I'm starting to get tired of defending D.C.

[Anonymous]

I can see why people refuse to live here. Total waste of resources. But hey, lets hike taxes!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/2/funds-for-districts-needy-go-elsewhere/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

[Anonymous]

You don't really have to defend it. there are lots of things to love about it. But I do think it's a citizen's duty to work to change those things that are obviously broken, bad policy, unethical, etc. No place is perfect.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I can see why people refuse to live here. Total waste of resources. But hey, lets hike taxes!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/2/funds-for-districts-needy-go-elsewhere/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Not that I approve of what Alexander is doing (quite the opposite, in fact), but her constituent services fund doesn't involve tax dollars.

But, to your general point, I can't defend DC if DC is not defensible. That's why I have turned the home page of DCUM into my personal platform for ranting about Gray and Brown. We absolutely cannot let the District return to a situation in which we are embarrassed to stand up for it. We need to take action now, before it's too late.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see why people refuse to live here. Total waste of resources. But hey, lets hike taxes!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/2/funds-for-districts-needy-go-elsewhere/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Not that I approve of what Alexander is doing (quite the opposite, in fact), but her constituent services fund doesn't involve tax dollars.

But, to your general point, I can't defend DC if DC is not defensible. That's why I have turned the home page of DCUM into my personal platform for ranting about Gray and Brown. We absolutely cannot let the District return to a situation in which we are embarrassed to stand up for it. We need to take action now, before it's too late.

Jeff. I'm usually diametrically opposed to most of your political stances, I pride myself on being a pro-choice liberal Republican, but I would take good government in DC, one that isn't filled with waste and graft even if it meant that it was everything I was opposed to rather than what we have now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see why people refuse to live here. Total waste of resources. But hey, lets hike taxes!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/2/funds-for-districts-needy-go-elsewhere/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Not that I approve of what Alexander is doing (quite the opposite, in fact), but her constituent services fund doesn't involve tax dollars.

But, to your general point, I can't defend DC if DC is not defensible. That's why I have turned the home page of DCUM into my personal platform for ranting about Gray and Brown. We absolutely cannot let the District return to a situation in which we are embarrassed to stand up for it. We need to take action now, before it's too late.

Jeff. I'm usually diametrically opposed to most of your political stances, I pride myself on being a pro-choice liberal Republican, but I would take good government in DC, one that isn't filled with waste and graft even if it meant that it was everything I was opposed to rather than what we have now.

Ditto. I dislike your politics intensely, Mr. Steele, but you are being a mensch on this issue. If more D.C. residents were like you the city would not be having these problems.

[jsteele]

Thanks to the last two posters. All of us need to make clear to our elected officials that we expect and deserve good government. Regardless of our differences on other issues, I think we can work together in this regard.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Thanks to the last two posters. All of us need to make clear to our elected officials that we expect and deserve good government. Regardless of our differences on other issues, I think we can work together in this regard.

The problem is that "good government" means different things to different people. While the corruption of the Barry years got most of the headlines, there was another side to Barry's administration--the "legitimate" side if you will. This was driven by the philosophy that the DC government's correct purpose was to distribute as much money to the poor as possible, doing this by massively increasing the city payroll, allowing those workers who newly entered the middle-class to leave for the suburbs. They were essentially in the business of passing out life preservers rather than fixing the ship of state.

Now obviously, that was completely antithetical to what middle-class residents wanted, but they weren't in the majority back then. When I hear Gray talking about how Fenty was "in the pocket of the developers" and how "some have been left behind", it's pretty much a naked appeal to the old days of Barry. The various transition reports--particularly the one focusing on economic development, which identified the number one priority to get out-of-state commuters into and out of the city as quickly as possible--have somewhat backed this up.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm certainly right to be worried. The positive light here is that the composition of the Council is significantly different, and the growth of DC's middle class has made a backlash likely.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Thanks to the last two posters. All of us need to make clear to our elected officials that we expect and deserve good government. Regardless of our differences on other issues, I think we can work together in this regard.

The problem is that "good government" means different things to different people. While the corruption of the Barry years got most of the headlines, there was another side to Barry's administration--the "legitimate" side if you will. This was driven by the philosophy that the DC government's correct purpose was to distribute as much money to the poor as possible, doing this by massively increasing the city payroll, allowing those workers who newly entered the middle-class to leave for the suburbs. They were essentially in the business of passing out life preservers rather than fixing the ship of state.

Now obviously, that was completely antithetical to what middle-class residents wanted, but they weren't in the majority back then. When I hear Gray talking about how Fenty was "in the pocket of the developers" and how "some have been left behind", it's pretty much a naked appeal to the old days of Barry. The various transition reports--particularly the one focusing on economic development, which identified the number one priority to get out-of-state commuters into and out of the city as quickly as possible--have somewhat backed this up.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm certainly right to be worried. The positive light here is that the composition of the Council is significantly different, and the growth of DC's middle class has made a backlash likely.

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. If you don't think that it is possible to work together, then, obviously, it will not be possible to work together. I am not going to debate the Barry years with you because that will not help improve our city today. But, I think we call can agree that in difficult economic times, tricked out Navigators should not be the Council Chairman's first priority. Similarly, putting unqualified people in high-paying and important positions should not be the Mayor's first priority. The art of politics is finding solutions that satisfy as many people as possible. The Mayor can and should be able to reach out to those who were left behind -- and I truly believe many were -- in a way that satisfies the middle class. But, as long as many people start from the position that things are hopeless, well it will be hopeless.

