Taxation without Representation

In a surprise move, House Transportation Committee Chair Henry Aquino has moved to hear the Senate’s Omnibus Transportation Tax bill (SB2938) during a committee hearing today at 10:30AM.  The late hearing notification is in clear violation of the rules that House members impose upon themselves and all but ensures public testimony will not be heard.  This dog and pony show will take place in room 309 at the Hawaii State Capitol.

It does not matter that you might oppose a tax increase, Henry Aquino does not care.  He does not want to hear it.

SB2938 increases taxes in the following ways:

• increases the county tax on gasoline by three cents per gallon (in increase from 16 to 19 cents),
• increases the motor vehicle registration fee by $31.50,
• increases the vehicle weight tax by one cent per pound, and
• increases the share of these taxes/fees deposited in the state highway fund.

This major increase in taxation was added with less than 24-hours notice ensures that concerned citizens will not have time to draft testimony or to take time off of work to testify before the committee.

For those who oppose the tax increase, and for those that care about open government, your feedback should be directed at the chair and vice-chair of the committee:

Rep. Henry Aquino (Waipahu, Chair, House Committee on Transportation)

• Email: repaquino@capitol.hawaii.gov
• Phone: (808) 586-6520

Rep. Matt LoPresti (Ewa Beach, Ewa – Vice Chair, House Committee on Transportation)

• Email: replopresti@capitol.hawaii.gov
• Phone:(808) 586-6080

Disfunctional spending

It seems that the only way government officials know how to solve a problem is to throw money at it.  A recent press release from the office of Governor David Ige epitomizes everything that is wrong with government.  While I applaud the intent of improving relations with fishermen, but that is the limit of any praise I have to offer.  It should not take money, another government program, or more bureaucracy just to improve relations with fishermen.

Here in Hawaii – that’s what a box of manapua is for.

The governor seems proud that he is throwing money at a problem.  That in and of itself is not newsworthy, government officials are very good at throwing money around.  History demonstrates that spending money rarely translates into results. What would be newsworthy is if relations finally did improve with fishermen as a result of judicious spending.

In other news, the Hawaii House of Representatives is proud that they allocated $15-million to alleviate overcrowding at Campbell High School.  They spent nearly half an hour during their daily floor session grandstanding (in the words of Matt LoPresti) in congratulatory speeches, self-aggrandizement and pats-on-the-back.  The money allocated is half of the amount required for a new building on the overcrowded campus.

Half-a-building is still no building.  No building does nothing to solve overcrowding.  And Matt LoPresti is proud of it!

That’s like going to Leonard’s and asking for half a malasada because you are counting calories.  It does not exist.  When it comes to purchasing, malasadas and buildings have one thing in common — its all or nothing.

Liberal Democrats are proud that they throw money at problems.  They hope that the public will look past all of the spending failures of the Legislature in recent memory.  The Hawaii Health Connector was a black hole on the order of $100-million.  Aloha Stadium is a sink for millions of dollars annually while legislators do nothing toward a more permanent solution.  Even the Department of Transportation is still sitting on a $600-million backlog of federal funds.

Proof positive that money is not the problem – its the people.

Conservatives are always quick to paint Democrats with a broad brush.  But now many of them are taking notice that there is a huge difference between the moderate (“blue dog”) Democrats that took the time to scrutinize every dollar, and the liberal Democrats who dig out of work at the same time as the rest of the civil servants.

Liberal Democrats do not know the meaning of a conservative budget.  Any head-of-household knows the minimum threshold is spending less money than you are taking in.  Sylvia Luke’s budget spends more money than they are taking in, but it is still branded as conservative.  Spending less money than another liberal Democrat does not make for a conservative budget.

While leaders in the legislative and executive branches point at problematic civil servants low on the totem pole, leadership always starts at the top.  The incompetence is at the top.  It starts with the governor, and it starts with the tax-and-spend attitude of liberal Democrats at the helm of the House and Senate money committees.  When you are supposed to lead by example, it is no wonder that there are so many problems at the bottom.

How to make a good bill bad

Focused on passing term limits for legislators, conservatives are missing the boat as liberal Democrats pass laws to entrench themselves as lifetime lawmakers.  Language inserted into HB2156 (Links: Bill status | Hearing notice) would allow campaign-to-campaign donations up to the allowable limit.  As previously written, powerful liberal Democrats use large campaign donations to buy the loyalty of vulnerable one- and two-term representatives that have small campaign war chests to fund their upcoming reelection.

In addition to buying power and weakening our voices in government (similar to Citizens United decision), this has another chilly effect on democracy – it makes it that much harder for a first-time candidate to unseat an incumbent.

The largest barrier to any person trying to unseat an incumbent is raising enough money for the costs associated with printed materials, signs and mailings.  Campaign insiders from both parties will tell you that any successful legislative campaign requires a minimum of $10,000.  Starting a campaign with anything less is like trying to win the Tour de France with a tricycle.

It’s possible…but…

Many vulnerable Democrats (as of the start of the year) had less than $10,000 in their campaign bank accounts.  The practice of campaign-to-campaign contributions would allow vulnerable representatives to collect $2000 from other election campaigns to finance their own reelection.  So someone like Kaniela Ing could collect $2000 checks from Scott Saiki, Sylvia Luke and Joe Souki and practically double the amount of campaign cash he has for the next election.

By the way, he has done this before and is positioned to do so again this year.

The increase from $6,000 to $12,000 makes Ing that much more difficult to unseat.  The extra $6000 is enough to finance printing and postage of two separate campaign flyers.  Ing should be elected by residents of Kihei to represent them.  The 1st Amendment allows representatives from Makiki, Nuuanu and Kahului to stack the deck against democracy.

In a lesson of “How to make a good bill bad”, House Finance Chair Sylvia Luke inserted  language codifying campaign-to-campaign donations into a “good government bill” – HB2156.  The irony hurts.  While there are many good parts to HB2156 attempts to do many good things, there is something bad and nasty tucked inside this Trojan Horse.  This bill is being heard by the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor on Friday (link to hearing notice).

The real joke that has liberal Democrats laughing is that no one – not even elected Republicans, has noticed this language.  All seven House Republicans voted for the measure.  The four votes cast in opposition all came from Democrats.

To curb lifetime appointments, conservatives rally around issues like “term limits” and fail to look at all the other knobs, buttons and levers that elected officials have to ensure their lifetime appointment.  Massive campaign accounts are one of those knobs, and keeping their cronies or minions in office is another.  HB2156 is the perfect example of how conservative voices appear to have fallen asleep at the wheel.  When this language was heard before the House Finance Committee, only three pieces of testimony were submitted.

Just three.

The ramifications that campaign-to-campaign contributions have on local politics are just as bad as the effects of Citizens United.  Elected officials seeking lifetime appointments are robbing us of our democracy – are we just going to sit idly and watch this happen?