At a time when our state is spending money without restraint, without responsibilities, and without accountability (leading to our recent tax increases), I look to any leader who can discourage that fatalistic process. Last night, in his State of the Union, President Obama spoke out, quite strongly, against excessive spending. He stated, in no uncertain terms, "I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities."
Calling the stimulus/recovery plan "free of earmarks" seems to rely on technicalities rather than budget reality. But, taking Obama at his word, he has an upcoming chance to make a hard stand against earmarks by vetoing the spending bill passed by the House today. Taxpayers For Common Sense lists $7.7billion worth of earmarks in the bill. Congressional Democrats claim that it contains only $3.8billion. Either way, that is far more than the country can afford, now or ever.
Among the earmarks is $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in California. I admit that I didn't vote for Barack Obama and that I differ with him on a great many political issues. I'm certain, however, we would both agree that tattoo removal is not among "our most important national priorities."
When House Republicans opposed the bill, Democrats attacked them, wondering why they didn't oppose spending during Bush's administration. This is a fine question to ask, but not a reason to continue reckless spending. Despite being a lifelong Republican, I'm happy to have seen my party lose power, if it has turned them back towards fiscal conservatism (among other ideals). President Obama has been looking for ways to reach across the aisle. This seems to be his best opportunity.
Within California, it will certainly be a lot harder for state politicians to justify their yearly spending on failing programs if President Obama, the leader of CA's majority party, rejects that process of mindless spending. "My administration," he said, "has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. " Today's House bill contains an across the board 8% increase in federal program funding. When President Obama keeps his word and vetoes this bill, as I hope he will do, it will send a powerful message to state and local governments across the country, reverberating locally in our state capitol and city halls.
At the end of the day, politicians are conservative, liberal, or moderate based not on what they say, but rather on what they do. For California to see fiscally conservative policies enacted nationally can spur us to do the same. If the inspiration comes from a source as seemingly unlikely as President Obama, all the better. If he can do it, can't we?
Yes we can.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Don't Forget the Can
A vital part of the Can The Lottery Plan is an effort to expand charity and volunteerism throughout California. The basic idea, as outlined at the Can The Lottery website, is for people to stop buying lottery tickets and instead use the money they save to buy canned goods to donate to the organization of their choice (thereby keeping money away from politicians who spend it without responsibility or accountability, while also helping those in need). Or, if people chose to save their money altogether, we'd ask that they turn the dollars they save into corresponding acts of volunteerism.
To date, the posts on this blog have been focused on the state spending and budget mess that led to the formation of this endeavor. Today, I want to focus on our "softer" side.
In his most recent book DO THE RIGHT THING, former Arkansas governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee talks about the voices calling for smaller government. However, he makes an important point: Smaller government can only be accomplished when the public takes on greater responsibilities. For example, he notes that a town filled with criminals would need a large police force. But, if the town's citizens acted responsibly, which is to say lawfully, then a smaller force would suffice.
Similarly, I don't believe that government is best suited to help those in need to get back on their feet. People lose their jobs, homes, and well-beings for countless reasons, and the idea that a government agency could create a "one-size-fits-all" program to help those people is fatally flawed. I also don't believe that there is anything charitable about forced charity. Indeed, that is only bound to breed contempt and widen the gap between haves and have-nots. I do believe that the most meaningful and valuable help comes from individuals within the community. We should not and must not complain about government's inaction without taking action ourselves. Charity and volunteerism don't just lift up the individuals helped by the acts. They improve the entire community. Done on a mass scale, they revitalize our country.
Rather than creating endless government programs, I would push for California to work with existing community groups and organizations (including faith based organizations) to provide a template and access for community members to donate their time and resources. I'd also suggest that the state increase the charitable deduction for state taxes, and create a system where volunteer hours can be applied to deductions.
I'm willing to bet that every one of us has been touched at some point by a random act of kindness performed for our benefit - some large, some small. It is these moments that bond communities together. Strong communities lead to strong towns and cities, which build strong states, which form strong nations. This is how the United States of America became the greatest nation on earth, and this is how we shall remain as such.
To date, the posts on this blog have been focused on the state spending and budget mess that led to the formation of this endeavor. Today, I want to focus on our "softer" side.
