The hard working people at Chili’s are honest. Maybe we can get them to run for office.

At the Eggs and Issues Breakfast, Cagle and our Hall County GOP delegation bragged about cutting $5 billion dollars from the budget without cutting needed services. Bullshit. Read the Budget documents that are online.

And let’s have some fun with the budget documents

How about these increases? Cagle got another $40,000 for his office. The Senate got another $360,000. The House bit off another $855,000. Just $1.3 million among friends. But let’s not stop there friends. How about another $600,000 for “ancillary activities?” And a $41,000 cut for the “fiscal office?” Sounds like one of our ‘friends’ got fired in the fiscal office which is the bookkeeper and comptroller for the Legislature. And while our ‘friends’ are cutting money for bookkeeping, let’s cut some money for audits. Oh, let’s say $212,267? Five jobs gone. Maybe six jobs. People that audit the budget.

Another million dollars for ‘our elected elites’ and a quarter of a million in cuts for fiscal controls. Hmmm.

How about cutting $2 million from the State Accounting Office by moving accountants to the Department of Administrative Services? Done. Why are we moving all these audit and bookkeeping functions around?

Department of Education should be a very interesting read starting on page 126. First a cut of $1.1 million to get rid of academic coaches. They must have been worthless after the election. Remember the campaigns pointing to academic coaches as the real reason Georgia Schools are improving? Elections over. Cut 19 of the coaches. Now.

Dropout Prevention, cut it a million. Let them drop out.

Foreign Language? Eliminate the whole program.

High Performing Principals? Cut them $300,000.

Ops! Those poor Academic Coaches get the ax again on page 128. Line 6, $300,000. Line 7. $400,000. Line 9. $1,000,000.

But we hired 11 Math Mentors for $1.337 million. Mentors must be way better than Coaches at $121,000 per year. Or did we count the cuts in Coaches twice?

Education got another cut in the Central Office. The documents show a cut in the Central Office budget of $427,916. Very Frugal. But the Federal government increased funding for the Central Office by $15 million. Oh Damn Them Yankees.

Local Five Mill Share was just cut $147 million dollars. Hmmmm. Somebody felt that in their checkbook. Property owners?

Some one must have said, Let’s cut some money from the National Science Center and Foundation. All they do there is promote Math and Science and Technology. Our students don’t need any of that. $666,750 cut.

Here’s the real kick. Revenues in 2005 were $18 billion, in 2006 $19.8 billion, and 2007 $19.7 billion. And every penny was spent? Or did it go under someone’s mattress?

Revenues from property taxes increased from $72 million in 2006 to an estimated $78 million in 2010. Really? National crisis in housing and our state budget makers think property tax receipts have increased. There’s right thinking.

Estate taxes were cut $13 million dollars. No one missed that money, not even the dead. After all, the GOP calls it the Death Tax.

Corporate taxes are expected to fall about a half a billion dollars. Ouch! That’s some real money lost. But the state’s lawmakers still expect $18 billion in revenues for 2010. Still a couple billion more than Cagle said.

In 2008, the budget documents are showing a Shortfall Reserve of a billion dollars. Didn’t that get spent?

In 2010, appropriations, spending, will be $18.5 billion dollars, only a cut of $400 million from 2009.

Someone needs to audit these public numbers.

Obama was elected in November 2008. At that time, the federal government was operating under the 2009 fiscal year budget. An analysis of the budget called the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government was given to Congress and the public on December 15,  2008.

These are the things revealed in the Financial Report that weren’t given in the budget.

• VA costs increased 588%. The understatement of veteran’s benefits and retirement plans was $459 billion dollars in 2008. The gap, $459 billion dollars, was not added to the budget. It was only added to the budget analysis, when Bush et al were leaving office. Few Republicans complained about this Enron type of accounting method. Roughly $358 billion in VA benefits were under reported in 2004-2007 then lumped into the budget in 2008 just as Bush et al left office. Enron and Kenneth Lay would be proud.
• The DoD expenses, $767.6 billion, added to VA costs, $434.6, totals $1.2 trillion dollars of government spending. When debt service is added, $241 billion, these three items are $1.443 trillion dollars.
• The operating loss of the federal government increased 266% over 2007.
• The government gave $300 billion to the Federal Reserve system for stabilization of the finance sectors. This doesn’t show on the budget and perhaps not even in the analysis. Here’s the language to decipher. “The vast majority of Fed actions and transactions will not directly impact the Government’s financial statements since the Fed is an independent entity and, while part of the Government, is not considered part of the Federal Government reporting entity. To date, the Government’s exposure is largely limited to any impact that losses from these programs may have on excess profits that the Fed is required to pass on to the Treasury’s General fund.” The “FED” paid the government $33 billion in 2008 in excess earnings.

That’s a lot of new information for most of us. We can sum it up like this. Bush wrote budgets that didn’t reflect the real costs of the wars. The wars will cost another $2 trillion in VA expenses that were hidden by Bush. All the hidden costs of wars and deceit will be passed on to us and Obama.

Let’s hope Obama is honest about his budgets.

The federal government has been funding a huge part  of the Georgia recovery. The information is being posted online at www.recovery.gov.

At last tally, the state has benefited from $4.195 billion in bailout money.

The numbers for Hall County might be more interesting. The Gainesville School System has almost $5 million in pending grants. Actually, $4.906 million. Although when looking at the details of the grants, none of the money seems to be spent in Gainesville. So did the System get the money?

The Hall County Board of Education is listed as getting $18 million dollars.

So if Hall County is getting so much bailout money, why is the Hall County Legislative Delegation attacking Obama’s bailout plan? Shouldn’t they tell Sonny to shove the money

In addition to the education funds, Hall County is getting roughly $440,000 dollars. And the Hall Dawson CASA Program $34,000.

A Hall Property Pines LTD is getting $378,700. Why so much more than CASA? And who are they?

Interesting to note that $1.4 billion went to the Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC. That’s money not included in the state totals for Georgia. Maybe Savannah isn’t all in Georgia.

So if all the money was received, it would be a huge chunk of the state’s annual budget. Or, the annual school budgets in the Hall Area.

So why are these Hall County GOP leaders running for re-election with a slogan like, “I hate the Federal Government?”

I have been very critical of the Hall County SPLOST. I voted against it, and wrote about my reasoning on January 27, 2009:

At this point, the tax isn’t used to fund special projects, it’s used to “cover up” the misplaced priorities of our county government. Need a new landfill? Sure do! But instead of funding it properly, they’ll put it into a SPLOST so that the voters have to decide whether to fund the landfill or not.

A recent Gainesville Times article includes this choice nugget:

Approved using $20,000 in 1 cent sales tax funds to renovate the theater at Johnson High School. The theater’s audio, lighting and acoustical systems will be revamped.

The Hall Monitor makes mention of complete renovation of East Hall’s stadium facility, presumably paid for by SPLOST funds.  Also included are excerpts from a letter the Audit Department addressed to the Hall Board of Education which states:

As a result of our review of construction activity during our audit, we found that the Hall County Board of Education funded the construction of two athletic facilities with SPLOST proceeds. The facilities constructed included the Johnson High School meeting/dressing facility and the East Hall High Sports Complex which is owned in part by the Hall County Parks and Recreation Department. The sports complex includes a baseball and soccer field, a track, concession stands, storage, etc. Expenditures of SPLOST funds for athletic facilities appear to be in conflict with State laws regarding the imposition and use of SPLOST funds when you consider that Paragraph IV, Section VI, Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of Georgia provides that SPLOST proceeds may be expended on “capital outlay projects for educational purposes” and the Attorney General has ruled in Official Opinion 97-7 that facilities used primarily for athletic competition do not meet the definition of educational facilities.

This is why I am, and have been, AGAINST the SPLOST in Hall County.

1. SPLOST projects are supposed to be clearly defined in the legislation before the voters go to the polls. Did anybody know that our additional sales tax proceeds would be going to East Hall’s stadium? Or Johnson’s drama department?
2. These types of projects are supposed to funded through the school tax, not an optional sales tax. If we’re funding necessary educational facilities through our Hall County sales taxes, what exactly are we spending our school tax money on?
3. It allows our Republican leadership (I’m looking at you, county commission) to claim they are lowering property taxes while financing pork projects with our voluntary sales tax funds. It’s a shell game.
4. And by the way- it might be illegal.

Congrats to Jane Nichols on becoming interim Police Chief for Gainesville.

Good luck on the job!

Rockbridge Commercial Bank failed on Friday, December 18th. Rockbridge had been formed as a state chartered bank. The type of bank Representative James Mills ‘oversees’ from his lofty perch as Chairman of the Banks and Banking Committee.

Mills has stated in public that banks are under ‘undue’ pressure from the Federal Government. Well, explain it to me like I’m a three year old, Mr. Mills.

Why did the Georgia State Banking Commission close down this bank?

Was it because this bank promised to make loans to small and medium sized businesses but then invested heavily in REAL ESTATE? Over 70% of all loans were in real estate. Only 20% of the loans were to businesses.

So you closed them down for lying like Glenn Richardson. Well done. Oh, but you didn’t close it down for that reason.

The bank had those theoretical losses in real estate, didn’t it Mr. Mills. About $124 million dollars in theoretical losses, all to be paid by taxpayers.

So of a bank that said it had over $291 million dollars, it only really had $167 million. Is that how it worked?

How about bad loans? That would be the ones that were past due more than 60 days*.

Over 44% of the construction and development loans were paying no interest or principal, part of the 34% of all real estate loans that were paying no interest or principal.

And that $28 million dollars in operating losses. That’s just paper losses. In paper dollars.

And this bank was founded with $36 million in paper dollars. The ‘parent company’ infused another $18 million in three years. So with capital losses of $52 million dollars and losses to taxpayers, that’s $176 million dollars lost in 3 years on your watch as Chairman of the Banks and Banking Committee.

So where were you, Representative Mills? Asleep at the wheel? K-Mart? Jail?

Rumor has it, Mr. Mills, that you won’t be Chairman of the Banks and Banking Committee come January.

Thank Gawd.

Economics is a very poor science if it is a science at all. It’s worst fault as a science is the central assumption of “All other things remaining the same.” Things don’t stay the same. And changing one thing usually changes several things.

If we cut taxes rates in the hopes that the economy will improve, the improvement is always temporary but the tax cuts and the debts are permanent.

We never go back after the economy improves and pay off the debts or return taxation to status quo. We just don’t do it. It’s the Milton Friedman version of “No Free Lunch.” Yes, someone gets fat today but someone gets thinner tomorrow or the day after. And tax cuts don’t always feed our economy. Other economies often feed at the public cafeteria named, “Tax Cuts,” a cafeteria open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, all other the global economy.

Why feed the French when Americans are hungry?

Spending programs also create debt. But spending programs end. The federal debt won’t go away but it doesn’t keep increasing like it does with never ending ‘tax cuts to stimulate the economy.’

So we are where we are today from tax cuts and spending programs to revive our economy during slumps.

Tax cuts are a shotgun approach to fixing a short term economic problem. And like a gift that never quits giving. But it is a gift we wish we could give back called debt.

Spending programs at least end. Have fixed targets. But also have the burden of debt.

Of the two, a targeted spending program with long term and lasting benefits is better than dubious long term tax cuts with possible short term benefits.

The media came to bury Shirley, not praise her. She knew it even before they did.

In what was likely her last press conference as mayor, Shirley Franklin gave a performance that resembled her term. Fact-based. Not reporter-friendly.

In truth, Franklin has received a raw deal of sorts. Crime is down, but Atlanta residents insist it’s up. The sewers are better, but water rates have increased. Police officers are in the streets, but furloughs have captured the front page of the AJC. A few high-profile crimes can make all statistics seem false.

The answer to Franklin’s problem has always been one of public relations. When times were good- and Lord, they were good when she was re-elected with 90%- there wasn’t a need for good PR. A competent and successful administrator after the shame of Bill Campbell, a woman with an eccentric passion for flower pins, that was all that the city needed. Shirley was even listed in the phone book for gosh sakes! What a real humble woman we have!

Then the Kathryn Johnston fiasco. No matter how many sewer lines are updated, an 88-year-old innocent woman murdered in her home will always get the front page.

That was three years ago.

Since then, we have realized the full economic damage of the Bush recession. Like nearly every city in America, Atlanta is sprinting toward bankruptcy. The chocolates and sweets have ceased to fall in City Hall and the mayor didn’t adjust. It was her last year. Why would she?

Mayor Franklin tried to raise property taxes as the entire City Council was up for re-election. Is there a better example of management trumping politics?

Today, we saw Shirley as she has always been- a gifted administrator, a skilled and practical woman, a fine mayor, toiling away at the one thing she doesn’t do well.

Many years ago, the Atlanta Falcons has a gifted coach that we summarily ran out-of-town. The guy liked to wear cowboy hats and big-ass belt buckles and leave tickets for Elvis at the front gate just in case The King was still alive. It was fun and distracting, and it made the on-field nightmare of early 90’s Falcons football bearable.

But when the team kept losing, the cowboy shtick got old. Quickly.

She’ll be seen as a true reformer in time. She brought respectability back to our city leadership, and those that really know the true scope of it will cherish her work behind the scenes.

But her flower pin was much like Glanville’s hat. Engaging and cute until the team started to lose. A non-existent press strategy works in good times, and fails miserably when things turn south.

Franklin was a much better mayor than Glanville was a coach. It is a pity that in Franklin’s case, Atlanta actually got better.

Asked to turn off his cell phone while on a passenger plane. The flight attendant made the public announcement for everyone to turn off their electronic devices.

Schumer refused. Then called the attendant a bitch. Link

No class Senator Schumer, (D). Lieberman is too stupid to be a good senator. Now you’re too special. How rude.

Of course, I can’t get him to confirm such a rumor, but the suggestion really doesn’t surprise me.

According to the old guards, O’Neil is actually a pretty good guy.  Even democratic officials can’t say much bad about him.  Of course there is the one piece of unethical legislation that he helped pass.

Outside of the land deal and his cozy relationship with the Governor, O’Neil might make a good speaker.

But that is the problem with O’Neil.  He always seems to be on the winning side.  Now some would just call that luck, but I have never known anyone who actually stood on principle and not face a losing battle once in awhile.

If you had a chance to read O’Neil’s letter (you can find it at Peach Pundit), it reads like a, “Why do they always pick on me?” Charlie Brown cartoon.  Besides the inaccuracies and his creation of the term “immaculate amendment”, the letter is long on length and short on facts.

So why is Mills (aka Linus) backing him?  Simple, Mills likes to win and he has always been that way.  Oh yeah sure, he spent 10 years in the minority whining about spending and taxes and abortion, but in the last seven years what has he done about spending, taxes, or abortion.  Nope, he is a “win at all cost” politician.

Yep, Mills and O’Neil a perfect pair and business as usual at the Gold Dome…

This is how you do it.

Point out the inaccuracies, not with bluster or with name-calling, but with a reasoned approach and a hearty dose of truth.

Councilman Fetterman responds in the comments where we took him to task over his role in sewer rates in Flowery Branch. His full explanation is reprinted below, my comments are in Bold Red.

Oh where do I begin?

I guess I will start with your first statement on your blog that you are misinformed on,

“The residents in these communities (Sterling on the Lake, Village at Deaton Creek and Reunion) are the ONLY ones on the new South Hall system. This increase would only affect these residents. Simply put, these folks have to pay for the increased infrastructure that benefits them- and them alone”.

So I guess that will be all that the Hall County sewer system will support and there will not be any other business or homes put on the system and the $46 million plus Hall County paid for the plant and putting infrastructure in the ground, along side the Braselton system that flows in opposite direction I might add, makes sense to you. $46 million / 1800 homes is – well you are so smart figure out the debt per home on that.

Fetterman’s argument is that since these homes can’t pay ALL of the debt service, they shouldn’t pay ANY of it.

The second ignorant quote, and I take this personal, is,

“Why don’t you move your neighborhoods to the Flowery Branch system and the problem would be solved”?

Well you stepped into it. If your lazy butt would research instead of open your mouth and spill out lies, here are the facts:

·           Per HB 489, it did belong to Flowery Branch, prior to the Flowery Branch December10, 2008 council meeting, when the majority of our soon to be former majority, gave away Sterling on the Lake from the Flowery Branch sewer district to Hall County – well that answers your above question.

Fetterman acknowledges in the Flowery Branch Minutes (his own link below) that Flowery Branch can’t service these neighborhoods- only Hall County can. This was hardly a giveaway- it was governing. Governing is tough, man. Try it sometime.

But there is more:

·           Page 1 – the Mayor requests the Spout Springs Reclamation Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) be removed and two council members object.

·           Pages 2 – 5 myself and Councilman Lutz debate with the majority of the council, during the meeting to keep Sterling on th Lake in our district.

·           Pages 8 – 10 there are several motions to postpone the vote and more pleas to the majority of the council to protect the citizens of Flowery Branch who live in Sterling on the Lake as well as all in South Hall County.

Fetterman, care to tell us what neighborhood you and Lutz live in? Because that might be relevant to the discussion.

Well I guess as usual you kind of feel – well – STUPID. You have made comments without the facts. I cannot understand how you have a blog that you are unable to tell the truth with.