[Anonymous]

Bring back Fenty,,,,,,please!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Thanks to the last two posters. All of us need to make clear to our elected officials that we expect and deserve good government. Regardless of our differences on other issues, I think we can work together in this regard.

The problem is that "good government" means different things to different people. While the corruption of the Barry years got most of the headlines, there was another side to Barry's administration--the "legitimate" side if you will. This was driven by the philosophy that the DC government's correct purpose was to distribute as much money to the poor as possible, doing this by massively increasing the city payroll, allowing those workers who newly entered the middle-class to leave for the suburbs. They were essentially in the business of passing out life preservers rather than fixing the ship of state.

Now obviously, that was completely antithetical to what middle-class residents wanted, but they weren't in the majority back then. When I hear Gray talking about how Fenty was "in the pocket of the developers" and how "some have been left behind", it's pretty much a naked appeal to the old days of Barry. The various transition reports--particularly the one focusing on economic development, which identified the number one priority to get out-of-state commuters into and out of the city as quickly as possible--have somewhat backed this up.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm certainly right to be worried. The positive light here is that the composition of the Council is significantly different, and the growth of DC's middle class has made a backlash likely.

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. If you don't think that it is possible to work together, then, obviously, it will not be possible to work together. I am not going to debate the Barry years with you because that will not help improve our city today. But, I think we call can agree that in difficult economic times, tricked out Navigators should not be the Council Chairman's first priority. Similarly, putting unqualified people in high-paying and important positions should not be the Mayor's first priority. The art of politics is finding solutions that satisfy as many people as possible. The Mayor can and should be able to reach out to those who were left behind -- and I truly believe many were -- in a way that satisfies the middle class. But, as long as many people start from the position that things are hopeless, well it will be hopeless.

I agree with Jeff on this.

The assertion that good govt means different things to different people. We all know what is right and what is wrong. Republicans were just as disgusted with Nixon's actions. Turning the government (in this case the Mayor's office or City Council) in to some sort of charity to give people who are otherwise unqualified "ghost" jobs is wrong. We can debate the merits of issues like the bag tax or needle sharing or tax increases because those are real issues in a theoretical sense, but when I see Kwame so concerned about the interior color of his Navigator I don't want to give a dime to this city. This man isnt a public servant. He is an insecure person who is wrapped up in his own ego.

[Anonymous]

The assertion that good govt means different things to different people. We all know what is right and what is wrong.

Sorry, this is just manifestly wrong. It's the source of a lot off the misguided "Third Way" B.S. at the national level, and no different at the local level. There are folks in this country who think that the government has no right ensuring clean air and water. That the only legitimate function of the government is national defense. That doctors who perform abortions should be subject to the death penalty.

So, no, not everyone agrees what "good govt" means, much less on policy prescriptions.

[jsteele]

[quote=Anonymous][quote]The assertion that good govt means different things to different people. We all know what is right and what is wrong.[/quote]

Sorry, this is just manifestly wrong. It's the source of a lot off the misguided "Third Way" B.S. at the national level, and no different at the local level. There are folks in this country who think that the government has no right ensuring clean air and water. That the only legitimate function of the government is national defense. That doctors who perform abortions should be subject to the death penalty.

So, no, not everyone agrees what "good govt" means, much less on policy prescriptions.[/quote]

You really can't compare what I am taking about with Third Way, which is not really about compromise, but simply everyone doing what Third Way wants them to do. Moreover, we are really not talking about policies, per se, but really the operational aspects of how the government should function. Undoubtedly, even at that fundamental level, there will be disagreements. But, the spectrum of political opinion in DC is rather narrow. Face it, DC Republicans would be considered communists in most of America.

The sort of things that I think we can agree on is that one party rule is not working for DC. Or more to the point, that establishment control of that one party is not working. This had led to a system that has little interest in reforming itself and not interested in confronting the inherent corruption. Here are some questions:

1) Should Council positions that have the second highest salaries of major US cities be part-time jobs?
2) If Council members have outside income, should that be disclosed?
3) Should corporations be allowed to contribute to candidates? They can in DC, but not to Federal candidates.
4) What sort of requirements, if any, should there be for political appointees. Apparently, there are over 700 such positions in the DC government
5) Michael A. Brown was a life-long Democrat. His father even headed the DNC. Just before an election for an At-Large Council seat that was reserved for a non-Democrat, Brown changed his registration. Now, rumor has it that he wants to become a Democrat again (maybe to be positioned to run for mayor). Should we rethink the laws that set aside some seats for the minority party? Should we rethink the laws concerning how much prior to an election a candidate must change his registration?
6) Should DC consider modified run-off election formats so that we don't have elections like this one in which 10 candidates are running?
7) Should Council members be allowed to ignore parking rules when on official business?
8) Should Council members have "constituent services committee" that are funded by outside donations?

This is just what I can think of quickly. Obviously, not everyone would agree with everyone else on all of them, but I bet there is a core of issues that most of us can agree upon.