In his most recent book DO THE RIGHT THING, former Arkansas governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee talks about the voices calling for smaller government. However, he makes an important point: Smaller government can only be accomplished when the public takes on greater responsibilities. For example, he notes that a town filled with criminals would need a large police force. But, if the town's citizens acted responsibly, which is to say lawfully, then a smaller force would suffice.
Similarly, I don't believe that government is best suited to help those in need to get back on their feet. People lose their jobs, homes, and well-beings for countless reasons, and the idea that a government agency could create a "one-size-fits-all" program to help those people is fatally flawed. I also don't believe that there is anything charitable about forced charity. Indeed, that is only bound to breed contempt and widen the gap between haves and have-nots. I do believe that the most meaningful and valuable help comes from individuals within the community. We should not and must not complain about government's inaction without taking action ourselves. Charity and volunteerism don't just lift up the individuals helped by the acts. They improve the entire community. Done on a mass scale, they revitalize our country.
Rather than creating endless government programs, I would push for California to work with existing community groups and organizations (including faith based organizations) to provide a template and access for community members to donate their time and resources. I'd also suggest that the state increase the charitable deduction for state taxes, and create a system where volunteer hours can be applied to deductions.
I'm willing to bet that every one of us has been touched at some point by a random act of kindness performed for our benefit - some large, some small. It is these moments that bond communities together. Strong communities lead to strong towns and cities, which build strong states, which form strong nations. This is how the United States of America became the greatest nation on earth, and this is how we shall remain as such.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
He Still Doesn't Get It
In an interview earlier today, Governor Schwarzenegger was asked about fellow governors who planned to turn down portions of the federal stimulus money. His response was telling: "I just hope they give me their funding."
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has been one of the most vocal in rejecting certain stimulus funds for his state. What he understands, that Schwarzenegger doesn't, is that the stimulus money is a one time payment meant to create or expand state programs. In the following years, the stimulus money will go away but those programs won't, leaving the state with a larger deficit.
Just two days ago, Governor Schwarzenegger, together with the California Legislature, passed through one of the largest tax hikes in our state's history. Now he is looking for more money, rather than committing to responsible, accountable spending. After all this, he still doesn't get it.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has been one of the most vocal in rejecting certain stimulus funds for his state. What he understands, that Schwarzenegger doesn't, is that the stimulus money is a one time payment meant to create or expand state programs. In the following years, the stimulus money will go away but those programs won't, leaving the state with a larger deficit.
Just two days ago, Governor Schwarzenegger, together with the California Legislature, passed through one of the largest tax hikes in our state's history. Now he is looking for more money, rather than committing to responsible, accountable spending. After all this, he still doesn't get it.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Overpriced Underperformance
In the brief history of this blog and the CAN THE LOTTERY website, we've focused quite a bit of attention on California's public education system. When it comes to state and local governments, I believe there are two duties that stand above all others: provide superb protection for the public's safety and provide superlative education for the state's youth. Regarding the latter, it is not just a moral obligation to California's youth. Sterling education gives the youth the opportunity to become highly functioning members of an increasingly difficult world economy. Along with being a matter of values and civil rights, education is a matter of concern for the economy and public safety. If we do not have an educated population, we can not expect to remain a world power.
So, to get to specifics, where does California rank? According to Morgan Quinto Press's "Education State Rankings", California is 47th in the nation (and, unfortunately for us, that's on a 1-50 scale with 1 being the best and 50 being the worst). The state rankings are based on 21 different points of criteria, listed on their site.
The American Legislative Exchange Council moves California all the way up to 38th...still, of course, in the bottom 1/4 of all states. Part of the reason for the "high" score there is that ALEC takes into account teachers' salaries, for which CA is ranked 3rd in the nation. NOTE: I have absolutely no issue with good teachers receiving high salaries. Indeed, I think it is completely warranted. My problem is with the other figures. For expenditures per pupil, we are ranked 34th. Pupil-teacher ratio, 49th. Eighth grade mathematics, we are ranked 45th, and eighth grade reading we are 47th.
We must all ask ourselves: What is the purpose of the public education system? It certainly should not exist to serve the politicians, lobbyists or special interest groups. It should not exist to serve administrative boards. It should not even exist to serve teachers or parents. It should and must exist to serve the students. Beyond any other measure of success, if students are not learning then our public schools are failures. These studies make it abundantly clear that too many of our students indeed are not learning, and too many schools are failing.
