Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Bruce Tytler Offers Expansive Vision of Economic Development

It's a short statement, but it provides a big wedge to open up the debate on economic development in the 24th District:

"Our problems simply cannot be solved by tax policy adjustments and changes; we need reforms on how our children are educated and our approach to job growth. Rising healthcare costs and the high price of heating oil have left behind those of our citizens on a fixed income."

This statement comes from a recent press release from Bruce Tytler's campaign. It's a brave, direct refutation of the tired old Republican lines about "tax relief" as an economic panacea for the 24th District, and for America.

Have you taken a moment to step back and notice that the Republicans have been doing so-called "tax relief" for years now, and it hasn't made a real difference? No matter how much Republicans cut away at the infrastructures of our communities, it doesn't make things better. Sherwood Boehlert and the Republican Party have had more than a generation to provide competent economic representation for the 24th District, and they just haven't done it.

Witness Boehlert's latest attempt at playing the economic development card, and you'll see what's wrong about the Republicans' approach to economic development. Boehlert is crowing about developing the Family Dollar store chain within the 24th District. Dollar stores? We have to do better than that. Republican leadership in the 24th District has our communities racing toward the bottom.

Just look at the new Republican candidates' claims for what they'll do for economic development, and you'll see that it's the same old bull. Brad Jones says he wants to consolidate, reduce, and lower standards of what we can expect from our government. This approach is nothing more than the dismantling of the 24th District's cities and villages, piece by piece.

Bruce Tytler's comments are welcome, and they're right. It's time to invest in our communities, not strip them clean. Republican fiddling around with decimal figures and the IRS isn't going bring the 24th District back to the economic vitality that it ought to be enjoying. We need visionary leaders who are willing to do more than just beg companies like the Family Dollar to bring in low wage jobs and cheap junk to our neighborhoods.

We need to rebuild, and the plain fact is that the Republican candidates in this race are not interested in rebuilding. The only plan the GOP has for economic development is to discount and outsource. The Republicans have had 23 years in the 24th District to get it right. They failed. Let's not keep walking down the same road.


Biggus Dickus said...

C'mon Jon, you can do better than this. Name one candidate that doesn't support education reform, healthcare reform, or helping the poor.

Brave? It's pap, and it's pap whether it's Tytler, Meier, or any other politician saying it. *Anyone* that tries to peddle this vague, hand-waving version of public policy needs to be called on it, regardless of party.

Candidates need to provide specific, concrete examples of the policies they favor. Muttering a few words and waving your hands around doesn't solve problems. Unless your nickname is "Obi-wan", in which case you probably could solve all these problems with a little handwaving and the judicious application of your Jedi powers.

Your friend forever,
Biggus Dickus

24 Independent said...

Sorry, Biggus. You're so busy throwing that sword around that you're missing some nuances of the statement.

What I think is brave is that Bruce Tytler speaks the unspeakable truth that tax policy is not what's going to bring back the 24th district's economy.

You know he's right, Biggus. Giving a family 500, 1000 or even 1500 dollars back tax savings is not going to make a big difference in the long run, especially not when service burdens are pushed down onto the local level, and costs are rising.

The tax issue is a fraud - always has been. What we need is to develop our district in a systematic way, and to do so with wise investment in infrastructure, not devolution and dismantling, as Brad Jones suggests.

What Bruce Tytler is suggesting is that we need to invest instead of divesting from our communities and letting them rot. No, Biggus, NOT everyone is for that. Republican candidates sure aren't.

This is a specific difference that matters.

Now, yes, of course Bruce Tytler needs to get more specific. So do all the candidates - Republican and Democrat...

... although Les Roberts has come out with a couple of substantial white papers on Iraq and health care within the last week. That campaign is clearly the best qualified when it comes to detailed proposals on the issues.

Certainly Ray Meier's Hello World Proposal doesn't cut the mustard.


Biggus Dickus said...

It's nice and all that Tytler thinks tax cuts won't help rebuild the 24th. Me, I don't think tax cuts will either.

Unfortunately, Tytler hasn't said what he thinks *will* help rebuild the 24th. Right now he, along with every other candidate in the race, appears to be running on the Tinkerbell platform. If we all just close our eyes and wish hard enough...TADA!...Tink, or in this case the 24th's economy...will come back to life.

