Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home—but not for housing. They are strong for labor—but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights. They favor minimum wage—the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all—but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine— for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing—but only when the private power companies get the rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing—so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.
Harry Truman – Missouri’s President
Some things haven’t changed in all those years since Truman left office... This week, the newer, more Right-leaning Supreme Court decided that government employees who complain about official misconduct and get fired for it do not have the right to sue. This after the Court, in its wisdom, already limited a whistle-blower’s rights to sue for being fired! I guess this was just a follow up to make sure the message is nice and clear to Americans – your rights matter not if you work for the government. Mr. Bush took the opportunity during his reluctant creation of Homeland Security to swipe at workers’ rights by basically making any agent of that office an at-will employee. The very office where we would want the officials to know that they can step forward when there is misconduct by higher-ups and blow the whistle has been, instead, turned into a agency where making waves could get you fired in a hurry – first, because Mr. Bush’s Administration demanded you have no rights and, secondly, because Mr. Bush’s court has made sure to place the exclamation mark on this point. There has been much hay made lately about our courts ruling from the bench and I would have to agree in at least one instance: the 2004 election. The Supreme Court, which has no constitutional right to do so, intervened into the election results of the State of Florida. This was the first time in my lifetime that our nation’s president was chosen by court decision. The Court overstepped its bounds but from the Right, you heard no complaint about “ruling from the bench.”
You see, the ends justify the means for many who would otherwise complain bitterly if the courts decide against their issues.
In local matters, City Council will be bringing forth several charter-change issues in the weeks ahead and we will be asked to make the best decisions we can on each issue come November or April. Some of the matters are just a matter of cleaning up the language of the charter, while others will have broader consequences for our city.
Two issues in particular are noteworthy: form of City government and recall. Many on council believe that the issue of making our mayor fulltime was not fully discussed in public and narrowly passed with many believing that the Mayor’s hours would be the only significant change made by passing this matter. Now that everyone is better informed of the changes that will take place under the new form of government we can have open, public debate about what is best for our City. In the end, maybe the outcome will be the same; however, the public today is much better informed of what their vote will mean in 2007. Do you want an administrator form of government or a more political strong-mayor form of government? Hopefully, we all will be able to weigh both options in an issue that received little debate time the first time around.
Next, the matter of recall is being contemplated. One idea is to put the whole concept of recall before the public for a vote. Some on council believe that there is an anti-recall attitude among voters as made evident
by recent events. I disagree and think that the recent recall attempts were unsuccessful because of the disingenuous reasons given for recall, and the backers of the recall itself. I think most voters would like to have it as an option, but I believe that most voters would like to limit its scope to recall officials who have abused their office through malfeasance.
Recall due to malfeasance is a good compromise that allows citizens to take action against corruption but keeps political office from becoming an ongoing popularity contest that would render making tough decisions impossible because someone or some group is frustrated at a Councilman’s vote. Elections are the time to voice opinion, not every six weeks for three years.
Lastly, the Council did receive some recognition of a compromise reached in eminent domain. We really did make great strides in reaching out to all parties. And some say all we do is fight...