The budget plan passed through yesterday does nothing to address this failure. Not one politician stepped up as a leader to speak out against low reading and math proficiencies. Not one of our elected officials acted as a true representative, promising to take responsibility to right the ship. All they did was demand that the taxpayers fork over more money.
California must change the way it perceives education and redirect the flow of money directly into the classroom to be spent as the local schools, in conjunction with the PTAs, best see fit. If the schools fail the children, then the children must be given an opportunity to attend a school where they have at least a fair shot at gaining a proper education.
We would never keep going to mechanics who continually fail to fix our cars properly. We wouldn't patronize restaurants that consistently bring us the wrong dishes, poorly prepared at that. Yet, we have no problem sending our children to schools with low graduation rates (some under 50%), where they have a less than 25% chance of gaining math and reading skills above proficiency levels.
It is safe to say that our priorities, much like the budget, are completely out of line.
So, to get to specifics, where does California rank? According to Morgan Quinto Press's "Education State Rankings", California is 47th in the nation (and, unfortunately for us, that's on a 1-50 scale with 1 being the best and 50 being the worst). The state rankings are based on 21 different points of criteria, listed on their site.
The American Legislative Exchange Council moves California all the way up to 38th...still, of course, in the bottom 1/4 of all states. Part of the reason for the "high" score there is that ALEC takes into account teachers' salaries, for which CA is ranked 3rd in the nation. NOTE: I have absolutely no issue with good teachers receiving high salaries. Indeed, I think it is completely warranted. My problem is with the other figures. For expenditures per pupil, we are ranked 34th. Pupil-teacher ratio, 49th. Eighth grade mathematics, we are ranked 45th, and eighth grade reading we are 47th.
We must all ask ourselves: What is the purpose of the public education system? It certainly should not exist to serve the politicians, lobbyists or special interest groups. It should not exist to serve administrative boards. It should not even exist to serve teachers or parents. It should and must exist to serve the students. Beyond any other measure of success, if students are not learning then our public schools are failures. These studies make it abundantly clear that too many of our students indeed are not learning, and too many schools are failing.
The budget plan passed through yesterday does nothing to address this failure. Not one politician stepped up as a leader to speak out against low reading and math proficiencies. Not one of our elected officials acted as a true representative, promising to take responsibility to right the ship. All they did was demand that the taxpayers fork over more money.
California must change the way it perceives education and redirect the flow of money directly into the classroom to be spent as the local schools, in conjunction with the PTAs, best see fit. If the schools fail the children, then the children must be given an opportunity to attend a school where they have at least a fair shot at gaining a proper education.
We would never keep going to mechanics who continually fail to fix our cars properly. We wouldn't patronize restaurants that consistently bring us the wrong dishes, poorly prepared at that. Yet, we have no problem sending our children to schools with low graduation rates (some under 50%), where they have a less than 25% chance of gaining math and reading skills above proficiency levels.
It is safe to say that our priorities, much like the budget, are completely out of line.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Virtues of a Super Majority
Unable to fix the real problems facing California, our state's elected officials look for scapegoats to blame for our late and unbalanced budgets, and underperforming state programs and services. Recently, the target of their wrath has increasingly been the two-thirds super majority of votes needed to pass a budget.
Here is a well written article of how the two-thirds threshold came to be [note, I don't always/often agree with the views of this particular website, but their research here is excellent]. Briefly, in 1933 a constitutional amendment was passed, stating that the budget could not grow more than 5% in a year unless approved by 2/3 of the legislature. In 1962, as part of Prop 16 - which condensed the state constitution - the 5% rule was removed, leaving us with the current requirement of a two-thirds super majority vote necessary to pass a budget.
In 2004, Prop 56 asked to lower the majority needed to pass a budget or raise taxes (also 2/3) down to 55%. Overwhelmingly, voters were against it, with nearly 66% voting to maintain the super majority.
So, is the super majority a good thing? If so, why?