One can only assume you are a fan of socialized medicine, higher taxes, ending the War on Terror without victory, and “press 2 for spanish”.

Sir, I can only say you are not even in my class for debate. I would love to meet you on The Martha Zeller show and debate whatever you would like, but as you are with your blog, you would not show your true identity.

As I tell all my friends and constituates, I am here to serve you and I will not hold back what I have to say and if you vote me out when I run again, I will leave quitely. Well, thus far it appears they like me and if for your information, I am up for reelection in 2 years. That gives you time to prepare. Not interested in working toward your defeat, Councilman…yet. You’ve got two years to convince me though, and continuing to call me a liar might just do it.

One last thing. If I start using Latin – you are in big trouble. Is that close enough to Spanish?

I guees your site will not allow others to put links, but here is the link to the December 10, 2008 meeting where Councilman Lutz and myself tried to prevent Hall County from taking over part of Flowery Branch.s sewer district. http://www.flowerybranchga.org/include/citycouncil/2008/12-10-08cm2.pdf

The Gainesville Times details pissed-off Flowery Branch residents who might have higher water/sewer rates soon:

Residents protested in late 2008 after a proposed fee schedule would have doubled sewer rates for residents in the Sterling on the Lake, Village at Deaton Creek and Reunion communities. The change would have meant going from a flat rate to one based on usage at $9.87 per 100 cubic feet.

In January, the commission voted to maintain the current rate structure of $42 per month through the end of 2009

The residents in these communities are the ONLY ones on the new South Hall system. This increase would only affect these residents. Simply put, these folks have to pay for the increased infrastructure that benefits them- and them alone.

Flowery Branch Councilman Chris Fetterman says this on his blog:

For all the citizens of Flowery Branch and South Hall County who are on the Hall County Sewer – well – your County Commissioner Bobby Banks has screwed you. He has allowed a rate structure to be presented that will increase your sewer rates to a point that is not even close to being inline with surrounding communities. That is irresponsible and I hope you all are prepared to show up and speak out when the commissioners vote on this.

Again, please note, the rate increase only affects the most exclusive neighborhoods in south Hall- Sterling on the Lake, Village at Deaton Creek and Reunion communities. Again, they are getting increased service, so it seems fitting that they should pay for the infrastructure needed to provide it.

The options are:

1. Keep these elite Flowery Branch subdivisions from paying the increased rate and jeopardize the financial health of Hall’s water system.
2. Make these subdivisions pay for the increased service.
3. Distribute the cost among all south Hall residents- although they are not connected to the Hall system.

Hall Commissioner Bobby Banks has voted for the increase for these three communities, and Fetterman warns:

Well Bobby…Remember, it is election year and you need a good deed to tell the voters.

I guess you have an uphill battle winning over your constituent’s trust in the future.

How about this, Fetterman? Why don’t you move your neighborhoods to the Flowery Branch system and the problem would be solved?

Oh, you don’t wanna pay the taxes to do that either? Big surprise.

Resident Phyllis Mercer had the money quote:

“At some point they need to figure out a way that more than 1,800 (residents) pay for this,” Mercer said.

True. But Fetterman seems to advocate either not paying at all…or get all of south Hall to pay for the increased service that he so richly enjoys.

The Greater Hall County Chamber of Commerce provided an excellent forum at the Civic Center this morning. Called Eggs and Issues, the Hall County Republican Government, Hawkins, Mills, Rogers, Collins and Benton explained over breakfast why the Federal Government and judges are destroying our economy by imposing theoretical Real Estate losses on our banks.

Those are the thoughts of Representative Mills who did not stand up for anything.

K.C.Cagle made a token hand shaking tour of the breakfast line, delivered his well rehearsed stump speech. But he stumbled and mumbled his ‘offhand’ remarks.

More later. But please remember Rep. Collins for his service in Iraq as well as Rep. Rogers son, a Marine who has served in Iraq.

“If you’re an engineer, you don’t want to outlaw the great technology you’ve been working on. If you’re a marketing person, you don’t want to outlaw the thing you’ve been trying to sell. If you’re a C.E.O., you don’t want to outlaw the thing that’s been making a lot of money.”
- BOB LUCKY, an executive director at Bell Labs from 1982-92.

How about that Bob Lucky? Great name. Great analysis of why things don’t work in private business.

Everyone has an agenda to promote and in the ‘mart of competitive commerce,’ winning is everything, even inside the corporate back rooms. The failed market theory that produced our current world crisis was based on enlightened self interest by ‘businesses.’ We have seen how well that worked out and Mr. Lucky confirms it.

We can move this topic of personal agenda  over prudent behavior to politics.

The winner of an election should have an enlightened self interest to honor his campaign promises and serve the greater good. However, the winner starts campaigning the day after the election with new promises and the old mantras. Mantras like I’m anti-abortion.

In the 37 years since Roe v. Wade became law, nothing has changed. That includes the mantra from the GOP. “I’m anti-abortion.” Out of the 37 years since Roe, we’ve had twenty eight years of Republican Presidents. Republicans had a lock on Congress for 12 years. And a lock on the Presidency and Congress for 10 years. And control of the Senate and the White House for six years.

But as Lucky said, politicians has no reason to outlaw the issues that wins elections.

GOP voters should feel like doormats. Nothing has been done on abortion by the GOP. The only thing the GOP will ever do is say to voters during the election cycle, “I’m anti-abortion.”

Jay Bookman follows up on the same issue that I have been pounding for a year now. Why isn’t the Georgia Banking Failure being investigated? By the legislature, or the media, or SOMEBODY?!?!

Last week, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. closed three more banks in Georgia, confirming the state’s reputation as the epicenter of the banking crisis. More than one in six bank closings this year were in Georgia.

State regulators played a role in many of those closings. In fact, 20 of the 24 Georgia banks shuttered this year were chartered by the state, meaning that the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance was partly responsible for oversight of those banks.

So what happened? Did state regulators have the resources to do their job? Did the agency lack the will to intervene with banks? Why did it let banks load up on loans to developers, in effect putting all their eggs in one basket?

Bookman’s idea is that the representatives on the banking committee are involved as board of directors on different banks. As such, they’re not eager to enforce regulation or ask questions when banks go belly-up.

UPDATE: Bookman posted the following disclaimer:

This post has been edited for accuracy. A previous version reported that House Banking Committee Chairman James Mills was a director of state-regulated Creekside Bank. He is not and has never served in that capacity, and I apologize for that mistake.

True, but Mills’ is a shareholder in Creekside Bank and Branch Banking & Trust. So it’s relevant to ask Rep. Mills – what happened on your watch? And is it ethical to own shares of banks when you are CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE BANKING COMMITTEE?

In a bold political prediction, I am calling Representative Nathan Deal a “Done Deal” in the 2010 Georgia Governors Race.

Looking today for headlines on the Deal Real campaign, I found nothing. The Deal website lists no statewide events. All events appear to be within North Georgia or the 9th District.

Deal has been stung by his corruption and allegations of corruption involving Lt. Gov. K.C. Cagle and state contracts. Those allegations, the recent GOP sex scandals, along with Deal’s love of Ghetto Grandmothers has eliminated the former front-runner from any possibility of winning.

I expect the Great Man to run a stealth campaign. It will be more of a good-bye tour of his old district.

My condolences for his staff who did a great job of constituent services while the Great Man did nothing in Congress.

Remember you read it here first.

Cagle, Mills, and Rogers never heard a rumor that Glenn Richardson was unethical?

When Richardson was challenged for power, did they ask why?

When an ethics complaint was filed against Richardson, did they ask why?

When Richardson got his divorce and the rumors crashed like a tsunami about an long term affair with a paid lobbyist, did they ask why?

They all say no. Or refused to answer questions. Link

Mills said the personal life was more important than the consequences of the Speakers abuses. “‘It was the best thing for him to do to get his life back together.’” So Representative Mills thought the resignation was from a health issue.

“It’s a situation that, you know, some marriages unfortunately end up in,’” Rogers said. Oh so Rogers blames the ex-wife? To him this is a ‘he said she said’ situation between a wife and a husband? “Maybe we can move on and none of that will resurface again,’ Rogers said.”

What won’t resurface, Representative Carl Rogers? Evidence that your beloved Glenn Richardson engaged in terrorist threats against his ex-wife? Sold his votes for sex? Tried to make a media event out of his self induced depression?

No one thinks Richardson slipped just once while in power. Unethical behavior is a personality trait. A trait Richardson has demonstrated for years.

So now Mills, Rogers, and Cagle live in denial. Or did they see no evil, hear no evil, and choose not to ask about evil in the GOP?

I’m not entirely sure how to categorize all three of these posts, but I do know this: any conservative who is serious about their principles not only in politicking but in governance should read them.

First up–Part one of Shaun Kenney’s ongoing series about his jump into the wild world of elective office:

This will be the first in a series of observations I will offer for my friends and readers as I start explaining my personal observations during the orientation process.  It’s an education, and it hasn’t been without it’s political lessons.  Like anything, there are honest brokers and turf-seekers, there are folks with whom you agree and folks whom you disagree.  The two sets often mix and match… and naturally the omnipresent factors of miscommunication, laziness, and old fashioned human nature conspire to create the bureaucratic haze so common in any large organization.

The second: RedState’s call to action to get involved, somehow, ANYHOW in the coming election season:

Well, we’re 27 days away from a new year.

The year.

The year we’ve been talking about for 14 months.

I have a question for you. What are you prepared to do?

Are you going to just sit by, worry, be anxious and complain about how everything is being messed up in our country?

Or are you going to do something about it?

…..

We are not all called to be the candidate. We are not all called to finance the campaign. We are not all called to traipse around the countryside and put up signs in the craziest of places. And we are not all called to make phone calls and stuff envelopes.

But, I do believe that we, as people interested in and passionate about this thing called liberty, do have a responsibility to be involved in some way.

And finally, but of most interest to political professionals, Virginia Conservative’s ongoing tale of his time in the 93rd, with these words of caution to any field organizer, paid or volunteer:

So where is a good place to look for volunteers?  How about the city and county Republican committees?  After all, these people have shown at least a marginal level of interest and commitment.  Sadly, committees are not a good source of volunteers.  First of all, the average age of committee members are much higher than your average age of volunteers.  Once you reach seventy years old, you’re much less likely to be physically able to go door-to-door.  Second, some people have the mistaken impression that committee membership is sufficient involvement to elect like-minded candidates.  How many undecided voters can you reach in a committee meeting?  Now don’t think that I must hate committees just because I can’t wring them dry for volunteers.  Certainly not!  They are indispensable and many committee leaders are the hardest working, most motivated, and most dependable people you will ever meet.  Seek out the committees for help, but if your search begins and ends there you will be woefully short of help.

In the first three parts of this essay, I discussed the nature of social organization in Paleolithic hunter-gatherer groups and how environmental changes and the increase in group size affected social structure and governance in the Neolithic Age and beyond.    As social groups increased in size, social regulation changed from egalitarian, participatory ”governance,” which kept the power of leaders in check, to situations in which ”leveling down mechanisms” could no longer prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of an elite leader or leaders.

In modern times, as Shultziner points out:

Democratic mass elections are modern forms of a leveling-down mechanism by which unsatisfied rank and file can replace their leaders. Elections also reflect a social mechanism of reaching a consensus similar to the ones in foraging bands. And, elections are an acknowledgment in the importance of legitimacy. Almost all regimes in the world today employ elections or referendums in order to exhibit popular consent to their rule. Authoritarian and non-liberal regimes are no exception. Iran, for instance, is far from being a liberal democracy for ultimate political power is vested with an unelected religious clique; yet, elections are being held in Iran and real competition between parties and ideas exists. Interestingly, 120 out of 192 countries held democratic elections in 2000. This implies that the heritage of ancient egalitarianism is very strong and it shapes social practices and institutions not in liberal democracies alone.

