The Source

Wasting Time

While the Kansas City Council worries itself about controlling the mayor’s office, the city’s sewer system is falling apart. No one will argue that the city sewer system is a significant structural and financial problem for the city. Yet the city is treating the problem as if it were a secondary issue. The Kansas City Star’s Yael Abouhalkah has a good summary in his Midwest Voices commentary.

Months ago a report was all but prepared with solutions to the problem. Hard decisions would have to be made about implementing and paying for the solution. $2.4 billion dollars would have to be spent on a solid plan to fix what was broken.

But some on the City Council, decided the solution wasn’t good enough. The petitioned the EPA to extend the city’s deadline by six months so they could explore adding as much as a half-billion dollars worth of more “green” solutions.

The problem is that the sewers are not getting any better, and a six month delay only makes the situation worse. The bulk of the current problem is that much of the city’s system combines storm water and sanitary sewer systems, and that has to be rectified. No green solution will help with that part of the project.

As it turns out, the sixth month delay didn’t even bring what the holdouts wanted. Instead of $500 million worth of green solutions, the new plan only calls for $80 million. While that is more than was originally proposed, it is hardly worth the six month wait. The total project cost remains the same. And council is no closer to finalizing how the city will pay for this mess.

A smarter move would have to gotten approval of the original plan, worked out the finances, begun implementation, and then gone back to the EPA for revisions. Waiting to start has only put the city in worse shape.

Riederer Back in the News

In September, former Kansas City Mayoral candidate Albert Riederer was named special master of Brooke Corp. As special master, Riederer essentially managed the company. Brooke Corp. has since filed for bankruptcy.

Now the word is that Riederer is asking for huge fee reimbursements for himself and his appointed vendors. One creditor is fighting those reimbursements because they are void of any of the details of the work being done. According to a KC Star article, Riederer declined to comment on the fees.

Riederer’s potentially overblown requests for fees comes only after he, as special master, initiated the layoffs of 100 Brooke Corp employees. The Source has to wonder how many of those lost jobs it took to pay for Riederer and his pals.

Riederer, who finished third in the 2007 Mayoral primary, has seen his share of trouble before. His mayoral campaign contributions were rife with lawyers and law firms who had business before his wife, a municipal judge.

Barnes Wants GSA Post

The Source has learned that former Kansas City Mayor and failed congressional candidate Kay Barnes is seeking a plum job in the Obama administration. Since Barnes is unwilling to move to Washington D.C., that job would be in a federal office in Kansas City. This request brought laughter to the room at a Missouri Democrat Delegation meeting in Washington, D.C. yesterday.

Barnes specifically requested a post, as Regional Administrator, in the Heartland Region of GSA. GSA has offices in both the Bannister Complex and the downtown Richard Bollinger Federal Building. GSA’s mission is to manage the guts of government. It is an “attention to detail” agency. If any agency is wrong for Kay Barnes, this is it. Barnes has clearly shown that her personal vision blinds her from the impact on running an effective government operation. Kansas City is now facing the scary results of Barnes’ mismanagement and poor judgment.

The Obama administration should also be wary of previous Barnes administration missteps federal dollars. For instance, Barnes’ cronies forgot to file paperwork to get federal funding for the Sprint Arena. And in 2003, Barnes’ then newly hired henchman, Steve Glorioso, was a direct player in a mortgage loan scheme that eventually toppled the city’s HUD funds contractor. Barnes’ record in this regard is clearly tainted.

The Source figured we would hear form the former Mayor again. But we assumed it would be as she was appointed to a meaningless board or civic group. The Obama administration giving Barnes a position leading any government office is just a bad idea.

Cleaver: Takeover, not Bailout

 

"We are taking steps now, because we can – when you put federal dollars into these companies – we can dictate what goes on.”

Kansas City Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver unwittingly showed the media and taxpayers throughout the country the underlying plan of the upcoming Obama administration. While discussing the auto bailout, Cleaver essentially said that now was the perfect time for the government to take control of the auto companies.

Cleaver thinks that if the U.S. Government gives or loans the Big Three money that gives them the right to tell them what to do and how to do it. Now, Cleaver thinks, the Obama administration (news reports say through a “car czar”) can mandate things like what cars are build, with what technologies, and with what workers at what salaries.

This philosophy is exactly what worried supporters of a free market system. Government control of any industry is more than a slippery slope; it is a direct collision with the bottom of the hill. Government, especially the elected figures in government, doesn’t know any better than corporate executives how to run a business. In fact, government has proven it is inept at management.

The bailout is a bad idea on its own, as the previous bailouts have been. Companies, like people, can not learn from mistakes if there are no consequences for those mistakes. But we absolutely can not compound the poor judgment of Congress in passing these bailouts by trying to mandate business practices for those industries receiving money.

Obama Backlash Starts Early

It is normal for the party of the incumbent president to lose seats in Congress after his election. It is also normal for general philosophies to swing away from the party in power. Usually this backlash happens near the end of the first full year in office.

With Barack Obama the backlash seems to be coming early. While Obama’s transition approval numbers are solid (although still only slightly better than Bush or Clinton’s similar numbers), he popularity seems to have had no effect in congressional races held since November 4th.

In Georgia, U.S Senator Saxby Chambliss easily defeated his Democratic opponent in a runoff election held last week. This in spite of the fact that the vaunted Obama ground machine invaded Georgia in large numbers. Obama oddly stayed away personally, but the full Democratic surrogate machine was in place. A one day, well timed visit from Sarah Palin trumped weeks of Democratic activity, and drove Chambliss to a convincing victory.

In Louisiana, two congressional elections were decided over the weekend. Democrats lost both. In a stunning, but welcome upset, Republican Joseph Cao defeated disgraced Democrat William Jefferson. Earlier in the week the word on the street was that Jefferson would, shamefully, hold on to his seat.

In the other Louisiana seat, Republican John Fleming held off a strong Democratic challenge and kept his seat red. Democrats hoped to steal this seat, but were unable to seal the deal. Again, the Democratic Party spent lots of time and money, but lost in the end.

This trend has to be concerning for Democratic Party officials. Democrats won some very marginal seats in 2006 and 2008. Some, like Nancy Boyda, have already lost. But many more of those seats will be easy pickup opportunities for Republicans come 2010. Last week’s results signal that that pickup could be larger, and easier, than normal.

Is this Jay Nixon's "Best"?

Jay Nixon today introduced his Citizen Transition Advisors, a group of 100 “best and brightest leaders” who will seek employees for the Nixon administration.

Among the “best and brightest” that Nixon named is former state representative Phil Tate. Tate resigned his elected position in 1997 after an arrest for drunk driving.

A subsequent video was released that showed Tate was, according to an AP article, “confronting and cursing” the state trooper who arrested him. Tate also “argues with” officers about a gun that was found in his car. He refuses a breathalyzer, tosses the sign board to the ground during his mug shot, and “grows impatient and surly” after his lawyers arrive. Tate eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor drunken driving charge.

The Source wonders if Jay Nixon really believes these are the actions of a “leader” for his transition team.

Next week: More of the Jay Nixon's "Best and Brightest"

The Effect of Gun Control

Gun control advocates in the United States claim that banning, restricting or regulating guns will cut down on criminal acts of violence. Those advocates should take a hard look at last week’s terror crisis in Mumbai, India.

India has extremely strict gun control laws that virtually make it impossible to own a gun. Even while where available, the permit process is so complex few bother to apply. The process is so hard in fact, that even the hotel security forces didn’t have weapons.

Imagine the scenario, metal detectors at the doors alert security, but don’t stop the terrorists. Security responds but is helpless to do anything without firearms. Local police, unused to armed conflict, cower in corners rather than react. At target after target, the lack of an initial defense is exploited and hundreds die.

The likelihood of such a terror attack succeeding in the United States is significantly lower than in India. Armed police would have reacted and had a proactive plan. Armed security could have slowed and disrupted the terrorists’ plans. And, in states like Missouri where concealed carry is legal, the likelihood that random citizens may have had guns would have helped as well.

Ironically, those that led the fight for independence of India from Britain cited gun control laws as one reason, much like our own heroes of independence. Decades later, India’s own laws may have illustrated how right their earlier heroes had been.

Predatory Regulation

Kansas City City Council is prepared to pass a new ordinance today regulating “predatory” towing charges. The council, led by Cindy Circo, is outraged because of a few citizen complaints about how much they have to pay to get their illegally parked cars back.

