Uncategorized

Isn’t That Special

Leave a comment

Ah, the “special interest.”  It’s every politician’s favorite bogeyman.  So convenient as a target for political diatribe–not least of all because it’s so vague.  After all, what is a “special interest” really?  When it comes right down to it, it’s a group with political currency that you don’t particularly care for.  After all, the ones you like are “legitimate and necessary issues or expenditures.”

Witness Rep. Oshiro’s recent opinion article in the Advertiser (on April 20th, 2010).  In it, Rep. Oshiro talks about the difficulties of the budget process and blames special interests for the “hard decisions” that are part of that process, especially when so many of those aforementioned special interests benefit from tax credits or tax exemptions.  Not to be insensitive or anything, but it’s not like there’s all that much to being a legislator.  (Believe me, anyone who has watched C-SPAN for more than 10 minutes and retained consciousness throughout would agree.)  So pardon me for not being overcome with sympathy over the difficulties of occasionally having to make a hard budgetary decision.  We regular folks do that every day.  It’s called, “trying to get by.”  Only when we mess up, we don’t get to make exculpatory speeches about it.  Instead, we get our electricity disconnected or the car repossessed.  So yeah, we elected you all to make the hard decisions.  Make them.

But that’s not actually the worst part.  After all, “special interests” are just the ones you feel don’t deserve any financial help or breaks.  So some politicians would call businesses that get incentives to stay in Hawaii and employ people “special interests.”  Others would say that political groups or specific classes of citizens (including those that get a lot of government funding) are special interests.  And some might point out that the legislature gave itself a raise, making it one of the special-est interests of all.

What would be nice (other than being able to vote myself a raise–what a great gig that is) is if our representatives stopped trying to manipulate us with their have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too talk about special interests and instead were more honest about where our money was going.  Because I may not be that special, but that’s where my interest really is.

Akaka Bill

How Big is Bigger and Who Stands to Gain?

1 Comment

The CEO of OHA, Clyde Namuo, makes remarks in the Honolulu Advertiser of 4/15/10 addressing David Shapiro’s regular column of 4/12/10 opining that Shapiro made some “good observations” but “overlooks the bigger issue of why federal recognition makes sense for Native Hawaiians and for all in Hawaii, in the first place”. He follows that with mostly platitudes, but specifically mentions land, rights and resources “owed” a new Akaka Tribe.

Shapiro, on the other hand, discusses the secret, closed door method used in DC to make the latest changes before they were sprung on then Representative Abercrombie, the Governor, and virtually everyone else, just before the House vote. His observations then turn even darker. Here are some quotes:

“ The Akaka bill would change life in Hawaii in profound ways and confer enormous power on a relative few, but there has been little clear explaination….” Senators Inouye and Akaka “are basicly saying ‘Trust Us’ which many are unwilling to accept on a matter with such enormous impact on local life and so much opportunity for political mischief”

Here are my questions for readers:

Which person outlines the bigger issue?

Which of these two stands to gain power, money, etc if the Akaka bill becomes law?

The best course of action at this time is to stop all consideration and action at this time in the US Senate until extensive educational hearings are held in Hawaii so our people can evaluate and judge what the federal government is planning to do to us or for us and what we think of it. For those of you who like that idea, call an elected official and propose such.

Uncategorized

Save the Bulletin!

Leave a comment

I confess that I’ve always kind of liked the Honolulu Star-Bulletin the best.  Nothing against the Advertiser, but I always felt like there was a little less editorial bias at the Bulletin.  And also there’s just something about the name.  “Star-Bulletin.”  It sounds dreamy, but newsy.  Just what I want out of a Hawaii newspaper.  (Well, that and good, fair news coverage of course.)

But the Bulletin is actually in danger of shutting down–maybe even as soon as next week.  Why is this bad news?  Well, on a practical level, that means that hundreds of Hawaiians are in danger of losing their jobs.  And that stinks no matter how you cut it.  But beyond that, losing the Star-Bulletin will make Honolulu a one-newspaper town.  And if you want to encourage fair, responsible, and hard-hitting reporting, a little competition is important.  The internet may have changed news forever in letting people choose to get their news from a source they trust, but without the journalists on the ground, it gets harder and harder to find good information.  (And this goes double for the outer islands.  Feel a little overlooked now?  Imagine how much worse that can be with only one major paper in Hawaii’s capitol to cover your news and concerns.)

It just so happens that there are two highly-respected local figures who have put forth a bid to buy the Star Bulletin–State Senator Sam Slom and Hawaii Reporter’s Malia Zimmerman.  I won’t bore you all with their bonafides, but believe me when I say that if you’re local and wish that there was a Hawaii newspaper run by people who lived here, understood Hawaii, understood our concerns, and would promote accurate and unbiased reporting, then it would be hard to do better than these two. (And for all y’all on the outer islands, take note that part of their plan for the Star-Bulletin, should their bid succeed, is to expand its coverage of the outer islands and make it less Oahu-centric.)

As to why that matters to those of us concerned about transparency and fiscal responsibility?  Well, it should be obvious that if we want to ensure an independent voice in the community for issues like this, we need to save the Star-Bulletin.

(Want to learn more?  Go to http://www.savehawaiinews.com.)

Uncategorized

An Issue with OHA’s Commentary in the Advertiser

Leave a comment

In his Honolulu Advertiserletter of April 15, OHA administrator Clyde Namuo talks about “reestablishing self-determination and self-governance for Native Hawaiian people.”  But the Hawaiian Kingdom was not a “Native Hawaiian” government.  Most cabinet ministers, nearly all department heads, and about 1/4 of the Legislature were Caucasians.  Thousands of people with zero native blood, including Asians, were native-born or naturalized subjects of the Kingdom.

Taxes

Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself (& end up looking foolish)

Leave a comment

With tax day looming tomorrow, how about something that reminds us of how much we all loathe the IRS and the politics of taxation?  (Not you–IRS employee who reads this blog and could conceivably audit me.  I think you’re a fine, upstanding person, a great dancer, and have fabulous hair.  I’m talking about a completely different IRS person who would never be so cool as to be reading this.)

For awhile now, candidates for office who have wanted to demonstrate their commitment to not taxing us into oblivion have signed the ATR (Americans for Tax Reform) Tax Pledge, the gist of which is that the candidate promises to oppose any net increase in taxes, corporate or personal.  (I know, I know.  The horror!  Why, with a philosophy like that, one might leap to the conclusion that the candidate in question wasn’t in favor of driving away business and could even want to improve the economy.  What will those crazy fiscal conservatives come up with next?)

Well, in a move so disingenuous that I wouldn’t be surprised if their pants were actually on fire while they did this, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee started running an attack ad against Charles Djou (a Republican running for Congress in Hawaii’s 1st District) based on his pledge.  Of course, they couldn’t claim that Djou was opposed to higher taxes.  (Well, they could, but this would tend to undermine their efforts to not get him elected.)  So instead they twisted his anti-tax pledge into a claim that he supported tax breaks for companies moving jobs overseas.  As FactCheck.org explains, this is a complete misrepresentation of the anti-tax pledge that can only be explained by political sneakiness or crack addiction.  (Ok, I added the part about sneakiness and crack.  But FactCheck really did take the DCCC to task for the blatant misrepresentation of Djou, which, in this time of high unemployment, amounts to little more than a smear tactic.)

So let that be a reminder of a few things:

Don’t be swayed by outrageous claims when it comes to where the candidates stand on important economic issues.  Tax issues are almost always more complicated than can be explained in a 30 second commercial.  And falling for tactics like the DCCC tried with Djou will just teach politicians that making pledges isn’t worth the fallout.