Thus, we may legitimately ask: If egalitarianism has been bred into humankind, then what is the future of “participatory democracy?” What form will it take as the 21st century proceeds at literally breakneck speed to a political destiny only dimly perceived?  The exponential development of technology, with its potential for connecting every member of the human race, is arguably the key factor that will determine the future of governance in a global society.  We may ask with some degree of trepidation:  Will democracy devolve into a “One World Government” run by a small oligarchy?  Or will it evolve into a new synergistic form of governance, quite unlike the old, grammar school type of majority-rule democracy, i.e., a “World Governance” that is not under the control of a few, but operates within a nexus of a multiplicity of interdependent groups or organizations all linked for a common purpose.  To decide between these alternative scenarios, we need first to examine the difference between “government” and “governance.”  Then, perhaps, we can see more clearly in what direction the planetary society appears to be hurtling.

The Difference Between Government and Governance

 I shall use the term, “governance” essentially in the sense described by Elizabeth Meehan in a paper (2003) entitled, “From Government to Governance, Civic Participation and ‘New Politics’: The Context of Potential Opportunities for the Better Representation of Women.”  Meehan, an Irish writer from Belfast,  asks rhetorically, “What is governance?”  and, then, and attempts to answer this question.

The notion is hard to pin down, but it does seem accepted that a number of forces have converged so as to change the nature of what it means to govern: forces such as globalization…Europeanization…pressures on the traditional welfare state, and new political cultures in which traditional methods of delivering the services of the welfare state are no longer regarded as ‘empowering’. It is also accepted that there is a discernible difference between government and governance. This is not to say that governance is displacing government; merely that the two forms of activity coexist [Emphasis added].

Analysts of governance focus on a range of new arrangements and practices. These include the fragmentation or sharing of public power amongst different tiers of regulation such as the European Union (EU), state governments and sub-state governments. Secondly, they point to other arrangements encouraging policies to be formulated and implemented away from the centre; the ‘hollowing out’ of the state through the ‘agentization’ of government and the privatization of the provision of utilities and services [citation in original]. Thirdly, analysts note an increasing reliance on partnerships, networks and novel forms of consultation or dialogue that are at the heart of ‘Third Way’ thinking about policy design and delivery.

Governance is usually defined by contrasting it with what is thought of as the traditional pattern of public power in which authority is centralized and exercised hierarchically [or, pyramidally (Editor)]–often called the ‘command and control’ model [Emphasis added].  Here, Prime Ministers dominate other ministers, ministers dominate civil servants, and central government dominates local government [citation in original].

Conversely, analysts of governance [see]…power as dispersed and relational and argue that governance arises from a lack of capacity on the part of governments, acting alone, to effect desired changes. Instead, public power manifests itself through increasingly blurred boundaries between different tiers of government, the public and private, and between the state and civil society….[According to this view] it cannot now be taken for granted that the loci of effective political power are national governments.  Instead, ‘effective power is shared, bartered and struggled over by diverse forces and agencies at national, regional and global levels’. It is being ‘repositioned’ and, to some extent, ‘transformed by the growing importance of other less territorially based power systems’.

Meehan goes on to make a very important point.

…it should be noted that one classical view of civil society is that it is epitomized by self-organizing networks that are independent of government–sometimes even a countervailing force (McLaverty, 2002: 304). Other analysts of civil society see it and the state as interactive, with disputed implications for democracy [Emphasis added].

Thus, according to Meehan, the idea of “governing” changes from…

…acting through vertical chains of command and accountability in a hierarchy of institutions to becom[ing] a facilitator or regulator of what goes on in [society]… in order to try to solve problems [Emphasis added]. Governance means ‘collective problem solving in the public realm’ [citations in original].

In my view, the distinction between “government” and “governance” boils down to the fact that “government” typically is used to refer to a “State,” i.e., a “what.”  In contrast, “governance” refers to a process of social organization and control, i.e., a “how.”  Thus, it should be rather obvious that one can have governance in a social group without the necessity for there being a State (government).  Thus “governance” refers to a general process, whereas “government” refers to the implementation of a specific kind of process by a State.  In this sense, to govern, then, is to organize and control social activities, be they within the jurisdiction of a State or within the purview of a company or other non-governmental organization.

Meehan cites several authors in explicating how the terms “governance” and “government” differ.   To make her points clear in the context of the foregoing definitions which I offered, I shall refer to the specific process of a State as “governing” and the process of non-state organizations as “governance.” 

What, then, characterizes the role of the State in governing?  The State is construed to be the ultimate “Authority” within a geographical region.  Stefan Molyneux defines a government (State) as “a group of individuals within a geographical area who retain the monopolistic, moral and legal right to initiate force.”  Alternatively, what characterizes the role of non-State organizations in governance?  Non-governmental organizations tend more likely than not to be concerned with activation, regulation, or facilitation of social activities.

With regard to dominant mode of functioning, “governing” is characterized by the pursuit of a common, state-defined, ”national interest.”  In contrast, “governance” is concerned with coordinating and harmonizing the varied interests of group members.

What are the primary patterns of interaction under the governing mode and the governance mode?  The former is characterized by a “command and control,” and in most States today, it is based on majority rule.  The latter depends on multilateral negotiations to develop policies.

 Individuality and its Relationship to the Whole

We may justifiably ask: If egalitarianism is wired-in at birth as a result of evolutionary processes operating over millions of years, why then did we as a species develop into societies that so frequently have gone to war and have been governed by strong, dominant leaders who often dictate policy for members of their social or national groups?  I suggest that an answer may lie in the apparent parallelism between the development of the psychological organization of the individual  (individuation) and the development of the social organization of groups of individuals.  In addition to egalitarian tendencies within groups, there appears to be a strong evolutionary push toward individuality that competes with the purposes of social groups.