California is, in many ways, a microcosm of the United States. Much like the nation in general, our state is massive in area, yet has relatively small pockets of high population density. For example, Los Angeles County alone accounts for nearly 10 million out of the estimated 36,756,666 population of California. Combine that with the over 3 million people each living in both San Diego and Orange Counties, and the over 2 million people each living in both Riverside and San Bernadino counties, and that totals over 20 million people, more than half of the total state population. [Figures from U.S. Census Bureau 2008 estimates].
The federal government deals with a similar issue by having two methods of legislative representation. The House of Representatives accords legislators based on state population. The Senate accepts two Senators from every state, regardless of size. California's State Assembly and State Senate both draw districts based on population size, and have since 1968 (before then, each county could only have one State Senator).
Now, we happen to live at a moment when the party line split in the two state legislative houses is just short of two-thirds for Democrats and just above one-third for Republicans. This has led many to consider the super majority threshold to be a partisan issue. But, let's forget political parties for a moment and remember that the legislators represent (or, at least are supposed to represent) the people of their districts throughout our state.
As outlined above, Southern California has the population, and with it the legislators, to dictate the budget process for the entire state, if a simple majority ruled. Northern California and, especially, central California would be left out to dry. Indeed, in the past this has sparked in-state fighting over issues such as water sharing, transportation funding, etc.
California's Central Valley, for example, has a population of about 6.5 million covering 42,000 square miles (as opposed to almost 10 million people living on L.A. County's 4,752 square miles). Yet "four of the top five counties in agricultural sales in the U.S. are in the Central Valley." Should this type of extraordinary production not have a meaningful voice in state budget discussions?
Therefore, the two thirds super majority vote is necessary specifically for a state such as ours. It ensures meaningful representation for all Californians. When todays' budget compromise was passed, it raised taxes on everyone throughout our state. And, we have quite a history in this nation of opposing taxation without representation.
Beyond that, with the state budget growing to over 100 BILLION dollars, isn't it reasonable to expect that our paid, elected officials can come up with a plan that at least 66% of them will support?
Here is a well written article of how the two-thirds threshold came to be [note, I don't always/often agree with the views of this particular website, but their research here is excellent]. Briefly, in 1933 a constitutional amendment was passed, stating that the budget could not grow more than 5% in a year unless approved by 2/3 of the legislature. In 1962, as part of Prop 16 - which condensed the state constitution - the 5% rule was removed, leaving us with the current requirement of a two-thirds super majority vote necessary to pass a budget.
In 2004, Prop 56 asked to lower the majority needed to pass a budget or raise taxes (also 2/3) down to 55%. Overwhelmingly, voters were against it, with nearly 66% voting to maintain the super majority.
So, is the super majority a good thing? If so, why?
California is, in many ways, a microcosm of the United States. Much like the nation in general, our state is massive in area, yet has relatively small pockets of high population density. For example, Los Angeles County alone accounts for nearly 10 million out of the estimated 36,756,666 population of California. Combine that with the over 3 million people each living in both San Diego and Orange Counties, and the over 2 million people each living in both Riverside and San Bernadino counties, and that totals over 20 million people, more than half of the total state population. [Figures from U.S. Census Bureau 2008 estimates].
The federal government deals with a similar issue by having two methods of legislative representation. The House of Representatives accords legislators based on state population. The Senate accepts two Senators from every state, regardless of size. California's State Assembly and State Senate both draw districts based on population size, and have since 1968 (before then, each county could only have one State Senator).
Now, we happen to live at a moment when the party line split in the two state legislative houses is just short of two-thirds for Democrats and just above one-third for Republicans. This has led many to consider the super majority threshold to be a partisan issue. But, let's forget political parties for a moment and remember that the legislators represent (or, at least are supposed to represent) the people of their districts throughout our state.
As outlined above, Southern California has the population, and with it the legislators, to dictate the budget process for the entire state, if a simple majority ruled. Northern California and, especially, central California would be left out to dry. Indeed, in the past this has sparked in-state fighting over issues such as water sharing, transportation funding, etc.
California's Central Valley, for example, has a population of about 6.5 million covering 42,000 square miles (as opposed to almost 10 million people living on L.A. County's 4,752 square miles). Yet "four of the top five counties in agricultural sales in the U.S. are in the Central Valley." Should this type of extraordinary production not have a meaningful voice in state budget discussions?