While we can all agree that the employees of the IRS are a lovely group of people who should each individually get to date Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie, April 15th still stinks.

Transparency

Transparency Shouldn’t Have “Annoyance” Exceptions

Leave a comment

Hawaii Reporter currently has a good summary of the effort to pass a law that would allow the Hawaii Department of Health to ignore requests for the President’s birth certificate.  (As you can imagine, there have been quite a few requests, and the DOH claims that it has become a waste of staff resources.)

Well, cry me a river.

A word of explanation: I once worked in a government FOIA office–for the Army as it so happened.  This was not long after two extremely unpopular Army decisions–the adoption of the Ranger beret for all soldiers and the awarding of the “Army of One” contract.  To say that we were besieged by requests for information about both of these things was an understatement.  Let’s just say that a large section of America was not at all happy about it and made that very clear as they sought more information about the decision process.

And “vexatious” requesters?  Well, I challenge the DOH to beat some of the doozies I encountered.  Processing something so simple and straightforward as a request for information about the microchips implanted by the Army in everyone’s brains was an easy day.

But I do have a point here–it didn’t matter what we in the FOIA office thought about the legitimacy of the requests we got.  We processed them.  Because that is the right thing to do.  Because an open and transparent government needs to treat all requests with respect–not just the ones that don’t annoy us.  And when we had to deal with the same question over and over and over and over again (like the beret), we did the logical thing–we made everything as open and easily available as possible and then streamlined the response process so that it didn’t use up too many of our resources.  (Hint to the DOH–Copy machines.  Use them.)  Did we gripe in the lunch room?  Sure.  But we never would have dreamed that someone would ever try to create a legal exception to the principle of transparency just out of annoyance.

As to why this is all important to the Native Hawaiian project–well, it should be obvious.  This is not a good precedent to set–especially in a state government that has made a lot of promises about sunshine and openness, but hasn’t always followed through.  If the legislature can carve out one exception to transparency policy out of reasons that amount to little more than bureaucratic irritation, then there’s not much to stop them from deciding that there are plenty of other things that they don’t much care to share with the public.

Making transparency a pick-and-choose option in the hands of bureaucrats violates the principle of open government and sets us on a slippery slope.

Uncategorized

Census Nonsense

Leave a comment

Like most everyone else, I have been feeling the mild irritation that comes with getting a long questionnaire from the government accompanied by vague threats and even vaguer promises about the importance of filling it out.  Apparently, we should all be eager to take advantage of this chance to get “our fair share.”

Has it really come to that?

Are we so greedy, so eager to get our share of the government pie that the advertising wizards behind this year’s census marketing decided that a naked appeal to greed, and social/cultural divisions was the best motivator to use?  Especially in light of the fact that the “fair share” here is really the fair share of my own tax dollars.

Call me cynical if you must, but my experience hasn’t let me to believe that a lot of those tax dollars are coming back to me.  Especially in light of recent legislative efforts.  So when I see the “fair share” ads, all I can think of is the government urging people to fill out their census so they can be certain to get some of my money.

And when we throw race into the equation, it gets even more complicated.

Because (as this site makes so abundantly clear) race and ethnicity and monetary “fair share” is almost an industry in this country.  And the net effect is not to bring us together, but to deepen racial divisions and resentments.

I highly recommend Sam Slom’s recent article about the census in the Hawaii Reporter about the census.  As Senator Slom points out, the census was originally about the reapportionment of the US House of Representatives.  Not the all-out entitlement grab that it seems to have become.  And by standing by and allowing it to be a more and more intrusive process, we’re basically condoning it.  No, I’m not advocating refusing to fill out your census form.  But I think that everyone who has an issue with big, intrusive government and with the business of federal entitlements and grievances should begin asking questions of their elected representatives about the appropriateness of the ever-expanding census.

And don’t even get me started on what it costs.

Uncategorized

Can a Governor Be Beyond the Law?

