+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some articles that might be of interest:
.Without Liberal Identity Politics, There Is Little Racism
Jeffrey Barrett, Am. Thinker
Frank Bruni, New York Times
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stacey Abrams' False Claims About Election Integrity
By Hans von Spakovsky Editor's note: This piece is coauthored by Caleb Morrison, a Spring 2019
member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.
In her response on behalf of Democrats to the State of the Union address,
Stacey Abrams employed more of the over-the-top rhetoric that has come to
characterize political opposition in the age of Trump.
After laying out her grievances against the president and offering few
concrete policies, Abrams's speech pivoted to a harangue intended to
perpetuate the liberal and media-driven myth that there is an epidemic of
voter suppression going on in this country.
While Abrams said she "acknowledge[d] the results of the 2018 election" in
Georgia, in which she lost the governor's race by over 50,000 votes, she
then claimed "efforts to undermine" the right to vote are ongoing.
Abrams has continued to blame "voter suppression" for her loss, saying the
gubernatorial election was "stolen from Georgians." The website for the
advocacy group that Abrams heads, Fair Fight, says: "We know that the 2018
Georgia, in which she lost the governor's race by over 50,000 votes, sheelections in Georgia were rife with mismanagement and irregularities."
A close look at the actual facts is in order.
gubernatorial election was "stolen from Georgians." The website for the
advocacy group that Abrams heads, Fair Fight, says: "We know that the 2018
Georgia, in which she lost the governor's race by over 50,000 votes, sheelections in Georgia were rife with mismanagement and irregularities."
A close look at the actual facts is in order.
Abrams claimed that officials are "making it harder to register and stay on
the [voter] rolls." However, Georgia was in full compliance with
requirements of the National Voter Registration Act, which made it easy to
register by mail, at the DMV, state public assistance offices, and at
numerous other agencies and locations throughout the state.
It never has been easier to register to vote in Georgia. In fact, by the
time of the election that Abrams lost three months ago, the state had
6,935,816 registered voters, the most in Georgia's entire history.
Turnout rates kept pace with the rise in registration. Abrams's own website
cites an article from ABC News that said minority voters in Georgia's
governor race made up 40 percent of total turnout. And in an all-time high
for the state, 3 of every 4 of those minority voters were black.
This is an astonishing turnout, given that the 2017 census estimate for
Georgia shows that blacks make up 32.5 percent of the population, and
Hispanics make up 9.6 percent. Those percentages include residents under 18,
noncitizens, and other individuals who are ineligible to vote.
In fact, minority turnout in 2018 surpassed minority turnout in 2014 by four
percentage points. Abrams' Fair Fight group also cites a statistic that
shows she received the most Democrat votes of any candidate in Georgia in
nearly a decade. No one was kept out of the polls-Abrams just couldn't
convince enough Georgians to vote for her, a truth she doesn't want to
admit.
shows she received the most Democrat votes of any candidate in Georgia in
nearly a decade. No one was kept out of the polls-Abrams just couldn't
convince enough Georgians to vote for her, a truth she doesn't want to
admit.
As for making it "harder" to stay on the voter registration rolls, Georgia
uses a verification tool to check the accuracy of its rolls that is fully
compliant with the National Voter Registration Act, something that also is
required by the Help America Vote Act. Ohio's use of a similar process was
approved by the U.S. Supreme Court last year in the case of Husted v. Philip
Randolph Institute.
uses a verification tool to check the accuracy of its rolls that is fully
compliant with the National Voter Registration Act, something that also is
required by the Help America Vote Act. Ohio's use of a similar process was
approved by the U.S. Supreme Court last year in the case of Husted v. Philip
Randolph Institute.
In Georgia, registered voters receive an identity/address confirmation
notice if they don't vote for three years or the Postal Service indicates
they have moved. If they fail to return this notice, they are marked as
"inactive" on the registration list.
notice if they don't vote for three years or the Postal Service indicates
they have moved. If they fail to return this notice, they are marked as
"inactive" on the registration list.
Voters are removed from the voter rolls only if they fail to vote in two
more general elections after the notice was sent out. And voters listed as
"inactive" are still able to vote if they show up at their polling place;
anyone improperly removed is still able to vote with a provisional ballot.
Abrams and her cohorts also complained that Georgia was "discriminating" by
investigating voter registration applicants whose submitted information did
not match that in other state databases. But there was nothing nefarious
about verifying the accuracy of registration information.
more general elections after the notice was sent out. And voters listed as
"inactive" are still able to vote if they show up at their polling place;
anyone improperly removed is still able to vote with a provisional ballot.
