Tag Archives: Senator

Native Hawaiians and Fed Contracting Preferences

If you have a strong stomach for pork and no family history of high blood pressure, I highly recommend the latest article in Hawaii Reporter on federal contract preferences for Native Hawaiian companies. If you live in a cave without access to television or radio (which might make me wonder how you’re reading this blog), you’ll even be surprised to see that Senator Inouye figures heavily in the awarding of lucrative federal contracts to Native Hawaiian-owned businesses.  If nothing else, the article demonstrates that the stereotype of Native Hawaiian businesses as struggling shoestring operations desperately in need of help is rather ludicrous.  Unless one is so fortunate as to consider $738 million over ten years mere pocket change.  Some highlights from the article:

A handful of Native Hawaiian-owned companies used federal contracting preferences authored by U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-HI, to land some $500 million in non-bid or reduced competition government work since 2005, according to federal purchasing records.

Officials, employees and partners of many of the same companies donated nearly $100,000 during the same period to the Inouye election campaign and $100,000 more to other members of Hawaii’s congressional delegation, files of the Federal Election Commission show.

. . . .

One of the most successful local companies to land federal contracts is Akimeka Technologies, LLC.

From 2005 to 2010, Akimeka received some $67 million in federal contracts, according to two U.S. government procurement websites.

The company that changed its name this year to Ke’aki Technologies (http://www.keakitech.com/) is now part of a joint business venture called Manu Kai.

Last year, Manu Kai received a $738 million, 10-year contract award from the U.S. Navy to support base operations at the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai.

. . . .

Officers and employees of Akimeka/Ke’aki donated $57,500 since 2005 to the political campaigns of Inouye and other prominent Hawaii Democratic politicians, including former Congressman and now-Governor Neil Abercrombie and Congresswoman-elect Colleen Hanabusa.

. . . .

None of the NHO subsidiaries operating here that have received federal contracts is willing to discuss in detail the amount of money they have dedicated to improving the lives of Native Hawaiians.  Few even responded to requests for such information.

David Cooper, president of The Hana Group, Inc. http://www.thehanagroup.com and HBC Management Services, Inc., http://www.thehanagroup.com/ two NHO subsidiaries that have received some $53 million in federal contracts since 2005, said the companies provide financial support to their non-profit parent, Pacific American Foundation.

Organizing Against Reorganization

I am not a Native Hawaiian, nor do I play one on TV.  But, let’s say for the sake of argument that there was a proposal to create a new tribal government for us Hapa Filipinos.  There’s one or two of us in the islands, right?  And now, let’s say that there was a substantial trust and land value tied up in the issue.  (I know, I know.  This part may be hard to imagine, given that many of us have grandfathers who consider the family trust to exist in a coffee can in the sock drawer, but this is a hypothetical exercise.  I have a point, after all–I’m just kinda slow getting there.)  Anyway, being that I’ve never been in a room of more than two Filipino women who didn’t have an opinion on anything from the quality of the homily at church on Sunday to the proper way to make lumpia, I have trouble imagining that there wouldn’t be a strong push for public comment on the proposed Filipino reorganization.

So I find it hard to understand why we haven’t had opportunity for comment on the Akaka Bill yet.  This is the most transformative piece of legislation to hit Hawaii since we became a state.  (Heck, some people might say since the revolution.)  And yet, there’s no push for public hearings on it?  Well–let’s be fair here.  There certainly is a push for public hearings on the part of the public.  Strangely, the politicians involved seem to be more interested in keeping all the wheeling, dealing, and negotiations at a more exclusive level.  And if that’s not enough of an argument for hearings, I don’t know what is.

Therefore, even though I’m not the world’s biggest fan of online petitions (No, I am not going to stop watching TV today in order to send a message to Big Oil.  Burn Notice is on tonight, for goodness sakes!), I think that this one is a worthy one.  It’s a call to stop the Akaka Bill until the people of Hawaii (as well as Native Hawaiians in other parts of the country) get their opportunity to weigh in on the matter.  So click on this link and make your voice heard in the fight to  . . . um . . . make your voice heard.

Can You Hear Me Now?

Hawaii’s illustrious Senators, Inouye and Akaka, have called for public hearings on the vitally important matter of whether the postal service should reduce delivery to five days a week.

