Dueling Governors is Federalism at Work

The dialog and comparisons between Governor O'Malley and Governor McDonnell published in the past few issues of the Examiner are very informative.

McDonnell, O'Malley spar over economy, spending

McDonnell, O'Malley differ on unions' rights

Each of the two state so may enact its own policies and the people can choose to vote with their feet if they prefer one set
of policies versus the other. We have two states in very comparable situations. Both sit adjacent to the nations capitol, both have a large presence of government jobs and related contracting fueling their respective economies, and of course both have very similar climates. The differences of the state lay rooted in policy. One has right-to-work legislation while the other imposes collective bargaining. One taxes at low rates, and the other taxes at high rates. One believes government spending serves as a major component to economic recovery, and the other believes that the private sector does that better than government. DC has it's own approaches to these issues, more similarly to our neighbor directly to the north. Let's
watch this ongoing comparison and judge them on results.

As a DC resident who is trying to decide where I may want to live on a more permanent basis one day, I'm watching this debate very closely. Which of the three areas will offer me the best environment as a resident, taxpayer, and recipient of government services? I asked Mayor Gray at a town hall several months ago what he's doing to make DC more competitive to bring new business investment into DC, citing how low DC ranks in business friendliness. To paraphrase his answer, he claims DC doesn't have to worry about attracting new business because it already offers a competitive environment. Decide for yourself if that addresses the issue.

Given all the evidence of budgets, deficits, and unemployment figures, Virginia is cleaning the other two's clock. This is federalism at work, where we can observe which ideas work the best in our nation, and our federal government should recognize that for this reason amongst others state governments should drive most public policy, not the federal government. If each respective party believes their ideas truly are the better ideas, they should embrace this concept to far
greater degree.

Answering Warren Buffet's Call to Mega-Tax the Mega-Wealthy

Warren Buffet has called for the government to drastically increase taxes on the very wealthy: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=3.

But does this really serve our nation's best interest?

Our country is better off with a few billion airs who can amass the kind of wealth to have enough power to challenge government. Government being the only big guy on the block isn't good for the country. When billion airs and large corporations spend money to confront the government over poorly crafted regulations that inhibit private sector growth, for example, we all benefit. I think of this is as class action law suit against government on behalf of the people, albeit corporations and billion airs very well do this for the purposes of self benefit, but that doesn't change the fact that society as a whole may benefit too. It's not realistic to take the position that if we don't like certain rules and regs, then we just vote them out. First, nobody can vote on one single issue. Second, waiting for an election cycle to exercise voting power may not offer the necessary expediency of addressing the issue.

All that said, as a catholic and a person who values charity, I do believe that billion airs have a moral responsibility to help improve the lives of those around them who are less fortunate. However, giving excessive amounts of dollars to a government to (a) pay out to the special interest, (b) funnel the money to those who carry their favor, and (c) take it's cut along the way resembles no real sense of morality. Neither does imposing this mandate on other billion airs resemble any sense of morality either.