Abrams and her cohorts also complained that Georgia was "discriminating" by
investigating voter registration applicants whose submitted information did
not match that in other state databases. But there was nothing nefarious
about verifying the accuracy of registration information.
If someone registered to vote at an address that was completely different
from the address listed on his or her driver's license, Abrams's position
means she would want the state to ignore this discrepancy, no questions
asked. That makes no sense.
from the address listed on his or her driver's license, Abrams's position
means she would want the state to ignore this discrepancy, no questions
asked. That makes no sense.
This verification process is so reasonable and common sensical that Barack
Obama's Justice Department pre-cleared it in 2010 as nondiscriminatory, when
Georgia was still covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That
section required Georgia to get the approval of the Justice Department
before it could implement any new voting law or procedure.
Obama's Justice Department pre-cleared it in 2010 as nondiscriminatory, when
Georgia was still covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That
section required Georgia to get the approval of the Justice Department
before it could implement any new voting law or procedure.
In any event, none of these registrants would have been prevented from
voting because all voters, even those who aren't on the registration list,
are allowed to vote through the provisional balloting process.
voting because all voters, even those who aren't on the registration list,
are allowed to vote through the provisional balloting process.
Despite these safeguards, Georgia suspended the "exact match" requirement
prior to the 2018 election after liberal advocacy groups sued to prevent the
state from taking any steps to check the accuracy of voter registration
information. Apparently, those groups want inaccurate, error-filled voter
rolls.
prior to the 2018 election after liberal advocacy groups sued to prevent the
state from taking any steps to check the accuracy of voter registration
information. Apparently, those groups want inaccurate, error-filled voter
rolls.
In 2014, then-Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp opened online voter
registration for the first time in state history. To make registration even
easier, Kemp also launched a smartphone registration app.
registration for the first time in state history. To make registration even
easier, Kemp also launched a smartphone registration app.
If Kemp, now governor after defeating Abrams, is a vote suppressor as she
claims, he is surely one of the most inept ones in history.
claims, he is surely one of the most inept ones in history.
One of the biggest surprises of the Abrams response to the State of the
Union address was her talking about how in the "battle for our democracy,"
it is "eligible citizens" who should "have a say in the vision they want for
our country."
Union address was her talking about how in the "battle for our democracy,"
it is "eligible citizens" who should "have a say in the vision they want for
our country."
Why? Because that is in sharp contrast to her endorsement of non-citizen
voting in her statement on the PBS show "Firing Line" that she "wouldn't
oppose" non-citizen voting in local elections.
voting in her statement on the PBS show "Firing Line" that she "wouldn't
oppose" non-citizen voting in local elections.
In a campaign speech, Abrams claimed that the "blue wave" of Democrat voters
would be comprised of both the "documented and undocumented." Undocumented
is the politically correct, liberal term for illegal aliens.
would be comprised of both the "documented and undocumented." Undocumented
is the politically correct, liberal term for illegal aliens.
Abrams' propagation of the voter suppression myth used to condemn the
efforts of states to safeguard elections does a disservice to our democratic
system.
efforts of states to safeguard elections does a disservice to our democratic
system.
In her remarks last Tuesday night, Abrams said "the foundation of our moral
leadership around the globe is free and fair elections." While that is true,
the false claims that she and other liberals have made about election
reforms intended to fix security vulnerabilities are what damage perceptions
of America's voting system.
leadership around the globe is free and fair elections." While that is true,
the false claims that she and other liberals have made about election
reforms intended to fix security vulnerabilities are what damage perceptions
of America's voting system.
We need to support election officials in the lawful performance of their
sworn duties. It is time to unite behind a vision of American voting as
free, fair, and secure.
sworn duties. It is time to unite behind a vision of American voting as
free, fair, and secure.
1a)The Intersectional Road to Perdition
By Victor Davis Hanson
Who is the greatest victim of them all? Leave it to the mob to pick the
'winner.'
By Victor Davis Hanson
Who is the greatest victim of them all? Leave it to the mob to pick the
'winner.'
From The Ox-Bow Incident to To Kill a Mockingbird, novelists warned of the
American propensity to become mob-like and often lethally so. Our Puritan
roots, when coupled to elements of Athenian-style democracy, can on occasion
vary wildly between dangerous bias and equally mindless self-righteousness.
Update those traditions within the modern bane of electronically charged
instantaneous social media, identity politics, the decline of journalism,
and vicarious virtue-signaling, and we increasingly suffer psychodramas like
the Virginia fraternity mess, the Duke Lacrosse fiasco, the Kavanaugh
hearings, and the Covington nightmare.
American propensity to become mob-like and often lethally so. Our Puritan
roots, when coupled to elements of Athenian-style democracy, can on occasion
vary wildly between dangerous bias and equally mindless self-righteousness.
Update those traditions within the modern bane of electronically charged
instantaneous social media, identity politics, the decline of journalism,
and vicarious virtue-signaling, and we increasingly suffer psychodramas like
the Virginia fraternity mess, the Duke Lacrosse fiasco, the Kavanaugh
hearings, and the Covington nightmare.
In such cases, predictable constructs often set afire the new mob.
"Vulnerable" women or minorities or both are juxtaposed against young white
males who have the scent of traditionalism, conservatism, or "privilege." I
say "psychodramas," because the point is never to assess guilt or innocence
or to establish some set of objective standards by which to condemn or
exempt the accused. No, the aim is to vent outrage - the quicker, the more
venomous, and the more public, the more advantageous either in a careerist
or psychological sense.
The result is that there are now no rules in the Roman arena of feeding the
accused to the carnivores - except two. If the progressive cause can be
advanced, then necessary, one-time adjustments can call off the mob. And,
two, given the complex hierarchy of victim hood and the relative degrees of
perceived progressive correctness, it is sometimes difficult to sort out who
should be rescued from, and who served up to, the famished lions.
When Virginia governor Ralph Northam endorsed a proposed new state abortion
bill and methodically explained the ethical and legal mechanics of how to
kill an already-delivered infant, progressives shrugged. To the extent that
any were not delighted, it was because they worried that Northam had
foolishly given away their game by dispassionately contextualizing
infanticide, which, after all, is the logical end to all abortion-on-demand
legislation. (Northam had essentially redefined murder by insisting that a
mother had a right to euthanize her child, a U.S. citizen with
constitutionally protected rights, after the infant had left her body.)
But then Nemesis struck. Two old photos showed up in Northam's 1984 yearbook
entry from medical school. He was then 25, hardly a 17-year-old preppie like
Brett Kavanaugh. The photo was of two youths dressed up respectively in
blackface and a Klan outfit. In a nanosecond, Northam went from being a
welcome, but clumsy abortion advocate to a rank political liability. He then
went the full Mark Sanford route, with a bizarre series of denials,
admissions, contradictions, and self-confessions that sealed his fate - or
sort of did.
If the electronic mob had wounded Northam, his own lunacy would seem to have
bled him out. That Justin Fairfax, his lieutenant governor, was African
American and a seasoned Democratic operative should have made it all too
easy to slice off the suddenly smelly Northam albatross from the collective
Democratic neck and likewise turn attention away from the progressive
endorsement of infanticide.
Republicans enjoyed the drama mostly in silence, given that Northam had
hypocritically accused his Republican gubernatorial opponent, Ed Gillespie,
of being a racist, and that he'd posed as a postmodern Southern progressive
by virtue-signaling his disgust toward Confederate statues. Northam's
hypocrisy surely gives credence to the theory that one of the attractions of
loud and public progressive outrage is that public damnation of sin gives
one psychological permission to occasionally indulge in it.
But then there was another hitch.
The ready and waiting Fairfax was "found" to have his own skeleton - namely,
that 15 years ago he had been intimate with a fellow progressive at the 2004
Democratic Convention, in what he now calls a consensual hookup. The alleged
victim, however, Professor Vanessa Tyson, now insists that their long-ago
encounter had escalated into a traumatic assault. The accuser even had taken
the trouble of earlier contacting the Washington Post to apprise them that a
young and charismatic Fairfax was in fact a veritable rapist.
The Post then apparently dropped the "she must be believed" self-righteous
credo that was so prevalent during the Kavanaugh fiasco. Instead, it
declined to publish or investigate Tyson's story, despite her disturbing
accusations that Fairfax had used his superior strength to coerce her to
give him oral sex. Then another alleged victim emerged, with an even more
serious accusation of a long-ago assault by Fairfax.
So, according to #MeToo logic, two victims now had to be believed
(especially given the absence of any perceived political or ideological
agendas). This dilemma forced the larger question of what to do with the
career of a progressive African-American governor in waiting - suddenly no
longer so useful in replacing the now embarrassingly progressive pariah
white Southern governor (who may have helped leak but certainly enjoyed his
subordinate's quandary, and who suddenly was cowardly fobbing his own racial
insensitivity off onto the supposedly collective pathologies of his state).
In intersectional terms, the Left faced a dilemma. On legal grounds, in
theory, Fairfax faced the greater sin of sexual assault and rape (even if no
longer prosecutable). On politically correct grounds, the two white
officials faced the greater exposure, given their race and their idiotic,
youthful, and racialist buffoonery. Would progressives demand the
resignation from the African-American man - the only one of the three who is
non-white? Would they establish that old but as yet quite unproven
accusations of criminality trump old yet quite demonstrable charges of
racialism?