Clearly, they have their fingers on the pulse of those issues that are deeply concerning to Hawaiians.  With economic woes galore and simmering tensions over different social and cultural issues, it’s high time someone came along and finally confronted the issue of 5-day-a-week mail delivery.  Someone get those Senators their Profiles in Courage awards!

After all, what else could they possibly want to hold public hearings about?  It’s not like either of them has sponsored legislation that will completely change the political, economic, and cultural face of the Islands and upend the way that minority and indigenous groups are defined.

Ahem.

When it gets right down to it, it’s ludicrous (considering exactly how significant the Akaka Bill is to Hawaii) that neither of our Senators have called for public hearings on its impact.  Or even just to learn about how we regular folk feel about it and answer the (obvious) questions it raises.  What are they afraid of?  Do they just not want discussion and open debate on the merits of Akaka?  Kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

This Grade Is All Business

For the longest time, the small businesspeople of Hawaii have comforted each other with rueful laughs and their club’s secret motto: “Hawaii: Live in paradise, work in hell.”  To put it mildly, Hawaii has not traditionally had the most business-friendly reputation.  At least not for the non-Doles and non-Hiltons among us.  And while some progress is being made (including a slight awareness that it isn’t necessary to completely handcuff small businesses from their inception and the election of more business-friendly politicians), there’s still a general lack on knowledge about how the Hawaii Legislature helps and hurts small business in Hawaii.  (And don’t disregard the importance of small business on the economy.  There are more than 100,000 small businesses in Hawaii bringing in over $2-3 billion in income annually (according to the Small Business Administration).

Enter PAYCHECKS Hawaii, a non-profit and non-partisan initiative of Smart Business Hawaii, whose unenviable job it is to rate all of Hawaii’s legislators on their business savvy.  The Paychecks ratings are based upon a combination of key votes (especially tax and fee increases); efforts to decrease or increase spending and the size of government; actions regarding employer mandates and labor bills (from worker’s comp to union issues and so on); conduct in hearings, responsiveness, and accessibility; and sponsorship/advocacy for initiatives to help the business climate.  Paychecks has just released its ratings for the most recent legislative session, and it looks like quite a few of Hawaii’s legislators need a remedial education in business and helping the economy.  Every legislator was given a grade from 1(the best) to 5(the worst).  So first the good news:

In the Hawaii Senate, two Senators got the highest score–Fred Hemmings and Sam Slom.  (Both Republicans.  Two Democrats, however, got the next highest score of “2”–Robert Bunda and Josh Green.)

In the House, the highest ratings went to Lynn Berbano Finnegan (R), Barbara Marumoto (R), and Kymberly Marcos Pyne (R).  Scoring the second best rating were Tom Brower (D), Corinne Ching (R), Cynthia Thielen (R), and Gene Ward (R)

And now the bad news.  There were so many second-worst “4” scores that listing them here would make this more like a roll call of the Legislature than a blog entry.  So let’s go with a simple Hall of Shame.

Scoring a worst score of “5” in the Senate were Gary Hooser (D) and Dwight Takamine (D).

And the dreaded “5”s in the House went to Michael Magaoay (D), Hermina Morita (D), Blake Oshiro (D), Marcus Oshiro (D), Calvin Say (D), and Roy Takumi (D).

Not good.  Maybe it’s time we had a few of them stay after school and write, “I will not handicap Hawaii’s economic future,” on the blackboard until it sinks in.

The Hawaii Legislature–Working for you. Sort of.

How often do you get to see an actual politician explain how counter-productive and useless this legislative session was?  Not very often, that’s for sure.  It requires a degree of honesty that (let’s face it) is not exactly plentiful among those with one finger in the prevailing political winds.  And that’s why, if you want a real rundown of the accomplishments (or lack thereof) of the Hawaii Legislature this year, you definitely want to watch Hawaii Senator Sam Slom’s legislative round-up.  It’s certainly worth viewing in its entirety, but I’ll hit the highlights for you:

Downsides to this Legislative Session: They balanced the budget only by raising taxes and fees, raided the hurricane relief safety net to try to prop up the teacher’s union and the state school system (which isn’t exactly reaching new heights in education . . . except to hit a national record for shortest school year), and generally handicapped business and enterprise in the Islands.

Accomplishments of this Legislative Session: Feel-good bills about sharks and monk seals.

You know, some people might question a legislative session that only lasts a few months, but I’m starting to be grateful that the window to really foul things up is so small.

Census Nonsense

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.