Leave a comment

Our Lt. Governor, Duke Aiona has stated his support for the Akaka bill and urged its passage despite the many reservations held by others in the administration and among the people of Hawaii.

It’s not that we don’t understand the sentiment behind the support–we love Hawaii.  We recognize the richness of Hawaiian culture and sympathize with the desire to protect it and support Native Hawaiians.  But (as our grants database clearly shows) intentions are one thing . . . practice is another.  We’ve seen hundreds of millions of dollars spent to help Native Hawaiians–and evidently to little effect, from the picture painted by most Akaka supporters. Despite that, outreach to Native Hawaiians is practically its own industry in the Aloha State.

An even more interesting consideration . . . Lt. Governor Aiona (who is running for Governor, of course) could be part of the new Native Hawaiian tribe created by the Akaka Bill.  That means that he would be subject to different tax schemes, different justice–in essence, different law than the vast majority of his constituents.  (If he should win, that is.)  While Aiona is busy trumpeting his support for the Akaka bill, it would be good to for him to address the glaring questions of how his membership in an Akaka-based tribe would affect his governance.

Grants, HHS

It’s Aloha Friday!

Leave a comment

The hardest part is finding the little surfboard.
The hardest part is finding the little surfboard.

So it’s Aloha Friday.  It seems like we should start things with a picture of a surfing squirrel.  (With all credit to the Photoshop wizards that created it.)  Granted, this has very little to do with grants for Native Hawaiians, unless it’s possible to get funding from OHA for a surfing squirrel program.  (And I’m not saying that it’s not.)  But it can’t all be frustrating government spending programs and mysterious money trails.

So . . . have you been enjoying any Hawaiian language television lately?  Don’t look at me–I have vitally important Survivor episodes to catch up on.  Also, I can’t speak Hawaiian.  But I do hope that there are quite a few of you out there just pining to see some Hawaiian-language programming.  Because in 2009, the federal Department of Health and Human Services granted $494,104 to Aha Punana Leo for the development of Hawaiian language video content for broadcast.  Apparently, the ability to channel surf right past Hawaiian language programming while trying to find the UH game will help, “advance the social development of Native Hawaiians.”  Of course, here in Hawaii, we’re surrounded by examples and uses of the Hawaiian language, and I can’t see how it does much to offer practical help to the average Native Hawaiian, but who knows . . . maybe a few public access TV programs will do the trick.

Akaka Bill

Akaka Bill Report–Senate Version

Leave a comment

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee has now released its report on the Akaka Bill–the Senate version anyway, which (like just about every other piece of legislation coming from the Senate) is the more radical version.

Of course, if you’ve paid any attention to the arguments advanced in favor of the bill, you won’t need me to rehash them here.  With little to recommend it from a historical or constitutional standpoint, supporters of the bill inevitably fall back on the same old distortions of history and emotional appeals.  (For those who still think that the Apology Resolution wasn’t an advance move to forward this agenda and establish a biased view of Hawaiian history, you may now take a moment to admit your mistake.)

Needless to say, the bill shows no awareness of the concerns raised by Gov. Lingle or the people of Hawaii who are becoming aware of the innate problems of the Akaka Bill and fear that it will forever change our Islands for the worse.

There are, however, a few Senators who spoke to the considerable Constitutional concerns raised by the bill.  Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) concludes that the bill attempts to act outside of the powers of Congress, which is only permitted to recognize tribes, not create them based on race.  Senator McCain echoed those concerns, saying, “at its core, this bill embraces the dangerous concept of conferring special privileges on one racial group over  others.  This is unacceptable to me, and it is unacceptable, I am sure, to most other citizens of this Nation who agree that we must continue our struggle to become and remain one people–all equal, all Americans.”

It’s clear that there are Republicans in the Senate prepared to oppose this bill.  Now, we just need to help their colleagues understand why this bill is a bad idea.

For the full committee report, click here.