During the Kavanaugh hearing, progressives had insisted on two new standards
of jurisprudence: 1) All women alleging assault must be believed, even in
the absence of any corroborating evidence or witnesses to the alleged crime,
and even when we're confronted with factual inconsistencies in the accuser's
charges; and 2) there is no such thing as a statute of limitations to such
complaints, much less concern that at the time of the distant assault,
authorities were never alerted.
No progressive can easily adjudicate all the competing and mitigating
intersections. During the recent media storms, Northam was initially seen as
an admirable radical pro-abortionist feminist; he was key to keeping once
red Virginia a newly blue state. But soon he proved not just clumsy in
contextualizing his distant past; he also seems to have an even more complex
history of racialism. For example, Northam, for mysterious reasons, was
dubbed "coon man" by his school chums. And he further claims that he once
put on black "shoe polish" to emulate Michael Jackson (who ironically
usually wore white makeup so as not to resemble the hue of Northam's black
shoe polish).
As for Fairfax, should be hoisted on his own #MeToo progressive petard of a
he-said-she-said accusation of 15 years prior?
His first accuser is also African American, and an academic progressive
apparently eager to fill out Fairfax's résumé once he became a public
figure, in the heroic manner of fellow California academic Christine Blasey
Ford. When told of her claims, Fairfax reportedly shouted to his associates
"F*** that bitch" - a most regressive reaction.
Progressives during the Watergate era also warned us that it is never the
crime that sinks public figures, but the cover-up or contextualization. This
has never been truer than in Northam's confused, conflicting narratives and
in Fairfax's obscene invective, which only added credibility to Tyson's
portrait of a hot-tempered sexist prone to objectify women as mere
playthings. Fairfax instantly went from being one of the aggrieved
collective victims of Northam's racism to a culpable victimizer of minority
women.
But wait again, the tragicomedy has another twist. Third in line to the
governorship, Attorney General Mark R. Herring, saw fellow Democrat Northam
twisting in the wind, and he too jumped into the fray to flash his virtue
signals of outrage about Northam's youthful racism. Poor Herring; he
pontificated too soon, both before the anticipated successor Fairfax was
himself accused of crimes from 15 years ago, and before it was leaked or
admitted that Herring himself had dressed up in blackface when, at 19, he
attended a party outfitted in costume as an African-American rapper.
The New York Times was especially dumbfounded at the intersectional trifecta
and strained the English vocabulary of euphemism to downplay Herring's
youthful sin. In a headline, the paper initially wrote, "Virginia Attorney
General Says He Also Dressed in Dark Makeup," carefully avoiding the term
"blackface." We haven't seen such linguistic gymnastics since the Times
invented the term "white Hispanic" for half-Peruvian George Zimmerman, in an
effort to make his lethal encounter with Trayvon Martin into a white-black
morality play, a confrontation between a white aggressor and a black victim
rather than a brawl between two minority youths.
As Governor Northam, Lieutenant Governor Fairfax, and Attorney General
Herring stood off in a spaghetti-Western trial, unsure who would finish off
whom, progressives scrambled to adjudicate the various intersectional crimes
and thus prevent the fourth-ranking state official, Virginia house speaker
Kirk Cox, a Republican, from climbing over the political corpses to the
governorship.
What do we learn from the entire sordid tale?
Get used to far more of this.
America is a multi-ethnic, multiracial society in which victimization leads
to career dividends, attention, and psychological rewards. Yet
intersectionality hinges on the various indecipherable strata of identity
politics - especially when no one knows which DNA strand or ancestral
narratives trump others. Add the 1960s left-wing legacies of promiscuity,
sexual discovery, and let-it-all-hang-out, get-with-it, -all-is-groovy New
Ageism, now mixed with 21st-century Victorian progressive prudery - and the
result is a weird new hipster profile in sackcloth, as randy and as gross as
Woodstock and yet as condemnatory as the Anti-Sex League of Orwell's 1984.
The rules of sexual congress are being radically redefined among the elite
as requiring veritable contractual agreements along every step of each
encounter. When it comes to destroying careers, there is no statute of
limitations, and no need for due process, cross-examination, or factual
evidence.
Once a society establishes a system of rewards and punishments that favor
accusation and force-multiply it through enhancements of race and gender,
then fairness and truth become secondary considerations. Much less valued
are notions of human frailty and atonement. Truth becomes a narrative of a
particular class of victim, to be adjudicated in mob-like and often
electronic arenas, without much attention to testimony, evidence, or
witnesses.
Intersectional progressives strangely had assumed that in these sensational
cases they would always have Manichean scenarios: white boys bad, a Native
American "elder" good. In the Covington case, they never quite anticipated,
as they discarded due process, that the supposed victims could be gross and
conniving victimizing predators.
Yet duplicity, careerism, and self-interest are human pathologies, not
restricted to only one gender or certain races.
Indeed, human lapses really do (or especially) cross intersectional
boundaries: an Elizabeth Warren caught yet again in a lie when more evidence
emerges about her past cynical cultural appropriation of a Native American
identity for careerist advancement; the late-night ethical progressive
megaphone Jimmy Kimmel, suddenly snagged by an old tape in which he dresses
up in blackface to do an abjectly racist caricature of NBA star Karl Malone;
newly found racialist statements from a younger Joe Biden (adding to his
ample corpus of race-based "gaffes") from nearly a half-century ago
suggesting that he believed racial segregation had its merits;
African-American comedian Kevin Hart dis-invited as Oscar host due to the
reemergence of some of his old anti-gay jokes; the progressive attack-dog
Joy Behar, reducing to a whimpering puppy when admitting to her own bout of
blackface (oddly made worse by her editorializing that when she wore
blackface she, presto, became a "beautiful African-American woman," as if
you cannot keep a stunning white woman down).
And so on and on intersectional identity politics progresses down its
pathway to nihilism.
2) No trade deal can dictate our relationship with China
Lawrence Summers is a professor at and past president of Harvard
University. He was treasury secretary from 1999 to 2001 and an economic adviser
to President Barack Obama from 2009 through 2010.
As the United States
and China continue to joust over trade and technology, the U.S. policy debate
contrasts two views of the primary problem.
A
first view expressed often in President
Trump’s tweets locates
the key issue in the bilateral trade deficit that the United States chronically
runs with China. On this theory of the problem, a solution is relatively easy:
The Chinese could rearrange their imports of soybeans, fossil fuels and other
products so more of them come from the United States, while countries now
supplying China could export instead to nations now importing from the United
States. This is what the Chinese keep offering since it means almost no real
change in their economy. Neither levels of employment, output or total trade
deficits and surpluses are likely to change much in either the United States or
China.
A
second view, held by more serious alarmists about the U.S.-China relationship,
such as U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer, emphasizes problematic
Chinese practices in key technological sectors. These range from theft of U.S.
technologies to requirements that U.S. firms wishing to do business in China —
chiefly in the development of key technologies, such as artificial intelligence
— must form
joint ventures with
Chinese firms, especially those with connections to the Chinese government.
Such technological
alarmists in and out of the administration hold that we can wall off U.S.
technologies with sufficiently aggressive policies so China cannot steal them,
or that we can pressure China to the point where it will give up government
efforts at industrial leadership. Neither of these prospects is realistic.
In
many ways, U.S. concerns over China and technology parallel concerns over the
Soviet Union in the post-Sputnik missile gap period just before President John
F. Kennedy’s election in 1960. Or over Japan in the late 1980s and early 1990s,
when it was often joked that “the Cold War is over and Japan won.”
When atomic weapons were our most sensitive military secret, their creation required extensive sophisticated infrastructure. Yet the United States and Russia essentially had no normal interchange, so we were able to maintain a lead of three or four years with respect to both fission and fusion weapons.
Technology for
artificial intelligence in development today, however, can be operated on
widely available equipment. And there are hundreds of thousands of Chinese
citizens studying in the United States or working for U.S. companies that
develop such technology. Keeping U.S. knowledge out of Chinese hands for
substantial lengths of time is impracticable short of a massive breaking of
economic ties.
Nor
is it likely for the Chinese government to halt its support of technology
development. How would the United States react if other countries demanded that
we close down DARPA, the Defense Department’s advanced research agency, because it
represented unfair competition? Or if trading partners argued that U.S. support
for private clean-energy companies, such as the subsidies provided by the Obama
administration, was an unfair trade practice? Much of our current information
technology and communications infrastructure comes directly or indirectly out
of Bell Labs, which
was financed out
of the profits of a government-regulated and -protected monopoly. Would the
United States have responded constructively to demands from other countries to
dismantle the Bell system?
A
focus on resisting the Chinese economic threat will likely not only be
ineffective but may also be counterproductive if it diverts private and public
energy from more productive pursuits. I remember well from the early Clinton
administration that the great symbol of efforts to constrain unfair Japanese
practices was Kodak’s
case against
Fuji, the Japanese photographic film company that attracted massive attention
from Kodak’s senior management and U.S. policymakers. Perhaps if Kodak had
instead focused on the digital photography ideas its scientists had developed,
it would still be a significant company.
Where we can mobilize
international support, we should, of course, push China to live up to its trade
obligations and seek to modify rules in the World Trade Organization where they
do not cover problematic practices. But in reality, our competitive success
over the next generation will depend much more on what happens in our economy
and society than at any international negotiating table.
Will our national
investment in applied scientific research continue to languish to the point
where even the most brilliant young scientists cannot get their first research
grants until they are in their 40s? Will public officials who surely know
better continue to allow creationism to be taught as serious science in
U.S. public schools in a century with so much progress in life sciences?
Will public policy concern itself with the strength and competitiveness of U.S.
information technology companies as well as with their marketing practices?
Will a national effort be made to improve the dismal performance of U.S.
students at every level in international comparisons of mathematical and
scientific achievement?
These questions and
others like them, much more than any trade negotiation, will determine how the
United States competes over the next generation. The Russian and the Japanese
challenges pushed us forward as a nation in very constructive ways. So can the
Chinese challenge if we seize the opportunity it represents.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Japan Becomes the World's Fourth Largest Military
ANALYSIS/OPINION: Washington Times
Japan and the United States conducted their largest military exercise, called Keen Sword, last year, with 47,000 American seamen, Marines and airmen joined by 47,000 Japanese. A naval supply ship and frigate of the Royal Canadian Navy also participated in simulations of air combat, ballistic missile defense and amphibious landings.
In 2004, at the behest of the United States, Japan deployed troops to Iraq in the U.S.-led reconstruction of Iraq. This was the first time since the end of World War II that Japan had sent troops abroad, except for a few minor U.N. peacekeeping deployments.
Last December the government adopted a budget for fiscal 2019 that includes 100 trillion yen, or $900 billion, for the military. There is no secret about what motivates Japanese policy to turn its back on the postwar professions of neutrality and to reject the idea of any military establishment. It’s the growing perceived threat from Communist China.
In addition to conventional weaponry, the defense budget for fiscal 2018 included funds to purchase mid- to long-range air-launched cruise missiles. Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera said they would be used exclusively for defense as “stand-off missiles that can be fired beyond the range of enemy threats.” But the budget allocated another $20 million for the purchase of Joint Strike Missiles for its American-made F-35A stealth fighters and $270,000 for research on modifying existing Japanese Mitsubishi F-15J fighters to carry long-range anti-ship missiles and extended-range air-to-surface standoff missiles.
The Ministry of Defense is developing supersonic glide bombs to strengthen the defense of Japan’s remote islands, including the Senkaku Islands between Japan and Korea. The anti-surface strike capability will assist in amphibious landing and recapture operations on remote islands. Japan’s Defense Ministry has also allocated $57 million for research and development of a hypersonic missile which could travel five times the speed of sound, Mach 5, or faster. A scramjet engine prototype, jet-fuel technology and heat-resistant materials will be built by 2025.
Japanese public opinion about all this is sharply divided. The Japanese people relish their new reputation as peace-loving folk who wouldn’t harm a fly — or dispatch a flying missile. But it’s a new world out there, as well as a new Japan.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) I have chatted with many people on the subject of Incorporation. A common thread in
many of these discussions is (1) don’t really understand what we are doing, and (2)
why?—it ain’t broke so why fix it!
The purpose of this communication is to summarize what and why.
Bottom line, what is being proposed is to transfer the governmental functions/services
that are currently provided by Chatham County Special Services District (SSD) to
Skidaway residents. (Currently, these governmental services are provided to all other
unincorporated communities in addition to Skidaway Island.) To accomplish a transfer,
we have to incorporate as a City. The SSD services to be transferred are Police
Service, Public Works, Municipal Court, Zoning, Planning, Flood Plain Management,
Building Code Management, and local Ordinance Management.—all of these are “City”
services and incorporated municipalities such as Pooler, Garden City, Port Wentworth,
Thunderbolt, Tybee, and Vernonburg have assumed responsibility to provide these
services to their residents.
As a matter of interest, Vernonburg is a city of only 120
residents!
In a nutshell, my message for the services noted above is that we can achieve equal, or
higher service levels, at less than 50% of the costs we are currently paying to the
County; i.e., we will spend approximately $3 million providing these services to
ourselves vs. the $6.5 million we will pay to the County; i.e., save Skidaway Property
Tax Payers $3.5 million per year!
Before discussing each of the functions, I would like to make it very clear that it is not
the County’s fault for this inequity—they are not intentionally overcharging us, nor am I
suggesting that they are inefficient. The problem is entirely due to the structure of the
Property Tax System—not only in Chatham County, but Georgia, and essentially
nationwide. Property taxes are progressive in that the higher the value of your property,
the bigger share of property taxes you pay. Our situation is significantly compounded
by other factors—primarily that we are an island of “Gated” Communities, and as noted
below, we already deliver (and pay for) a major part of these services to ourselves via
our Associations such as The Landings Association. Bottom line, on a per capita basis,
we are 9% of the unincorporated communities in Chatham County, but we pay 19% of
the taxes supporting the County’s Special Services District; i.e., on a per capita basis
Skidaway Island tax payers pay double the average for the remaining unincorporated
communities.