The human newborn is, ostensibly, without any sense of individuality.  For quite a long time after birth, the infant remains connected with the mother by “a psychological umbilical cord,” immersed in what psychologists call “psychological symbiosis.” Erich Fromm has written brilliantly about the individuation process that occurs as the child eventually begins to sense, as her brain develops, that she is separate from her mother.  This is a world shaking realization, which we see routinely manifested in what has come to be known as the “terrible twos” when the child says, “No” to everything.  She has learned that this little word has enormous power in manipulating her world.  She can get all kinds of interesting reactions from adults around her when she voices her “No.”  

However, as Fromm astutely observes, this burgeoning sense of separateness can also be very terrifying to some children and there is a desire to return to that symbiotic oneness with the mother.  Fromm says there is an urge to “Escape from Freedom,” which is the title of his marvelous and most famous book written in 1941.  The child can pursue a number of avenues or “mechanisms of escape,” including automaton conformity and sado-masochism.  Both of these two mechanisms can lead to the development of a tendency to submit to the dictates of an authoritarian leader. 

However, I would suggest that separateness and individuality are only frightening because Fromm is talking about a child growing up in a society in which the extended family of early humankind has almost disappeared in favor of the modern, nuclear family with all of its inherent social isolation and lack of support. 

It would seem that a child born into an early, egalitarian, hunter-gatherer group of 25 members, or so, probably did not go through such individuation, that is to say, if Julian Jaynes is correct.  Jaynes argues that the capacity for individual self consciousness did not exist at that time.   Individuality was, ostensibly, unnecessary, in fact, it was counterproductive to the group purpose of insuring survival.  Yet, as we observe the development of early humankind, we see an inexorable march toward individuality and all of the resulting conflicts between strong individuals competing for dominance. 

We see the same development in societies as we do in individuals.  The individual starts out submerged in a larger whole, then develops individuality, and if he reconnects with the larger whole in a positive way instead of escaping from his freedom, then individuality becomes integrated as part of the larger whole of society.  Likewise, groups started out with all members participating in the social order with more or less equal access.  Later, with the development of strong leadership in tribes and then nation states, the individual escaped from the freedom of individuality into submission to authority.  Now, in the 21st century, we are seeing a process developing on a global scale which appears to be quite similar to the positive reconnection of the individual with the larger whole of his society.  All over the world, we see groups of people attempting to integrate themselves within a global whole.  Some fear this as a potential return to the autocratic horrors of the past.  Others see an entire new and promising vista.  How we resolve the pessimistic and the optimistic views will be crucial in determining the future.  But, it appears to me that Life is impelling us in the direction of a new cooperativeness and interconnection, not to a development of the mega-authoritarianism of Orwell’s “Big Brother.”  However, the question remains whether the evolution of humankind will get shunted off the main path into an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

There is another perspective to consider which may shed some light on the development of individuality and its exaggerated perversion in the 20th century domination of the masses that occurred on a grander scale than in all of recorded history.  This different slant is to be found in the role of the human need for “recognition” as discussed by Shultziner. 

A Human Need for Recognition?

Shultziner points out that it is import to look beyond exogenous (environmental) factors in order to understand how democratic forms of government came into being.  He calls attention to the endogenous (psychobiological) factors which are involved in the development of democratic governance.

Transitions to democracy, modern and ancient, are not a result of environmental factors alone. A change in environmental conditions would not lead to the replacement of regimes, and leveling-down mechanisms would not lead to more egalitarian social structures, if human beings were not predisposed to react to environments in certain ways.

He goes on to say:

It is clear, then, that we must examine human nature (or endogenous factors) to seek a candidate for a psychological adaptive predisposition which can illuminate the generic historical course toward democracy. Democracies did not “just happen” in different places and at different times; something brought them into being. To my understanding, the proximate underlying factor which gives history its generic (sic) course is the psychological predisposition of the pursuit of recognition [Emphasis added].

Is there a human need for recognition that is just as strongly wired-in at birth as the egalitarian tendency that characterizes groups?  If so, then this would seem to be a outgrowth of the tendency toward individuation and a convenient measure of the tendency toward self assertion.  What do social psychological and genetic research have to say on this issue?

Democracy and the Striving for Recognition

To provide a foundation for his theory of the development of democracy, Shultziner links the striving for “recognition” to the social psychological research on self esteem.

Pursuit of positive self-esteem is a psychological motivation to achieve, maintain or defend one’s positive evaluation of oneself, a motivation not to lose a sense of positive self-worth. The motivation to achieve positive self-esteem is crystallized through acts that are meant to attain and maintain recognition from others. This main characteristic of the self-esteem phenomenon can be referred to as a search, a quest, or a pursuit of recognition [Emphasis added]….The level of self-esteem is defined by the contingencies [rewarding events] one subjectively deems as important to one’s life and not by objective criteria [citations in original].  In that sense, contingencies of self-esteem are not constant: they can, and usually do, change or alternate in their importance in the course of one’s life.

Some people’s contingencies [rewarding events]  for positive self-esteem are in individualistic terms such as successes in academic competence, athletics, physical appearance, god’s love, power and self-reliance [citation in original]; others’ self-esteem may depend on political and communitarian aspects such as adhering to community values for reasons of social acceptance, fulfilling and promulgating personal moral convictions, or pursuing public apology for recognition in perceived historical wrongs. People’s contingencies of self-esteem [rewarding events]  may vary but the psychological phenomenon itself is universal [citation in original]. The implications of these characteristics of self-esteem to politics are significant. People may define the way their regime treats them as a contingency[rewarding event]  of self-esteem. People may admire their royalties, kingships or religious sages (as people still do in many parts of the world) and regard their existence as important to their positive self-esteem; or, people may come to perceive certain regimes as despotic and detrimental to their positive self-esteem like they have in the past. Despotic regimes, however, cannot easily convince their populace that they are not despotic. And, once a regime is perceived as despotic (regardless of how enlightened it intends to be) it will be regarded as an obstacle to one’s positive self-esteem or even as an outright humiliation to one’s worth and dignity. This psychological predisposition to regain and defend positive self-esteem will motivate people to limit or dethrone the despotic regime by employing leveling-down mechanisms such as protests, elections or violent revolutions [citation in original].

