|
but you've also got to remember that we liberals, progressives, enlightened ones, whatever you want to call us are outnumbered by moderates. In most large cities on either coast the populations tend to vote Democratic. Here, the larger population centers have voted Republican over the years. There are exceptions like Wyandotte and Douglas.
I have different problems with gambling but mine are directed more toward tribal gambling. So far, the local tribes have done pretty well in keeping more notorious elements out of their gambling establishments. My concern is environmental. The sudden impact of thousands of extra cars a week traveling through areas of animal habitats and old trails. There's extra trash, a greater demand on clean water, more water-related waste (from bathrooms, restaurants and kitchens), increased CO2 emissions from cars. Then there is a socio-economic costs. fwiw, my husband has gone to casinos about three times in the last seven years. I've gone too, but I don't gamble. I'll eat and watch people but I don't gamble.
I don't think going after waste and fraud are just associated with Republicans and DLC'ers. I consider myself a liberal. Okay, an old hippie liberal type. I worry about the environment first and foremost. Without a habitable world, everything else is moot. I used to work on the KU campus and have seen the Facility & Operations people take usable computers, furniture (wood cabinets, wood desks, metal desks) to the dump and bulldozed in millions of pieces. Why couldn't those computers be wiped clean and given to schools or the furniture be donated to organizations? Why not auction them off? Besides, if there is a crack down on waste and fraud there will be more money available to fund things like more teachers, better equipment in our schools, going back to free education rather than paying all these school fees for things like music and sports.
Also, fwiw, when Gore was VP he oversaw the "Reinventing Government" or "REGO" initiative. I remember him on Letterman talking about how ridiculous some governmental regulations were at the time. Gore had an ashtray with him and he told Dave that government regulations mandated that glass ashtrays could not break into more than seven pieces. He broke the ashtray and sure enough, it broke into only seven pieces. Gore said because the regulations were so strict there was only one company that even bothered to make such ashtrays. As a result, the government was paying a lot more for ashtrays than they would if there were open bids for ashtrays that would break into a few more pieces. In other words, REGO was basically a program that cut down on "waste and fraud."
Under REGO, another benefit was that paperwork decreased as forms were updated and computerized. Electronic government filings have cut down on a lot of paperwork and made the government more accessible. It also made possible things like electronic deposits for social security checks. So, if this is the type of stuff that Sebelius is referring to, than I am all for it. A government that works for the people by making it more accessible and less corrupt is, imho, a better way to go. It is also more economically efficient. For example, the secretary of state's office processes information for their databases on corporations. By being able to do it electronically, it saves taxpayer money. Maybe there are offices that are using inefficient technology or software that has compatibility problems across various formats, if the problem isn't taken care of, it is waste. A state employee's time is wasted transferring information manually instead of doing constituent services like helping those who don't understand the system. Money saved, means money not spent which means there is no need for tax increases.
On the other hand, if someone like Connie Morris tries to take a high cost trip and claim it is part of her job, I think that's called fraud. If there are textbooks that were recommended as meeting the old KSBOE standards because they pander to creationism then I consider that's fraud. If an audit uncovers that a certain vendor is being used even though there are better pricing options on the same type/equivalent equipment (with suitable maintenance contracts and what-not), then maybe there's fraud going on. It happens. Even on small scales it can be costly over time. Then again, I'm a good old-fashioned, anti-fascist, hippie liberal-type. I
As for salaries. A good attorney can make more in private practice than they can in public service. Why not up the salary and encourage more qualified people to run? Consider something else too: once you throw your hat into the ring for public office your whole life changes. The life of your family changes. You're instant fodder for every feces thrower out there. You never know what nutbag is ready to jump out and reinterpret or create history. As a professional, like a lawyer, you also risk losing clients. And clients are your livelihood. Sure, you can bounce back, but for a good while your employment prospects might not look real good.
You've got to remember that Wichita is still a midwest conservative city where alcohol is still more socially acceptable than pot. It's the same way in Topeka and the greater KC area. There are pockets of pot smokers everywhere. It really isn't that big of deal in some circles. I know a lot of pot smokers. I smoke once in a while especially when it's available. I would love to see it made legal. I would venture to guess that the number of alcohol-related deaths would drop substantially. If it were taxed, the state could do away with sales taxes. Besides, legalizing pot would free up the legal system and let a lot of people get out of jail and back with their families. Imagine, overnight, there would be Kansas "farmers" on every block. Farm values would sky rocket.
What I'd like to see is Sebelius push for a reformation in our state's election laws. Of particular interest to me are state standards, regulation, testing, contracts as they pertain to voting machines and paper ballots. Just as important are the state's governmental ethics reports as they relate to the election laws. There have been too many prank/harassing phone calls, there have been suspicious mailings, people operating as PACs without having to register or account for their spending or their funding. We also need to know who is getting campaign funding from whom. We just need to tighten our state's PAC regulations and post them on-line.
I'd also like to see a real push for green energy and recycling. We've got some real problems in the future with the shrinking water aquifers that water crops across Kansas. We've got dwindling supplies and what is being tapped is being contaminated with herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, and other chemicals from farming and ranching. These things are leeching into our water supplies. We need to shore up our water quality departments and make sure they are doing accurate TMDL testing in the proper seasons and that they are going to different levels to capture things like the heavier compounds in chemicals. It is affecting our food supply.
My impossible dream would be for an actual representational legislature. One that is based more on a parliamentary system rather than our two party system. I'd like to have larger districts but the same numbers elected. As an example, let's say that Douglas, Jefferson and Osage counties are grouped together. The number of, say, total elected officials before the grouping was 12 (made up number). So, in this region the voters get to elect 12 people based on the percentage of overall vote. If a party wins 30% of the vote their top four vote getters would be elected. If a socially liberal but fiscally conservative party got 50% of the vote they would get 6 seats. I think it would encourage a wider spectrum of candidates, especially if you put into place some sort of campaign caps. I think it would also encourage more people to participate because there would actually be candidates who would win. There could be an actual liberal wing of the Democratic party, a RW fundie party, there could be a socially liberal but fiscally conservative party. Then again, there could be an extremely silly party. But imagine getting a whole group of people who don't vote because they don't like the candidates out voting and actually getting enough votes to help effectuate a real representational government. I know, it's late.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