Police Service
Using averages within Chatham County for Police service costs, the annual $2.7 million
we pay for Police services is sufficient to cover approximately 32 police officers of
service. My estimate is that we receive, on average, roughly 4 officers of service. The
reason for the huge disparity, and why so little, is that we are fortunate to require very
little Police service since we have relatively little crime--much of this is due to our
internal security services and gates in addition to our cultural character and values. The
Steering Committee’s preferred solution is to outsource/contract for Police Service with
either the County Police, or County Sheriff @ an increased level of service than
currently received for approximately $500,000 per year—savings of over $2.2 Million
per year!
Public Works
Public Works includes dry trash pickup, road maintenance, and storm sewer drainage
maintenance. We will pay $2 million in 2019 for Public Works Services from the County
while receiving less that $1 million of service. Why the difference? Our entire island is
basically a "gated" community; i.e., The Landings, Modena, South Harbor, and the
Marshes--it is illegal to utilize tax related financial resources to maintain roads and
storm drainage services behind "Gates" which are considered private property--might
also note that the Village streets and drainage are Private. The Landings alone
maintains 91 miles of roads & streets, and the other gated communities roughly 15 to 20
miles--total about 110 miles of streets/roads. There are less than 9 miles of roads,
drainage, etc. on Skidaway that qualify for county maintenance paid for with tax monies
and yet we pay taxes, etc. as though all 100+ miles qualify. The proposal before us
assumes that all of this function will be outsourced to private contractors. Should also
note that a major portion of the $1 million in services we receive involves dry trash pick
up, and this possibly could be outsourced to the County. The final decision will be made
by the elected Mayor and Council, and presumedly be based upon competitive
proposals/bids.
REMAINING SERVICES
I will briefly discuss each, but I cannot breakout the costs by service based upon the
format of the County budget with which I have to work. En toto, however, the proposed
City of Skidaway Island costs for these services as well as the costs of Governance are
less than what we will be paying to the County—our proposed costs are $1.5 million vs.
the $1.8 million we will pay to Chatham County.
Municipal Court
This Court will handle local ordinance violations and traffic tickets. Current experience
indicates that it will be a relatively minor function fulfilled in 1-2 days per month for court
cases utilizing the services of a part time Judge.
Planning & Zoning
This will not be a major function based upon the fact that we are relatively “built out”, but
it is an important one because we would have control over what is built/developed on
the island in the future. Our intent is to initially adopt the Chatham County Zoning
Ordinances and “tweak” the master plan as it relates to Skidaway Island.
Building Code Management & Inspection
Building and code enforcement is a requirement and is expected to be somewhat more active than planning and zoning matters. Administering building permits for new
construction and significant renovations and the inspections necessary to make sure
proper codes are followed is a fundamental responsibility. This department will also
administer enforcement of violations based on the City of Skidaway building codes and
municipal ordinances on properties out of compliance. Again, we would initially adopt
County Codes, and where appropriate, modify them to meet local needs.
All Other Local Ordinances
We would initially adopt all County Ordinances, and modify where necessary. There will
be no change in covenants/rules/practices behind “gates” for the various communities
on the island.
Flood Plain Management
Flood Plain Management will be very active during the first year of the City’s startup. A
negative of Incorporation is that Skidaway Island will temporarily lose its discounts, but
not lose the ability to get flood insurance. Getting it back will require us to achieve
many technical tasks.
The total cost of the above “Remaining Services” plus Governance including support of
the City Council and Mayor will total $1.5 million per year vs. the $1.8 million we pay the
County for the same functions.
The alternatives to correct the inequities noted above are as follows:
• Business as usual, do not incorporate
• Get rid of our “Gates” and private security, and make our common property such as
streets public property open to everyone so that we can use “tax” monies to pay for
Public Works maintenance
• Incorporate
I believe that the financial consequences, as well as our security desires, make a
compelling case to Incorporate.
Another way to convey my overall point is as follows: Assume that we were already an
Incorporated City, and our costs were $3 Million per year to perform the functions
discussed above with satisfactory service levels, and we had a vote to unincorporate
and transfer all of these functions to the County Special Services Division at a cost of
$6.5 million. How would you vote?
As a final note on functions and costs, the proposal before us is to have Fire Protection
billed through the City at no change to your directly billed costs. Furthermore, it is
possible that Garbage Collection will be contractually handled (outsourced) by the city.
