Jesus, Obama, Stop Spending My Money!

Since 1973 Social Security has included a cost-of-living raise for those collecting, based on cost of living increases. Every year until this year, there has been a cost-of-living adjustment.

This year we experienced deflation of about one percent. It would seem reasonable to this elderly-killer that social security should be decreased. And if you are not an elderly-killer you might say “leave it alone.”

The Anointed one, Jesus Obama, decided to give the elderly a raise anyway. After all, they are pinching every penny. Bad idea per se but made worse considering that given the deflation they are pinching those pennies a bit softer.

I wonder why he would do this. Oh, wait! I know! He has lost support of the elderly and AARP is losing members by the thousands because of that organization’s support of health care destruction, called “reform” by the caring and compassionate.

In other words, he is using my money to buy back some of the votes he has lost over this particular issue. Why should I be surprised? He has used my money to bail out ill-advised homeowners, protect United Auto Worker wages and benefits at $72.00 per hour and to bail out states who were (and still are) criminally irresponsible (such as my own), spending themselves in to fiscal oblivion.

Obama loathes all values most of us grew up with, including a solid work ethic, a sense of personal responsibility and inventiveness – creativity. His disdain for law and contract is perfect. If there were a way to keep my dollars from him and his fascist amigos Pelosi, Reid, Dodd and Frank, I would do so; the likelihood that I will enjoy the fruits of my labor and pass to my kids those I do not enjoy, are badly and forever diminished.

I do not think of myself as particularly insightful but during the campaign when Obama spoke (without interrogation by a friendly press) of "hope" and "change" I knew what he meant. I only hope others who did not begin to recognize and become uncomfortable with his hatred of this country.

&*&*&*&*&*&

AN OPEN LETTER TO A CONFUSED CITY of SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL

Before I get to the main topic, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Your resolution against I-1033 demonstrates your lack of resolve to contain city finances. The initiative is viable. Inflation plus population growth is a very reasonable base on which to build future budgets. I attended the candidates forum and to differing degrees most of you (your opponents) held the banners of “fiscal responsibility” and “minimum burden” on the taxpayer. Then you encourage the defeat of an initiative that would have provided over-sight for just that position.

I-1033, its predecessors and successors are the 4th branch of government. No elected official or body, including the state supreme court, believes that the taxpayers have any amount of protection. Mr. Eyman’s initiatives provide that protection and what you are trying to do is guard your “right” to spend other peoples’ money.

Shame on you. None of you got my vote.


SHERIFF’S CONTRACT

I had hoped to be present to hear the public discussion of the consultant’s report discussed but must be in Olympia on business so I hope there is room for this to be included in your “public comment” files. You are free to read or distribute this letter without restriction.

Even Mr. Grafos, whose campaign slogan is “no more business as usual” gushes over this contract. It is NOT good for the taxpayers. You folks, during the candidates’ forum talked about salaries of city employees. It is not a leap to consider the 106 FTE’s of the sheriff’s office a part of this city’s salary base and yet not one of you mentioned that both the numbers of employees (the target of what I call a “roast” in the consultant’s report) and the salaries are inflated.

Consider as tenets the following as this contract and the consultant’s report is discussed:

1) Neither the sheriff’s contract nor any other city service is an employment program; these contracts and employed positions exist to provide service only.

2) Every dollar you take (and you do, by force of law) from the taxpayer to give to expensive contracts and employees, injures the giver. Thus, it your OBLIGATION to purchase all services at least cost.

3) High quality law enforcement is not guaranteed by contracts of exorbitant cost.

4) Many sections of the consultant’s report indicate we do not get a good deal and in fact the discussion of the “should the city elect to form its own police force” indicates we can save one million dollars each year.

5) If the best decision – in terms of cost and service to the taxpayers – is to retain the sheriff’s office by contract then heed the report which offers many suggestions for improved “linkage” of the staff to the community. Divorce these employees from the sheriff’s office.

I have often asked a question to which I have yet to receive a sensible answer. The contractor’s report suggests that we can run an operation with about 15 – 20 fewer staff than we procure under the contract. Assume we were not incorporated. How many deputies would typically be assigned to our area. Then, under contract why would we procure an entire force instead of that entire force less the number of deputies that would normally be assigned to our city limits?

Whether or not the city starts its own police department, an active reserve force should be a requirement of the contract. I know union deputies don’t like volunteers. Life is tough. Recruit, train, treat them with respect and use them. Development and retention of a reserve force should be an element in the performance evaluation of every person employed by the sheriff’s office to serve the city.

If the city seriously considers moving away from the contract, consider a contract with a private operation. Costs will be less and there will be no contributions to LEOFF, another substantial savings. This city contracts for other services; there is no reason to not contract with a private company for law enforcement.

In other words, to quote Dean Grafos (who did not mean it): “No more business as usual.” Give the taxpayers a break, not the unions and other special interests. I cannot fathom paying a lieutenant $135,000 per year. How in the hell did that happen? This county is badly run and if reflects unfavorably on a council “dedicated to efficiency and low cost” to buy services from a horribly managed county.

Sincerely,


John M. Tyson
611 N Sargent Road
Spokane Valley, WA 99212