Friday, February 3, 2012

I R Here Fun

More than $100 million borrowed without discussion? Well, no ...


W.E. Heasley said...


Part One: Joe Killian

“Local gadfly -- and financial professional -- George Hartzman raged over the county's ballooning debt and falling revenues. He questioned why the county would continue to borrow so heavily, voting to do so without any debate.” - The Inside Scoop, Joe Killian, 02/03/2012

gad·fly [gad-flahy]
noun, plural -flies.
1. any of various flies, as a stable fly or warble fly, that bite or annoy domestic animals.

2. a person who persistently annoys or provokes others with criticism, schemes, ideas, demands, requests, etc.

Is it that Mr. Hartzman annoys Joe Killian? Is it that Mr. Killian has become so annoyed as to be provoked? -Or- is it that Hartzman has criticized a scheme in which Mr. Killian supports?

“The problem with that line of reasoning? The bulk of this bond debt was debated back in 2008, when voters approved $651.4 million in bond debt for school projects and a new jail. This week's commissioners vote was just on issuing actual bonds for that debt.
In fact, the debt has been debated -- among commissioners and by the public at meetings -- every year since. It's happened during budget cycles. It's happened when school board officials come to give reports. It's happened when new guards for the new jail are debated and when the sheriff defends the structure of the new jail.

The debate has not gone the way many conservatives -- Commissioner Billy Yow, along with Hartzman -- would like. The county has continued to borrow heavily, even in the face of falling revenues. It has cut staff and services and increased taxes to deal with the problem. And those moves have led to still more debate.

The problem, as Commissioner Kirk Perkins pointed out, is not that the commissioners aren't discussing or debating the issue. They simply didn't debate it while doing what was procedurally necessary to do the borrowing they'd already decided on.

Being surprised by that is a bit like deciding to buy a house, getting approved for a loan, choosing a house, making an offer, having the offer accepted, picking out carpets and drapes and then being SHOCKED when there isn't a huge discussion over whether it's a good idea as you're putting pen to paper on the mortgage documents.

Hartzman and other conservatives may argue that you SHOULD have that discussion, and at that moment if necessary, when you're broke and already deeply in debt.” The Inside Scoop, Joe Killian, 02/03/2012

no·tion·al [noh-shuh-nl]
1. pertaining to or expressing a notion or idea.

2. of the nature of a notion or idea: a notional response to the question.

3. abstract, theoretical, or speculative, as reflective thought.

4. not real or actual; ideal or imaginary: to create a notional world for oneself.

5. given to or full of foolish or fanciful ideas or moods.

The major problem with Mr. Killian’s comment is not the disparaging remarks point at Mr. Hartzman. The major problem lies in Mr. Killian’s notional statements based upon other notional statements which leads one to believe Mr. Killian is a notional-ist.

W.E. Heasley said...

Part Two: Joe Killian.

Mr. Killian bases his notional argument on the following:

(1) that the bonds appeared on the ballot due to spontaneous order/emergent order reasons based on the concept that the public at large clamored for such debt initiatives,

(2) that voting for or against bonds is hence a public policy,

(3) that changing economic conditions with revenue plummeting and debt ballooning is no reason to reexamine a situation, have a second vote on the particular bonds and/or delay the bonds indefinitely. Rather “voter will” is the overriding issue and regardless of the cascading unintended consequences one must endorse catastrophe due to voter will [e.g. if one knew the housing crisis was going to create a financial crisis and a global melt-down one should merely stay the course and allow the crisis].

Mr. Killian, for those that did not “attend” the University of North Carolina - Greensboro such as yourself, and for those that are non-omnipresent and non-exact real time knowledge of all interacting financial situations such as yourself, for those who might consider the empirical nature of items rather than plausible notions such as yourself, the following is for their consideration:

Mr. Killian bases his notional proposition upon political science. Political science at the
end of the day is the altruistic notion that a well informed voter, a voter completely abreast of all issues, votes for the best political candidate that in turn makes public policy decisions in the public’s best interest. Politicos and apparently Mr. Killian want you to believe this fairy tale.

Combining the disciplines of economics and political economy we find public choice theory. Public choice theory examines special interests, politico enablers of special interests, crony capitalism, and economic rent seekers of taxpayer dollars. -Or- as defined by James M. Buchanan, economist, George Mason University: public choice theory is politics without the romance.

Most bonds that appear on ballots do not appear on such ballots due to grass root, spontaneous order/emergent order type of backgrounds. Rather, the vast majority of bonds appear on ballots due to the “vision” of a group of politicos and/or appear due to special interests through politico enablers.

Tax hikes are then framed by politicos as inevitable consequences of additional debt [bonds] and that proposed tax hikes are based upon the “voter will” associated with the additional debt. However, in most cases, a third party created the “will”. The voter is merely asked to vote upon the “will” of a third party who placed the bond on the ballot. In other words, framing as associated tax hike and framing the approval of a bond as “voter will” is political dupery.

Regarding the associated tax hike and associated debt created through “voter will” [political dupery], now comes the argument of incremental tax hikes. Politicos always argue tax hikes from as incremental in nature. The politico wants to focus the public’s attention on a supposed small tax increase. What is purposely excluded from this notional political argument is the categorical issue of the current level of tax and the use/value of the current tax level. This is political niwitery as the categorical total of current tax is merely the summation of the past series of incremental tax increases.

Therefore, we end with tax increases, tax revenue decreasing at an increasing rate, and debt increasing at an increasing rate. Apparently Mr. Killian believes this situation should be followed through upon as it’s the “voters will” and public officials are merely working in the public’s best interest. -Or- political dupery, under political nitwitery, and in government mysticism we trust.

Mr. Killian, regarding your political economy analysis, you may well be suffering from delusions-of-adequacy.

triadwatch said...

Gadfly from George at news and record toe at yes weekly weight need to change our name to gadfly watch .