Except in this case, to stretch a metaphor beyond all bounds of propriety, Tinkerbell isn't just dead. She's been dismembered, beheaded, buried in a sealed coffin, had a stake driven through her heart, and garlic stuffed in her mouth. She fo' shure ain't gonna be comin' back without some major mojo.

I think Bruce owes it to everyone in the 24th to show us his mojo.

Your friend forever,
Biggus Dickus

Anonymous said...

Obviously, the tax issue has been a republican smokescreen for years.

But tell us three things.

First, why are we having huge outmigrations from the Northeast, and from the Midwest to a lesser degree, flowing to the South, and to the West to a lesser degree? Why are our friends, our sons and daughters, our parents, all heading South?

Second, with the example of Dell just announcing yesterday they are creating 20,000 new jobs in India, what prospects do we have for decently paid private sector jobs, at salary levels necessary to support yourself and a family, in the Northeast even if we have higher levels of educational achievement? After all, only a third of all jobs actually need college level education and a simple referral to the Bell Curve illustrates that not everyone is college able anyway.

Third, if it was that easy to solve, wouldn't we be doing it already? Or are you assuming that everyone will be in a state of inertia until some economic sage appears to illuminate us?

24 Independent said...

I agree, Biggus. Tytler does owe it to us to show us specifically what he has in mind for economic development.

I'm going to talk with him tonight, and I'll ask him. At least Tytler is open, as Les Roberts is, to actually speaking with ordinary district residents like myself. Arcuri isn't.

A little idea I've got in my head is that it would be great to redirect just half the funds we're using for this idiotic war in Iraq and pork barrel boondoggles like multibillion dollar missile defense systems with technology that doesn't work, bridges to nowhere, a Moon colony, etc. and dedicate that money to the production of an alternative, clean energy infrastructure to serve communities across the United States.

(The other half of that money would go to pay down the deficit.)

This clean energy infrastructure program wouldn't be for pie in the sky research, but the building of clean energy technologies we've got right now - like wind farms, and solar in places where it works well, like in the Southwest.

In the process, of course, the investment and competition between contractors would ideally encourage private research to make the energy technologies more efficient. The investment would create jobs of all levels in locations across America, not just jobs for some kinds of people in a few locations, because the idea would be to create local systems of clean energy production.

Hopefully, such a project would be on the scale of the Interstate highway creation in the 50s, and would have a similar longterm payoff - in terms of both foreign policy and domestic policy.

What do you think about such an idea, Biggus? Do you think reasonable Republicans would be willing to consider it?

Biggus Dickus said...

I think alternative energy would be an easy cross-party sell, but I'm not entirely convinced our current vision of solar is the way to go. Make it a Manhattan Project style research initiative concentrating on solar efficiency, and associated fields like nano-scale construction techniques, adaptive optics, etc. and I can't see how anyone from either party could be against it.

I'd also like to point out that this is *exactly* how I think we as a people should be building political consensus. It's a given that there are some things we're just never going to agree on. Why can't the grassroots from *both* sides pressure thier candidates to embrace ideas like this that we can agree on? Efficient solar would send our economy into overdrive and would, quite literally, give us the power to solve a myriad of problems here in the US and around the world.

Your friend forever,
Biggus Dickus

24 Independent said...


Well, why don't we do it, then Biggus?

I mean it. Why don't you and I, Republican and Democrat, work on building this kind of cross-party cooperation?

Okay, we're not big people, yeah, but would you like to work with me to do our little bit together on this - a project to find common issues? I envision a blog that you and I can start, where we discuss these issues, honestly but decently with each other. We can even then discuss where the candidates stand on the different issues.

What do you say? We could blogspot it pretty easily, I think.

On the energy front, I think we have to expand our view beyond just solar. Wind... wave energy... geothermal... there are a lot of possibilities.

Anonymous said...

i think it made sense? he said we need to educate our children so we can build solid foundations for the future. he's actually been saying that all along...

Anonymous said...

Why does anyone who calls himself biggus dickus think anyone should take him seriously? I don't read anything a big dick like that posts.