Therefore, the two thirds super majority vote is necessary specifically for a state such as ours. It ensures meaningful representation for all Californians. When todays' budget compromise was passed, it raised taxes on everyone throughout our state. And, we have quite a history in this nation of opposing taxation without representation.
Beyond that, with the state budget growing to over 100 BILLION dollars, isn't it reasonable to expect that our paid, elected officials can come up with a plan that at least 66% of them will support?
Time To Can The Lottery
It has been done.
Early this morning, the California state legislature passed the much maligned budget plan. Though the revised plan drops the previously suggested 12cent per gallon gas tax increase, it still includes a .25% across the board income tax increase, a 1cent on the dollar sales tax increase and a doubling of the car tax (along with a reduction in the dependent tax credit). These measures will take more money out of the hands of every California taxpayer [calculate your "share" here] without even pretending to address the underlying issues facing our state.
As Reuters reports, the state faces a $42billion deficit. This faulty plan tries to make up the costs by combining $24.2billion in tax increases and borrowing (including borrowing $5billion from expected future lottery revenues), and with $15billion in "spending cuts." One of the many problems with the plan, though, is that the cuts are not really cuts at all. As Reuters states in the above-referenced article: "They clamped down on spending by putting public works projects on hold, withholding payments to counties for social services and postponing tax refunds." That's the equivalent of you or I saying we will cut down our monthly expenses by stopping payments to our water, electric and credit card bills.
The biggest problem, though, goes beyond the simple act of raising taxes. We live in a state with a graduation rate of only 70% (and just 57% for African Americans), per the Alliance For Excellent Education, who also note that "Dropouts from the class of 2008 will cost California almost $42.1 billion in lost wages over their lifetimes."
We live in a state full of traffic congestion, yet the best our elected officials can offer is nebulous bond measures that lead to more confusion and no less traffic.
We live in a state with struggling or failing public hospitals.
We live in a state ranked with the 17th highest murder rate in America and an illiteracy rate higher than any other state.
Surely, before they increased taxes the politicians must have found ways to address these and numerous other problems, right? Not quite. Truthfully, real government reform was never even addressed.
The battle of the budget centered around spending cuts (favored by Republicans) and tax increases (favored by Democrats). Unfortunately, neither party focused on attaching real accountability to the taxpayers' money, aka the state's budget.
For programs or services to be successful, they need to have power, responsibility and accountability over the funds allocated to them. For example, when I was working my way up towards producing, there came a time when I was given responsibility over production budgets. But, I wasn't given the power to make changes I deemed necessary. I explained that I needed that power - willing, of course, to consult others - in order to fulfill my responsibility. I was given that power, and the projects came in on time, under budget, and creatively successful. I also had accountability. If the projects were over budget, I would likely lose my job.
The days of funding programs and services merely because they received money the year before have to end. Handing out dollars without clear instructions of what is expected in return must no longer occur.
California needed leaders who could reform government and improve our state. Instead, our politicians pushed through a sham of a budget that gives us the same old failures with one exception: THEY COST MORE!
Our elected officials failed, and will continue to fail as long as we keep subsidizing their efforts by sending our money into the state's piggy bank. The time has come to Can The Lottery.
Early this morning, the California state legislature passed the much maligned budget plan. Though the revised plan drops the previously suggested 12cent per gallon gas tax increase, it still includes a .25% across the board income tax increase, a 1cent on the dollar sales tax increase and a doubling of the car tax (along with a reduction in the dependent tax credit). These measures will take more money out of the hands of every California taxpayer [calculate your "share" here] without even pretending to address the underlying issues facing our state.
As Reuters reports, the state faces a $42billion deficit. This faulty plan tries to make up the costs by combining $24.2billion in tax increases and borrowing (including borrowing $5billion from expected future lottery revenues), and with $15billion in "spending cuts." One of the many problems with the plan, though, is that the cuts are not really cuts at all. As Reuters states in the above-referenced article: "They clamped down on spending by putting public works projects on hold, withholding payments to counties for social services and postponing tax refunds." That's the equivalent of you or I saying we will cut down our monthly expenses by stopping payments to our water, electric and credit card bills.
The biggest problem, though, goes beyond the simple act of raising taxes. We live in a state with a graduation rate of only 70% (and just 57% for African Americans), per the Alliance For Excellent Education, who also note that "Dropouts from the class of 2008 will cost California almost $42.1 billion in lost wages over their lifetimes."
We live in a state full of traffic congestion, yet the best our elected officials can offer is nebulous bond measures that lead to more confusion and no less traffic.
We live in a state with struggling or failing public hospitals.
We live in a state ranked with the 17th highest murder rate in America and an illiteracy rate higher than any other state.
Surely, before they increased taxes the politicians must have found ways to address these and numerous other problems, right? Not quite. Truthfully, real government reform was never even addressed.
The battle of the budget centered around spending cuts (favored by Republicans) and tax increases (favored by Democrats). Unfortunately, neither party focused on attaching real accountability to the taxpayers' money, aka the state's budget.
For programs or services to be successful, they need to have power, responsibility and accountability over the funds allocated to them. For example, when I was working my way up towards producing, there came a time when I was given responsibility over production budgets. But, I wasn't given the power to make changes I deemed necessary. I explained that I needed that power - willing, of course, to consult others - in order to fulfill my responsibility. I was given that power, and the projects came in on time, under budget, and creatively successful. I also had accountability. If the projects were over budget, I would likely lose my job.
The days of funding programs and services merely because they received money the year before have to end. Handing out dollars without clear instructions of what is expected in return must no longer occur.
California needed leaders who could reform government and improve our state. Instead, our politicians pushed through a sham of a budget that gives us the same old failures with one exception: THEY COST MORE!
Our elected officials failed, and will continue to fail as long as we keep subsidizing their efforts by sending our money into the state's piggy bank. The time has come to Can The Lottery.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The Perils of Procrastination
It just kills me that the legislators in Sacramento are crowing about their weekend sessions and late nights, trying to pass a budget which would would be bad news for the state anyway. Are they expecting our sympathy, gratitude, or both?
Throughout my years, I've worked as a dishwasher, busboy, waiter, bartender, electrical supply warehouse worker, haunted house actor, dog track vendor, hot dog stand vendor, and - mercifully - for the last decade or so as a television producer. The one common thread through all of those professions is this: I COULDN'T LEAVE UNTIL THE JOB WAS DONE! Or, at least if I did leave before the work was finished, my time working there would soon be finished as well.
There are some people savvy enough to hide their lack of work, but eventually it piles up and tips over. For years, California's politicians having been "leaving the office early", worried more about their future campaigns than their state's future. Now, the work has piled up on them. But, they are allowing it to tip over onto us, their constituents, in the form of the massive tax increases proposed in the new budget, which at the time of this writing is being pushed towards passage.
There is a lesson to be learned in this, but it is up to us, the constituents, to administer and define the lesson. If we allow taxes to be raised, excessive spending to continue, and the perpetrators to remain in office, then the lesson will be: Procrastination is good.
If, however, we call our representatives to voice our discontent, cut off their funding by boycotting the lottery (using the money we save for charitable endeavors as outlined by Can The Lottery), and vote the perpetrators out of office, then the lesson will be: Do your job and do it well, or you will face serious consequences.
Which lesson sounds right to you?
Throughout my years, I've worked as a dishwasher, busboy, waiter, bartender, electrical supply warehouse worker, haunted house actor, dog track vendor, hot dog stand vendor, and - mercifully - for the last decade or so as a television producer. The one common thread through all of those professions is this: I COULDN'T LEAVE UNTIL THE JOB WAS DONE! Or, at least if I did leave before the work was finished, my time working there would soon be finished as well.
There are some people savvy enough to hide their lack of work, but eventually it piles up and tips over. For years, California's politicians having been "leaving the office early", worried more about their future campaigns than their state's future. Now, the work has piled up on them. But, they are allowing it to tip over onto us, their constituents, in the form of the massive tax increases proposed in the new budget, which at the time of this writing is being pushed towards passage.
There is a lesson to be learned in this, but it is up to us, the constituents, to administer and define the lesson. If we allow taxes to be raised, excessive spending to continue, and the perpetrators to remain in office, then the lesson will be: Procrastination is good.
If, however, we call our representatives to voice our discontent, cut off their funding by boycotting the lottery (using the money we save for charitable endeavors as outlined by Can The Lottery), and vote the perpetrators out of office, then the lesson will be: Do your job and do it well, or you will face serious consequences.
Which lesson sounds right to you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
