This page was last updated on April 18, 2012.
Job priorities need reassessed?; Dan Sainovich; Beaver County Times; April 15, 2012.
Confusion I had dealing with “Dan/Danny Sainovich” letters from Industry/Ohioville is over. After he read an April 2011 critique of one of his letters, Mr. Sainovich was kind enough to clear things up. In an e-mail note, Mr. Sainovich wrote, “I thought I would shed some light on Dan vs Danny Sainovich. Danny is my father and we both live in Ohioville. His name is Danny and mine is Dan - you are correct that we do have opposite views on politics. Actually there is no jr or sr but we have come to an agreement to use jr and sr so that folks don’t get us mixed up.”
Previous critiques of Mr. Sainovich’s letters are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Mr. Sainovich is an administrative organizer for SEIU District 1199P. According to its 2010 LM-2 report, SEIU National Headquarters spent over $55 million for “Political Activities and Lobbying.” In 2008 and 2006, that figure was $67 million and $27 million, respectively.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Job creation and preservation are high on the priority list of local, state and federal level politicians for the most part. At times, the focus does wander to legislate social issues, but then back to jobs.
“When the plan came out to close the 911th Airlift Wing in Moon Township and eliminate approximately 300 civilian jobs and 1,100 military positions at the base every politician was ‘activated’ to save these jobs. One article said that they were going to ask for President Obama’s intervention to prevent the closure.”
[RWC] The decision should be based solely on what makes the most military and economic sense, period. Doing anything else diminishes national security. The purpose of our military bases is national defense, not employment, economic impact, et cetera.
“Conversely, how many teachers, teachers aides, policeman, fireman, nurses and other public services positions have been cut state and nationwide? Where is the outrage and concern? The Blackhawk School Board recently looked at eliminating drivers education and agri-science classes. How many school districts have gone to half-day kindergarten classes?”
[RWC] These are mostly local responsibilities, not federal or even state. For the most part, there’s nothing to stop municipalities from spending as much as they want as long as the revenue comes from local taxpayers.
“Where was the universal outrage when Horsehead Corp. announced they were closing the plant in Potter Township? I do know that the county and local politicians actively legislated to keep Horsehead here.”
[RWC] Perhaps it’s because we can force a military base to remain active via “outrage” and politics, but can’t do the same for a private enterprise. In any case, the track record for “bribed” businesses is not good, even before the “goodies” run out. Among recent failures were the taxpayer-subsidized Lazarus and Lord & Taylor department stores in downtown Pittsburgh. When a department-store company won’t build a store in a given location with its own money, most of us would pay attention. Unfortunately that wasn’t the case for government officials spending someone else’s money (our taxes). Lazarus closed after barely five years and Lord & Taylor closed in November 2004. In both cases, tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted. Developer Millcraft Industries bought the Lazarus Building (now Piatt Place) and it currently houses condominiums and office/retail space. Government is still throwing taxpayer dollars at the building, however, via 10-year property-tax abatements for residents. The Lord & Taylor Building (aka Mellon National Bank Building) remains vacant.
By “legislated to keep Horsehead here,” Mr. Sainovich means bribes (aka “economic incentives”) for which you and I would pay. If our normal economic environment is not enough to attract/keep businesses, the answer is to address the environment so everyone benefits, not just those businesses who “squeak” the most or who have political clout.
“People have been clamoring for reduced federal spending, but as long as the cuts are not in my backyard, it’s okay. Again, I ask if our priorities are misplaced?”
[RWC] While Mr. Sainovich’s “not in my backyard” assertion is true for too many of us, he failed to note the flipside. Of those who oppose spending cuts and/or clamor for more spending, most appear to expect someone else (businesses, “the rich,” and so on) to pay and/or want to fund the spending by siphoning money from constitutionally-mandated federal responsibilities. Remember, we’re not running federal deficits because of spending on constitutionally-mandated federal responsibilities like national defense. We’re in this mess because of the aggregate spending on extra-constitutional/unconstitutional programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Socialist Security, welfare, Earned Income Tax Credit, and on and on and on.
Stating what should be obvious, employing/paying for “teachers, teachers aides, policeman, fireman, nurses and other public services positions” is not a constitutional responsibility of the federal government. If locals refuse to pay for what they want, why on Earth should someone else pay?
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.