidence down and that keeps discretionary spending down and that keeps investors away and existing businesses from growing.

I might recommend that if you don’t like the decisions made by CUC managers that you either go get an electrical engineering degree and spend a few years working in the power generation field or that you back a process that aims to hire an already trained power plant manager. The other (and better) option is to sell, or give, or pay someone to take the current power plant off the government’s hands who will then run it privately. A co-op of local ratepayers could own it, or a private company could own it, or a public stock company could own it. Either way, for someone who benefits from making it run efficiently, owning it is the best long term solution to reliable power. Getting another government to run it is just a recipe for more failure.

Meanwhile, I for one am pretty darned happy to have the freezer on and the little LED lights on my computer winking merrily away as I sit here bathed in a blaze of fluorescent splendor. Now show me the long term plan and the means to achieve it and I am a happy camper…an electric camper.

***

[B]Don’t vote—for the same thing[/B]

Our elected Washing Rep is still in office though he is running for another office and the Constitution says he should resign. He is once again of a different mind than the also elected governor of the Commonwealth and is, once again, presenting a different message to Washington than the administration. That rift causes confusion and lessens the likelihood that either message will be taken seriously.

Until we elect and send a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House, we will continue to rely on a very expensive but often not very effective lobbyist, namely the Washington Representative. The problem over the last couple of years after the current Rep changed his position and decided to bow down to the new power elite in Washington to gain his ends is that his position was at loggerheads with the Commonwealth’s elected leader, the governor. That difference of opinion cost us dearly, in terms of presenting a non-united front to the U.S. government. It also cost us dearly in that it necessitated the hiring of expensive lobbyists to do the work that could have been done by our already extremely expensive WashRep lobbyist ($1.3 million a year). In the future, let’s hope that the newly elected NVD not-votes for the same things that the governor wants to not-vote for, whatever that is. If both are on the same page it will save a lot of grief and a lot of money. We might even make some progress if both are asking for the same thing.

At least we won’t be paying for it anymore, whichever way it works out; mainland taxpayers will foot the bill for the NVD as they do with real honest-to-goodness voting congressmen.

***

[B]Charge a fee tax?[/B]

The fees charged for all government offerings should be set at a level that pays for the service or regulatory requirement. Charging more in order to later “reprogram” those monies into the CUC coffers for fuel subsidies, or to buy more equipment for some other department is taxation plain and simple. Come on Legislature, if you want to raise taxes, have the gumption to come out and say “we are broke, so in future we will be taking a bigger tax bite from you personally and from all the companies you do business with.” That would be the honest way to approach this shortfall.

The one I agree with most is the marriage license fee increase. It should be pegged at $5,000 and a rider fee of $100,000 should be required for each new child born (a birth license fee) to make up for the cost of government services the kid will surely use over his lifetime. Kidding here…that could be just a bit much and entirely too fair for a government to consider. Getting re-elected after passing that one would prove pretty difficult. Divorce lawyers are not likely to be happy about the $5K marriage certificate either as it would cut into business. Paternity attorneys would be happy as clams though.

***

[I]Quote of the week: A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past, he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future. [/I] —Sidney J. Harris (1917 – 1986)