Regimes around the world, democratic and non-democratic, are aware of the salience of being perceived as recognizing and respecting their citizens, and hence most regimes make an effort to be seen as speaking in the ‘name of the people’, as elected by the people, or at least as not disrespecting the worth and dignity of their populace. Citizens, on the other hand, can be quite sensitive to the way their regime treats them or to the policies their regime implements. Certain policies may be seen as lacking recognition or as misrecognizing people’s worth.

Shultziner proceeds to “present evidence to support the claim that the pursuit of recognition is a universal and central characteristic of human nature” and that “that perceptions of recognition or non-recognition shape politics.”

Self-esteem and pursuit of recognition are the most studied phenomena in social psychology. Although disagreements among contemporary theorists who specialize in the self-esteem phenomenon exist, one agreed fact does seem salient: almost all scholars agree that the pursuit of recognition is a pervasive characteristic of human behavior. Even those who content [sic - contest] the idea that pursuit of positive self-esteem is a psychological need and those who object that the pursuit of recognition is positive and healthy admit that in actual fact people do constantly pursue positive self-esteem in various ways, to various degrees and in healthy and unhealthy ways [citations in original].  Moreover, there is an agreement among social psychologists that positive self-esteem is a useful buffer against anxiety and that it brings about many other psychological benefits to the individual, and that the pursuit of recognition is a concept with useful explanatory power [citations in original].

What is undecided among students of self-esteem, though, is not if people pursue recognition, but rather why people do and whether the pursuit of positive self esteem is a universal human need, and whether it is a healthy pursuit or not [citation in original].

Shultziner goes on to say, regarding the human pursuit of recognition:

The universality of this phenomenon and its unique manifestations in different cultures have already been documented in a number of studies [citations in original].  Peculiarly then, social psychologists debate the theoretical origins of this phenomenon and not whether the pursuit of recognition is empirically a central behavioral characteristic of human beings.

In Part V of this essay, I shall discuss Shultziner’s review of evidence from genetic research and self-esteem and how these data illuminate “the innateness of the pursuit of recognition in an even more decisive way.”  Then, in the final installment (Part VI), I shall sum up the argument for an evolutionary perspective of the development of modern forms of democracy, including representative democracy as institutionalized in the U.S. Constitution.

Glenn Richardson will no longer be Speaker of the House as of January 1, 2010. Until then, taxpayers will pay for his Healthcare, expenses, and salary.

Who the Hell worked out that deal?

The salary is over $100,000 per year, dammit. Who knows the healthcare costs, what goes into his retirement or what he can spend as expenses.

The GOP let this crap go on for over two years. That’s a couple hundred thousand dollars to a criminal. They GOP did too little, too late.

Thurman Baker needs to convict this man just to take away the accumulated benefits of his last two years as a criminal.

We’ve been calling for the Speaker of the House, Glenn Richardson, to be investigated for his corruption. That included filing an complaint with the State Ethics Committee. That complaint was filed while the Speaker was screwing taxpayers and a AGL lobbyist.

AGL wanted a pipeline laid. The Speaker got laid. The pipeline almost got laid. The Speaker got the pipe pushed through the House. The Senate stopped the pipe. Seems the $400 million dollar projected duplicated existing pipelines. And those existing pipelines were not fully utilized. So the Speaker couldn’t bully the Senate into laying some empty pipe.

We have to note. The taxpayer would have been billed for the pipe. But, the homeowners would have also been billed for the ‘capital investment’ by the utility company.

Now that the Speaker went public with his depression issues, his ex-wife went public with details of the affair and some other interesting abuses of power. Abuses that are more than criminal. Immoral.

And the GOP, including Cagle, Mills, and Rogers don’t want Glenn Richardson to resign from the legislature. Nope.

Maybe the Speaker should step down. As Speaker. But not one of our spineless members of the GOP are calling for the Speaker to leave politics.

Glenn Richardson has abused the power of elected political office. Strip him of elected political office.

Unless our Three Stooges think it’s okay for a Representative to be immoral and criminal.

Yeah, that’s the ticket. Members of the House should not be held to the same standards as the Speaker of the House.

Get a grip fellows. Is it alright if a member of the House does what Glenn Richardson has done and is still doing?

Your silence says Yes.

Very personal entry this morning.

I know the staff working for Wan. Good job guys! Alex Wan, City Council District 6 winner, is a good man and will work as hard in office as he did in the election.

Kasim Reed will impress people by doing a damn good job.

Congrats.

Recently Glenn Richardson tried to take his life and failed. No one wishes suicide onto a person or a family. But Richardson long ago committed political suicide by cheating on his wife. His ex-wife has now confirmed the affair. She documented the affair by supplying emails between her husband and his lover. His lover just happened to be a female lobbyist with Atlanta Gas Light. The Democratic Party of Georgia had filed an ethics complaint against the Speaker during the sexual liason claiming the Speaker was also screwing taxpayers. The Republican dominated State Ethics Commission dumped water on that right away. No surprise.

The taxpayer barely missed out on buying $300 million dollars worth of Atlanta Gas Light pork.

Now we know the Speaker lied to us and to his wife. The GOP has been keeping this morally dead pig on life support. Cut the cord. And just quit screwing around about it. He’s dead.

And if he keeps threatening to use the Georgia State Patrol to hunt down his ex-wife, maybe there’s a ‘public option’ on the table.