The critical word here is “illegally.” These are people who ignored signs in private lots and parked their cars where they should not have. In most cases they took a risk to get a closer parking spot, and they lost.

Now comes the City Council to save these poor lawbreakers from their own stupidity. They want to regulate how much a private company can charge private citizens for a service. That is an unheard of move for a city council, and a scary precedent. The council took no steps to find out what the cost of doing business is for the tow companies. They have no idea how much profit these companies make. Yet they are setting prices for an industry.

Few will argue that private lot owners have a right to protect their property. Few will argue that they have a right to tow trespasser’s cars away. Since private companies can not issue tickets (and the city can not issue tickets on private property), in order to create a disincentive, those lot owners have every right to employ tow companies who will charge a rate that makes trespassers think twice about repeating their mistakes. No city council has the right to step into that private business relationship.

The Source urges the Kansas City City Council to reconsider and reject the bill before them. Should they not, we suspect it will be fought in court, a fight the city can not afford.

Misguided Partisanship

In a post last week, Dan Ryan of the CCP blog (and host of his own personal blog, Gone Mild) suggests that area Democrats have a lot to be thankful for and goes on to wish for more success. While we certainly understand Ryan’s desire to gloat, it is his vision of future Democratic Party success we take issue with.

Ryan specifically mentions three Republican legislators who he would like to see beaten the next time around. We would note that all three were re-elected by large margins in their last races. Several other Republicans in eastern Jackson County were similarly re-elected, although they somehow escaped Ryan’s ire. All of these legislators share one thing in common; they better represent their districts than their Democrat opponents.

Dan Ryan’s wish that Democrats would replace these effective legislators is not only misguided, it is contrary to our democratic system of government. Voters deserve representation that reflects their views and values. Ryan seems to think that American ideal should be replaced so that his like-minded friends can take over. He would leave eastern Jackson County voters misrepresented for the sake of his party’s gain. That is the most selfish political position we have ever heard.

Like other political commentators, Dan Ryan certainly deserves a forum. We even occasionally enjoy his musings on Gone Mild. But Ryan can’t expect to spout such obviously biased drivel without some pushback. Since it seems Steven Bough has gone underground in his new Party role, we hope Ryan will take more care in representing his party on the CCP blog.

Science Fiction in the Star

It seems the publisher of the Kansas City Star has taken on a new hobby. As evidenced by his “Publisher’s Note” over the weekend, Mark Zieman has taken up science fiction writing. He isn’t much better at that than at managing the Star.

Let’s start with Zieman’s contention that the Star is a “paper for the people.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The Star’s goal is simple and obvious: agenda driven news and opinion designed to tell the story that they want told.

Zieman blames the Star’s lost revenue on “the deep and widening recession,” but the truth is that the Star has been bleeding for years. Circulation is dropping, and ad revenues closely follow circulation. The massive layoffs over the last few months would not have happened if the Star was “solidly profitable” as Zieman claims.

Zieman writes that the Star has “1 million local readers a week.” We can tell you this is an exaggeration in several senses. Zieman tries to define “readers” by guessing how many people might read a single copy. This is an old newspaper trick designed to make numbers look better for advertisers. The facts are, according to McClatchy’s own website, that 2007 circulation numbers were just over 250,000 for the daily paper. If you access the non-biased data at the Audit Bureau of Circulations (www.accessabc.com) you find that the Star is losing paying customers at the rate of about 10,000 per year. This is not a healthy trend.

Zieman goes on to discuss the advantage he believes newspapers have over other informing media. He cites “staff, responsibility and ethics policies” and claims the Star presents “facts” in “an objective format”. Someone clearly forgot to tell that to some of the Star’s reporters, columnists and editorial staff. While many of the Star’s staff is objective, several reporters are well known for their liberal leanings. To be blunt, this newspaper has earned derogatory nicknames like the Falling Star and the Red Star. For Zieman to ignore that speaks to how much he does not see his paper as “for the people.”

The Source has to wonder; if the publisher of the paper is willing to gloss over, and even lie about, the problems the paper has, what chance is there that those problems will be addressed? If this was “your newspaper” as Zieman claims, he would take your criticisms seriously. His innuendo that reader complaints are limited to missed driveways, misspelled names and misprinted crossword puzzles is pathetic and delusional. Perhaps Mr. Zieman should spend a few hours outside of the executive suites and take a tour of the real world.