Our individual garbage collection costs will decrease as a result of the efficiencies of
having only one company service a neighborhood vs. five separate companies.
SOME OTHER FACTORS
Mailing Address
It will remain “Savannah”
Governance Body
I have heard several residents indicate that we will create a huge bureaucracy by
creating our own city government. That is incorrect. Assuming that we outsource Police
service which is our preferred alternative, there are only 5 full time employees in the
proposed City government, plus several part time helpers. The total estimated payroll
(including benefits) is roughly $500,000. Add in other expenses such as office space,
outside audit & legal, information technology/computer services, consulting, Mayor &
City Council support, and the total governance expense is slightly more than $1 million.
Adding in functions such as zoning, Municipal Court, etc., our expenses will be slightly
less than $1.5 million, and as noted above, our share of the “Other” County Special
Services noted above for the same functions total $1.8 million. Bottom line, our
proposed costs as an incorporated city are $.3 Million less costly.
Future Taxes
A logical question based upon everything I have stated above is “How come we are not
proposing a bigger ‘City’ tax decrease vs. the 17% reduction in the proposal”? Reasons
are as follows:
• We will have start up costs approximating $1 million.
• The Study Committee has recommended higher levels of service to be provided.
Examples, more road maintenance/mowing, and a slight increase in police service.
• Most importantly, the Incorporation Committee has taken a very conservative
approach by including contingencies in the early years, and “banking” savings in the
first few years for a Capital Reserve Fund.
The ultimate decision for the amount of tax reductions, reserves, etc. will be made by
the elected City of Skidaway Island Council & Mayor. A 17% reduction in City Taxes,
plus the elimination of the annual $85 Solid Waste fee is guaranteed since it is written
into the Legislation approving our right to vote on Incorporation (combined, the 17%
plus $85 reductions are roughly a 25% reduction to the average taxpayer SSD/City
taxes currently paid). I personally believe that by 2022/23, our City Taxes will be at
least 50% less than the County Special Services District (SSD) taxes we would be
paying at the time if we remain unincorporated. As a clarifying note, these reductions
only apply to the City (or SSD Portion) of your Property Tax Bill—Taxes associated with
Schools, General County Fund, and Rapid Transit remain the same whether we are
incorporated as a city, or unincorporated. On your 2018 Property Tax Bill, the SSD
portion was roughly 14% of your property tax payment.
Stephens Day Exemption
There has been a lot of misinformation circulating on the island that Incorporation will
negatively impact our Stephens Day Exemption—totally false—there will be NO impact
to our Stephens Day Exemptions.
Consolidation
Lastly, let me discuss a misunderstood topic referred to as “Consolidation”. Last year,
there was a very active effort underway by senior Georgia State Legislators from
Chatham County along with the Savannah Chamber of Commerce to put consolidating
the unincorporated communities in Chatham County with the City of Savannah to a
vote. Fortunately, it failed, never got to a vote, and it appears to be off the table at this
time. I stated “fortunately” because if it were taken to a vote and passed, (a) it would
have resulted in a sizable tax increase for Skidaway Island (City of Savannah millage
rate for SSD like services is 13 points vs. our proposed 4 points), and (b) Savannah’s
population is 140,000 vs. the unincorporated communities of 90,000 which would give
the City of Savannah a huge voting advantage. Bottom line, if we vote to Incorporate,
we will have Veto rights; i.e., we alone have to vote YES to make consolidation happen;
said another way, if we vote to incorporate as a City, and we vote NO to consolidation
(or annexation), it does not happen. I have heard several residents state that if we vote
NO this time around on Incorporation , no problem since we can bring it up for a vote at
a later time. That is impractical since we would have to go through another 2 1/2 to 3
year cycle involving another required feasibility study plus receive approval by the
Georgia Legislature to even conduct a vote.
One final note on a tangential issue is that the “Islands” (Wilmington, White Marsh,
Talahi, and Oatland) will probably vote to Incorporate, and become one city, in the near
future, and if approved, it would leave Skidaway in an awkward position.
---------------------------------
Bottom line, their are huge financial advantages to all residents on Skidaway Island if
we incorporate and become the City of Skidaway Island. Quite frankly, in my opinion,
we should have incorporated 20 years ago.
This is a significant opportunity for the residents of Skidaway Island, and I encourage all
of you to take the time to vote on this issue—it is very important to our future. As I have
mentioned previously, smaller communities (and incorporated cities) such as
Thunderbolt, Vernonburg, etc. have found it to be the right way to govern their local
services and affairs.
If you have any questions, feel free to email me bmichna@earthlink.net
Thanks for your time, Bob Michna
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment