Saturday, May 28, 2011

The democratian's "demonstrated need" scam.

In today's effort at self-flagellating moralizing, the democratian once again tells us how stupid it is to bring local government to heel.
Cheers: To county commissioners for putting an end to the home rule charter process this year.Inspecting methods of government is always a good idea, but there was no demonstrated need to elect a slate of freeholders to, in essence, draft a county charter that would replace the current system. A series of meetings produced no discernible public interest in the process outside of the same handful of activists who have promoted a county charter for years, only to lose at the polls. Better to save the staff time and the estimated $100,000 it would cost to sponsor an election.
Here, let me decode this:

"We at the local rag are absolutely terrified at the possibility that actual political power would be returned to the people of this county.

Why, the very idea that all the things we're ramming down their throats would have to be approved by by the people scares the crap out of us, and the democrats we answer to, because we already know that in fact, the people do not want another bridge when the one we have actually works; that they don't want loot rail, and they damned sure don't want that ballpark that they will have to pay for... but can never use."

The irony of these clowns wanting to bury us in billions of dollars of generational debt while expressing faux concern over the wildly exaggerated claim of $100,000 in expense goes to the heart of the matter.

They want NOTHING to stand in the way of their agenda, again proving their democrat roots, because bizarrely enough, democrats do everything they can to silence the people while everyone else does all they can to hear that voice.

When it comes to their bizarre excuse for this position, the "no demonstrated need" gag,
Well, there's "no demonstrated need" for light rail. There's "no demonstrated need for" for replacing a perfectly good, serviceable and paid for bridge. There's "no demonstrated need for" a ballpark.

There's "no demonstrated need" for so many things you want us to spend our money on, money that you won't have to spend.

Your use of the "demonstrated need" argument under those circumstances seems to speak to a continuing motive of many years duration to silence the people of this community.

Our local government at both the city and county level is completely out of touch with the people. This was the only way to hold them accountable before the did more terrible damage to our economy at our expense.

Once again, you are trumpeting the local democrat party line to a "t." Perhaps a name change is in order? I'm sure they wouldn't mind if you called yourselves the "Clark County Democrat?"
The democrat position on this issue, ably demonstrated by yet another fringe-leftist former democratian editorial page editor (Much like the current neo-communist that has the job) says this:

Proposed changes in county charter could be awful

Clark County’s government structure is somewhat antique and outdated. A system invented to manage road construction and not much else in the way of governance clanks along clumsily in a high-speed era of complex and varied civic action.

Streamlining and modernizing the machine appeals to the progressive psyche, but the folks who have convinced the Board of Clark County Commissioners to consider adopting a new county charter have other agenda priorities.

They hope to give rural interests dominance over urban values. They suppose they can make it harder for county government to raise and spend money on social problems and infrastructure capital.

They are far away from achieving their goals, but inattention from thoughtful citizens could ease their path.

Without much evident public support, the charter-change advocates have persuaded the county commissioners to start the ball rolling toward charter change for the third time in recent history. In January the board formally adopted a resolution to consider a move from the present form of government to something different.

Different how? That depends entirely on a panel of elected freeholders and how ably they can sell their program.

So far the county commissioners have ordained that, should the charter process go forward, each of the three commissioner districts will be represented by five freeholders who would be elected at the Nov. 8 general election. Any registered voter would be qualified to seek election to the board of freeholders. Upon their election the freeholders would establish a schedule of hearings and meetings for the consideration of what might be included in a new county charter. Upon a majority vote by the freeholders, the Board of Clark County Commissioners would be obliged by tradition if not certainly by law to lay the proposed charter before the electorate.
There you have it.

The democratian knows they can't use this word for word, but their motivation in working to kill this deal is the same as the democrat party's, which is the same as Stuart's and Boldt's.  Their fellow democrats don't want their agenda questioned, and they certainly don't want even the possibility of the people derailing their plans to bury us in debt questioned by an electorate that rightfully distrusts them and cannot afford them.

So jeers to the provably leftist rag that continues to claim they're fair and unbiased... which we all know to be an outright lie.

No comments: