search
CONSENT of the GOVERNED PROJECT

to change the county charter  and restore sovereignty to every citizen.

Recent quotes from three of our own county council members on their positions as elected officials are revealing as to how they view their proper roles : 

“it sometimes takes a law to change people's behavior”

 "Sometimes I have to be forced to do things that are right and I don't want to.”

 (I need) “to take charge, to lead our County, to define policy in the best interests of the people of our island. “

Frightening, isn't it !


Our county government lately has taken on 3 roles:

  • Administrative (such as determining how many police to hire, or where a road should go, or how to process garbage). This is an appropriate level of authority and responsibility for them to play.
  • Telling us what things we CAN NOT do i.e.:restricting our rights, more so every year
  • Taking our money: i.e.: taxes and fees

We the people have delegated out elected officials the power to be administrators, but we have NOT delegated them the power to restrict our lives and take our money without our permission.

The Consent of the Governed acts will restore forever this authority and sovereignty to the people of the Big Island.

 

 

IN PRESS
This area does not yet contain any content.

Conservative, Non-partisan  E Komo Mai !

 

Sunday
Oct282012

What's up with the Conservative Forum ?

Hi y'all:

We have not been as active as we were in the past, it is true.
We had nearly 18 consecutive monthly Forums with distinguished and knowledgeable people presenting an address to us, and then we kind of tapered off.
This was for a variety of reasons, but we are now poised to pick it up again, somewhat.

We are very excited to announce TWO upcoming Forums, with distinguished national leaders willing to come to Hilo and address us on issues of major importance to all citizens.

Please mark your calendars, please attend, and please forward our future announcements to ALL your contacts.

Without good attendance, we cannot expect national figures of this caliber to want to come to Hilo, and with attention, they WILL come.
Inline image 2

First, MONDAY 12 NOVEMBER, 7:00 pm, Naniloa Hotel (Crown Room), Hilo
National Rifle Association President David Keene will speak on 2nd Amendment issues: the recent Supreme Court ruling, pending other significant court cases and concealed carry legal issues.

This is the first time a sitting president of the NRA has ever come to Hawaii in an official capacity, and we are very excited he has agreed to speak at our Forum in Hilo. He is here as well for other engagements on Oahu and in Kona.

Inline image 3

Second, in JANUARY 2013, Matt Kibbe CEO and President of  FreedomWorks. (venue and details pending)
(Founded in 1984, FreedomWorks is headquartered in Washington, DC, and has hundreds of thousands of grassroots volunteers nationwide. The organization is chaired by former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey and the President is Matt Kibbe. FreedomWorks originated from a campaign called Citizens for a Sound Economy. Citizens for a Sound Economy merged with Empower America in 2004 and was renamed FreedomWorks.)
An economist by training, Matt Kibbe is a well-respected national public policy expert, bestselling author and political commentator. He also serves as Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Austrian Economic Center in Vienna, Austria.
Kibbe is coauthor, with Dick Armey, of the New York Times bestseller Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto (HarperCollins, 2010)


We will have other Forums as opportunities arise.
Stay tuned for more details, and hope to see you all on 12 November !
Forward the info to all you friends.
Cherish liberty.

Aloha

Friday
Aug242012

when i grow up, i want to be a crony !



   
Crony Chronicles: I Want To Be A Crony
Children used to have aspirations to achieve greatness in the private sector.
But what are they learning now?
(click link to see video, 1 1/2 minutes)

Tuesday
Aug212012

Energy costs: It took long enough




http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorialspremium/letterspremium/20120823_letters_to_the_editor.html?id=167149655&c=n
Letters to the Editor  For Thursday, August 23, 2012

Put efforts behind cheaper energy

Letters 8-21-2012

http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/sections/opinion/letters/letters-8-21-2012.html

Energy costs: It took long enough

“We’re not interested in more renewable energy. We’re interested in cheaper renewable energy. Unless it has lower rates, we will not support it,” Mayor Billy Kenoi, August 2012

We are glad to see an elected official finally doing the math. It took long enough.

Expensive energy is not sustainable.

Our energy policy should be CHEAP ENERGY.

That is sustainable.

On the Big Island, geothermal is the cheapest source available and it is both renewable and local. We need to go there, and nowhere else, as soon as possible for the entire island.

Everything else is more expensive and makes folks suffer as a result.

It is time to end the crony PUC-protected energy industry and its patrons who benefit at any cost, while everyone else has to pay for their inefficiencies.

“I can tell you that life without energy is brutal and short,” Dr. John Christy, Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, testifying to Congress March 2011.

Edward Gutteling

Vice President of the Conservative Forum for Hawaii

Friday
Aug172012

preventable government action adds more to the cost of living for every citizen


Dear Forum:

Probably no single preventable government action adds more to the cost of living for every citizen in Hawaii, than the restraint of trade known as the Jones Act.
This 100 year old act of protectionism is crony capitalism at its worst: every person in Hawaii suffers, so a few can benefit.
Due to near-monopoly protected and inefficient shipping possibilities between the mainland and Hawaii, the costs of goods shipped here (or exported there) are needlessly and significantly higher. We all pay more and get less than we should as a result. Local businesses suffer and fail as a result, also.
The justifications were marginally logical 100 years ago, and for Hawaii today make no sense at all, neither economic nor for national defense.

Puerto Rico has recently undergone a study by the federal General Accounting Office, which concludes that it raises the cost of shipping and the cost of living for everyone there. They will probably receive an exemption. Guam already has a partial exemption.
It protects Matson (recently spun off from Alexander & Baldwin), Horizon lines (currently near bankruptcy) US seafarers unions, and few others only.
Linda Lingle recently came out in support of continuing the Jones Act, after having avoided taking a public position for decades.
Charles Djou is firmly against the Jones Act, as was Ed Case and John Carroll.


Every Hawaii Democrat currently elected or running for office firmly supports this outmoded and harmful crony protectionist legislation, and they always have.
Please read below to get up to speed on this vital issue.

We desperately need a exemption for Hawaii.
aloha

(If you would like to be added to the email list from the Hawaii Shippers Council to get updates on this,
contact them directly:
pacmar@hawaiiantel.net   )
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     Cong Hanabusa off-course on Jones Act
Date:     Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:38:22 -1000
From:     Michael N. Hansen <pacmar@hawaiiantel.net>
To:     Michael N. Hansen <pacmar@hawaiiantel.net>

August 17, 2012
Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa off-course on Jones Act


Dear Friends,

Democratic Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa (HI CD-1) recently affirmed her support for the Jones Act, which requires U.S.-built ships in domestic trade, then correctly noted her concern that the United States has lost the ability to build ships, and finally she said shipping is not a cost factor for Hawaii businesses and consumers.  This completely incoherent message indicates how far off-course Cong Hanabusa is in regards to the Jones Act.

The Congresswoman’s statements were made on August 8th when she appeared on KHVH-Rick Hamada Show’s candidate forum series, and were in response to a listener question asking about her position on the Jones Act.   Beginning her response, Cong. Hanabusa said, “Sally, you know, and Rick knows this very well.  I’ve always been somebody who supports the Jones Act.”

Jones Act

The Jones Act, or formally Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, requires that a vessel be U.S.-built, -flag, -owned and -crewed in order to transport cargo between two domestic points within the United States.  There is an analogous statute covering domestic passenger carriage, the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886.

The origins of the Jones Act are widely misunderstood including by Cong Hanabusa, who repeated the usual self-serving Jones Act industry falsehood that “It’s really something that started to help our military. It’s a merchant marine statute.”  In fact U.S. Senator Wesley Livisey Jones (R-WA) introduced his eponymous legislation to exclude Canadian ships and merchants from the Alaska trade, and protect that trade for his domestic merchant constituents in Seattle.  As such, the Jones Act was conceived as purely protectionist commercial legislation.  It wasn’t until later that the Jones Act industry began to wrap itself in the flag to justify its protections and high costs on the basis of national security.

In surprising contrast to her support for the Jones Act, Cong Hanabusa went on to say, “And, as we look, the one thing that troubles me the most, is you talk about an industrial base – we have lost our presence in terms of shipping and the ability to build ships.”  The Congresswoman is correct to say that the United States is no longer competitive in shipping and shipbuilding especially in respect of the kinds of large, self-propelled ships that Hawaii and the other noncontiguous jurisdictions – Alaska, Guam and Puerto Rico – depend upon for interstate surface transportation.

The Hawaii Shippers Council has put forward a very moderate Jones Act reform proposal that would address this “troubling” problem identified by Cong Hanabusa in its most critical aspect for the noncontiguous jurisdictions.  We propose that the noncontiguous trades be exempted from U.S.-build requirement of the Jones Act for large, self-propelled oceangoing ships, which would allow Foreign-built U.S.-flag ships to be used in the Alaska, Guam, Hawaii and Puerto Rico trades.  This targeted reform would not negatively impact any jobs, maritime or otherwise, in the noncontiguous jurisdictions.

Former Republican Cong Charles Djou (HI CD-1) who is challenging Cong Hanabusa in the November 6th general election, declared his Jones Act position in a candidate survey conducted by the Honolulu Star-Advertiser in advance of the August 11th Hawaii State primary election, stating, “I favor exempting Hawaii from the Jones Act, as most agree this protectionist law increases the cost of goods sold in Hawaii.”  In all likelihood, a full exemption from the Jones Act for Hawaii is not realistic for a variety of reasons and could not be passed in Congress.

Ka Lei Eggs

Disingenuously, Cong Hanabusa went on to justify her pro Jones Act stance by saying that Ka Lei Eggs, the only remaining animal related agricultural producer left in the state outside of the cattle industry, is not affected by shipping by using a clever dodge to arrive at that conclusion.  This was not very courteous treatment of Ka Lei’s third generation owners who are constituents of Cong Hanabusa’s former State Senate district and whose family is well known to her.

Cong Hanabusa said, “I tell people one thing when they talk about the Jones Act and high costs.  Look at the cost of eggs in Hawaii. I grew up in Waianae; Mikilua that’s where Ka Lei Eggs is from. . . . .  Look at that cost, compare that cost to Safeway’s eggs or someone else’s eggs.  You will find the local eggs which have no shipping is still more expensive.”  Essentially, the Congresswoman asserted that because Ka Lei is a local producer they have no shipping costs, while mainland eggs, which are significantly cheaper, do incur shipping costs, therefore shipping is not a cost issue for Hawaii producers and consumers.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  One of the co-owners of Ka Lei, Lois Shimabukuro, appeared December 12, 2011, on Hawaii Reporter TV to discuss the “Jones Act Impact on Hawaii Business.” Ms. Shimabukuro described in no uncertain terms how domestic shipping “impacts the cost of our ability to do business and provide food for the state” and said “it’s come to the point where we are wondering whether it’s worth continuing the business.”  She noted that Hawaii has already lost its dairy, pork and fresh chicken industries.

Ms. Shimabukuro relates how they once relied upon local manufacturers who conveniently provided cost effective products for their operations: from the Weyerhaeuser plant in Iwilei that produced cartons and egg trays to the Carnation Corporation feed mill at Pier 23 in Honolulu Harbor that once manufactured finished feeds from bulk grains.  Today Ka Lei must import feed in containers and egg trays from North Carolina which makes the cost of the trays “less than the cost of the freight.”

The single largest impact on animal agriculture in Hawaii has been the loss of the local feed mill that once shipped in bulk feed grains and manufactured finished feeds.  Bulk handling and transport is much less costly than container shipping, which is better suited for finished merchandise, and local milling provides fresher feed that can be ordered on short notice as opposed to arranging shipments of finished feeds in containers from a mainland source.

Carnation sold their operation to Fred L. Waldron & Co. Ltd. in the mid-1990’s and Waldron failed a couple of years later ending the local milling of feeds.  The owners of HFM First in Foods / Hawaiian Flour Mills, Kerr Pacific Corporation, looked seriously in the late 1990’s at building a smaller feed mill alongside the grain silos at Pier 23, but decided against it because of the lack of Jones Act bulk carrier ships to transport the feed grains.  Closure of the Carnation feed mill led directly to the demise of the dairy, pork, fresh chicken and beef cattle feed lot industries in Hawaii.

Today HFM continues to mill flour at its Pier 23 facility using wheat imported from Canada on foreign flag bulk carrier ships operating in a parcel trade between the West Coast of North America and New Zealand and Australia.   Those ships are prohibited by the Jones Act from carrying cargo from the U.S. West Coast  to Hawaii.  As the kinds of grains needed to produce animal feeds are largely grown in the United States and not Canada, the foreign flag bulk carrier option is not available for this purpose.

The owners of Kerr Pacific have said that they could not operate their HFM flour mill if they had to pay Jones Act freights to ship grain to Honolulu.

We would entreat Cong Hanabusa and her challenger former Cong Charles Djou to consider our very modest reform of the Jones Act that would provide so much real relief for the residents of the noncontiguous jurisdictions.  Our reform proposal is attainable if done in concert with the other noncontiguous jurisdictions, and our next U.S. Representative from Hawaii Congressional District 1 could provide much needed Congressional leadership to achieve that goal.

Best regards,

Michael Hansen

President
Hawaii Shippers Council
pacmar@hawaiiantel.net
+++++++++++++++++++++++
The Hawaii Shippers Council (HSC) is a business league organization incorporated in 1997 to represent cargo interests – known as “shippers” – who tender their goods for shipment with the ocean carriers operating in the Hawaii trade.

+++++++++++
Cong. Hanabusa’s opponent in the November 6th general election will be Republican Charles Djou in a rematch of their 2010 contest.
Charles Djou won a special election in mid-2010 to replace U.S. Representative Neil Abercrombie (D) after he resigned from HI CD-1 to run for Hawaii governor.  Mr. Djou subsequently lost the seat to former State Senator Colleen Hanabusa (D) in the November 2010 general election 46.77% to 53.23%.

From the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Friday, July 27, 2012
http://elections.staradvertiser.com/cifw/election12
 

Charles Djou
Party: Republican
Age: 41
Job: Attorney; US Army Reservist.
Born in Los Angeles, CA. In Hawaii since 1973, arrived from Los Angeles, CA

4) Should Hawaii be exempt from the Jones Act, the federal law that protects the domestic shipping industry from foreign competition?
Yes. My wife and I grew up in Hawaii and, like many families, we want to be able to raise our children here -- even though it's more expensive than on the mainland. We know, however, that with rising costs, many people have to relocate to the mainland to survive. That is why I favor exempting Hawaii from the Jones Act, as most agree this protectionist law increases the cost of goods sold in Hawaii.
+++++++++++++++++++++

Rick Hamada Show KHVH 830 AM
Candidate Forum: Senatorial Candidate Linda Lingle
Friday, August 10, 2012
(go to minute 24 to her discussion of the Jones Act)
http://www.khvhradio.com/player/?mid=22340571

Former Gov. Linda Lingle made this speech on her views about the Jones Act

at the Associated Builders and Contractors Member Appreciation Dinner on July 10, 2012

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/lingle-defends-jones-act-shipping-law/123

"...As Hawaii’s next U.S. Senator, I will be the first to call for a definitive study and report by the General Accounting Office into the pros and cons of the Jones Act as it relates to Hawaii and the Pacific region.

But the Hawaii study, unlike the GAO study that is currently being conducted with respect to Puerto Rico, must consider U.S. national security interests, U.S. military supply lines, maritime security as it relates to the State of Hawaii, shipping costs, the federal Harbor Maintenance Tax and Trust Fund, the effect of foreign competition on the U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry, the effect of foreign competition on the U.S. merchant marine, along with all of the other issues that would be impacted by the repeal of the Jones Act, a law that has well-served our nation’s security interests for over 92 years...."

So as of today, I’m unconvinced that repeal of the Jones Act is in the best overall interests of the United States, Hawaii and the Pacific region..."


Please find below transcripts of Cong Hanabusa and Ms. Shimabukuro’s recorded statements referenced in the foregoing article.
++++++++++++++
Wednesday, August 8, 2012 08:00 – 09:00 a.m.

Rick Hamada Show KHVH 830 AM
Candidate Forum: Congressional Candidate Colleen Hanabusa

Audio total length:      36:14 mins
Jones Act Discussion: 34:17 mins

http://www.khvhradio.com/player/?mid=22336936

Partial Transcript

Rick Hamada: Sally on Maui.  Thank you Sally; you have the last call for Colleen Hanabusa. Good Morning.
Sally: Good morning. I have a question about the Jones Act. How do you feel about the high prices of our goods here in the Islands.  Now that we have the drought on the mainland, what are your concerns about our limited restrictions on shipping here?
Colleen Hanabusa:  Sally, you know, and Rick knows this very well.  I’ve always been somebody who supports the Jones Act.

And let me be clear as to what the Jones Act is about. The Jones Act monitors shipping inter-state and intra-state in other words, and that’s why this issue is regarding how we get goods to the neighbor islands of course including Maui, Kauai, Molokai and Lanai.

The Jones Act, if you go back into history is really something that . . . .
music
Rick Hamada: I’m so sorry about that. Are we really that close? We have about half a minute left

Colleen Hanabusa: It’s really something that started to help our military. It’s a merchant marine statute.
And, as we look, the one thing that troubles me the most, is you talk about an industrial base – we have lost our presence in terms of shipping and the ability to build ships.
I tell people one thing when they talk about the Jones Act and high costs.  Look at the cost of eggs in Hawaii.  It’s just myself, my husband and my dog when I’m home.  And, you know, I will support Ka Lei Eggs, for example – it’s the local brand.  And, I grew up in Waianae; Mikilua that’s where Ka Lei Eggs is from.  Look at that cost, compare that cost to Safeway’s eggs or someone else’s eggs.  You will find the local eggs which have no shipping is still more expensive.

Thank you.

+++++++++++
December 12, 2011
Hawaii Reporter TV

Program ”Jones Act Impact on Hawaii Business”
Malia Zimmerman, Host & Publisher, Hawaii Reporter http://www.hawaiireporter.com/

Lois Shimabukuro, Co-Owner, Ka Lei Eggs http://www.kaleieggs.com/
Marissa Capelouto, President, Oahu Express Ltd. www.oahuexpress.com
Ed Case, former Congressman 2002 –2007 http://www.edcase.com/

Partial Transcript

Lois Shimabukuro Excerpt at 13:55 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqHLwV19fmo

Lois Shimabukuro:  It’s more challenging
Um, we bring in a lot of feed for the chickens and we’re faced with about a 33 ½ % freight surcharge that impacts the cost of our ability to do business and provide food for the state.
Um, it has become ah very expensive um with the grain prices going skyrocketing especially on corn and soy.
Um, it has, you know, it’s come to the point where we are wondering whether it’s worth continuing the business because of all the escalating costs.  We have to pass it on.
I’m a third generation.  My sister and I are third generation.  Um, we call ourselves farmers.  Um, and, um, you know, over the years, when my grandfather started the business, it was in 1947.  Um, and then my father and his brothers continued the business and grew the business.
And now we’re in the business, and we honestly feel that it’s become so, our hands are tied, you know, a lot of times, because we’re at the mercy of restrictions.  You know, there’s no manufacturing here so we can’t source local product for our business.
Um, and, like Ed said, everything has to be shipped in, you know, equipment, and it’s very costly.  Um, and, for me, the cost of my egg cartons are, um less than the cost of the freight.
So, it’s, you know, it’s just one thing after another and ah we feel that, that we have no choice so we, we ship through Matson.
Um, there would not, you know, there wouldn’t be a choice of eating local fresh eggs versus mainland eggs. Some of them are being shipped in from Iowa to the California coast and then shipped to Honolulu or to Hawaii.
Um, and, there would probably be a huge price war on mainland because there are so many producers out there you know from the Northwest down to California and you know Central United States, Midwest.
Um, but the thing that I think really bothers us is the fact there is a huge sustainability platform [problem] in Hawaii right now.
And in order for Hawaii to maintain a food supply we have to support the local production of, not just produce, but also there’s no dairy industry, there’s no pork industry, and there’s no fresh chicken industry.
Um, I think we’re the last animal related agricultural industry.

Sunday
Aug122012

The Dangerous Delusion of Bipartisanship

The Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is proud to announce the release of the eighth research paper in our “In Pursuit” series of policy analysis. The topic of this month’s review is the concept of bipartisanship and its negative impact in the political culture of our time.

Recently, we have been disturbed by meaningless calls for “bipartisanship” and “compromise” coming from persons running for public office. Consequently we asked our member and loyal supporter, Dr Ed Gutteling, to address the issue. Included is his wonderful reasoning which essentially says that bipartisanship has to be rooted by both sides in principle. Where might we find such principle? Look no further than the oath of office that each elected official swears to uphold. That oath is designed to stop “tolerance” / ”compromise” from eating away the substance of our individual liberty. Thus, it should never be recited as a meaningless step in a process but instead as a deeply meaningful reminder of just where compromise must end if we are to succeed in our continuing pursuit of individual liberty for all.
- Richard Rowland, President

 

http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/InPursuit_8-Final.pdf

The Dangerous Delusion of Bipartisanship
by Edward Gutteling

  July, 2012

Once upon a time in a government long long ago and far far away, enlightened politicians held hands across the aisle, making wise bipartisan compromises, and the people rejoiced in the harmony, and they all lived happily ever after.  

Unfortunately, good gentle voter, if that is your expectation then you should stop right now and read no further, as our reality is not such a happy ending. In fact there wasn’t much happy in the beginning, and truth be told not much happiness in the middle bits either, in our unfortunate, awful, horrid, vile, really bad, no-good, real-life history of governing. 

 

This story is true both in Hawaii and nationally as well.

A touch of that unpleasantness of partisan discordance was evident in Hawaiian history, for example.  We commemorate Kamehameha Day in honor of the enlightened ruler King Kamehameha (I) “The Great” who united the islands into one delightful kingdom of sustainable indigenous bliss. “United” by the partisan force of fratricide and massed slaughtering armies with modern arms supplied by Europeans, and punctuated by that charming but now lost natural tradition of throwing 400 of your enemies off the Pali cliffs.

Now gentle reader, as I’m sure you are tempted to interject, we in Hawaii are much more enlightened in these modern times, much more refined and evolved from those ancient days. Surely it is long overdue to get past such trivial peccadilloes and move along to more significant rainbow-enlightened images of aloha.

Besides, there was indeed peace in the land after those beguiling eccentricities, after all was said and done.

Jolly good then, we’ll move on and consider this.
America’s very birth and existence resulted from events of unavoidable partisanship, too.

Recall that spot of bother we remember as our revolutionary war? That happened because British loyalists felt that their parliamentary monarchy was the pinnacle of enlightened government, that gave everyone all the freedoms they needed, and kept most critical decisions out of the hands of those untrustworthy simpletons prone to emotional mob instincts and the increasingly selfish behavior of those bloody colonialists. That “bipartisan” consensus did not endure, and it took solidly “partisan” actions to reject the concept of state tyranny and cement individual liberty as the enduring core principle of our nation. It took courage, vision, and commitment to principle.

One item that was perhaps just a slight bit of bore, however, was that from out of the process also later came that charming “bipartisan” compromise leaving intact the legality of slavery. It took another 4-score and 7 years before the blatant “partisanship” of radicals in the Republican party achieved the ascendancy of power needed to end that evil and immoral bit of accommodation.

Nearly every major defining trajectory of enduring policy, every milestone in our history, has resulted from “partisan” actions and a rejection of the prior “bipartisan” status-quo.

FDR’s entire “New Deal” governmental legacy resulted from Democratic partisan dominance during the tragic government-induced poverty of the depression of the 1930s.
By pure partisan dominance, that enlightened Democratic progressive vision of centralizing government power into every aspect of business, labor, markets, banking, finance, trade, and taxation was the mantra that would lead to the promised land of economic recovery, fairness and prosperity. We’ll move quickly past the unpleasant item about how America only recovered 12 years later and after a World War sacrificed globally 25 million working age military men, 50 million civilians and trashed every significant competing economy on the planet except the United States before this miracle of enlightened government philosophy succeeded.

 

Whatever, centralized government power was the established “in” thing, and after it’s  partisan birth it endured.

Since then, both parties have pretty much been on a balanced “bipartisan” glide path for the expansion of federal power. Republicans and Democrats compromised in serial harmonial rapturous actions resulting in the steady inexorable growth in government spending, laws, regulations and control.

Individual liberties got nibbled away bit by bit as well.

“There are two parties— the stupid party and the evil party. Every once in awhile the stupid party and the evil party get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. In Washington, that is called bipartisanship.” said former Republican Senate Leader Everett Dirksen.

This worked as long as our economy grew enough wealth for the government to increase spending.

Until it broke.

The trend is your friend until the end, when it bends.

Can we now all join hands together and say “unsustainable”? That “bipartisan” stuff don’t work anymore, and it never really did.

“If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.” Margaret Thatcher

The June 2012  ABC News/Washington Post poll is quite revealing : only 13% of Americans approve of the job performance of Congress, and 84% disapprove – its worst ever ratings since they first began in 1974. Legislative and policy gridlock prevails.  In much of the more traditional and so clearly more thoughtful, erudite and wise media, voices are raised forlornly looking for “moderates” who will “make compromises” and “just get the job done”. Many nostalgically remind us of President-elect Obama’s election night speech of November 4, 2008
"Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."

But then he said this, too: "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won." That was three days later.
"I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess." That was August 2009.
That didn’t take long.  
Where’s the love, the aloha, the kumbaya?  
As “motorist” Rodney King said in 1992, after his beating sparked the weeks of riots and arson in Los Angeles, "Can we all get along?"

We have similar quaint dynamics here in Hawaii, too.


“I don’t understand both political parties - here at home and in Washington – who oppose bipartisanship, compromise and collaboration. I don’t understand them because the problems we face are not Democrat problems, they are not Republican problems, they are American problems and we will have to come together to solve them. This is what the people of Hawaii expect and this is what the people all across America expect,” ...I am running for the U.S. Senate because we need to stop creating Congressional gridlock which then becomes crises,”  former Governor Linda Lingle said at the May 12, 2012 Hawaii GOP convention.  


Bipartisanship for many, however, reminds us of what Gertrude Stein said about going back to Oakland, her home town: “there’s no there, there”. I’m sure this appeal to bipartisanship and compromise is a multi-nodal poll-tested demographically finessed, stochastically significant and media polished approach that Gov. Lingle and many others feel will be a path to electoral victory for a Republican behind the lines in the People’s Democratic Republic of Hawaii. It implies that the key portion of the electorate wants harmony above all else, that “bipartisanship” and “compromise” are the goals that will win their votes, not any boorish déclassé partisan principled policy unpleasantness.

Is that really what we are all about, gentle voters? Is that the heart of the matter?


Lingle emphasizes that when she was a Republican governor with a Democratically controlled legislature, they were “able to work together to get things done”. We’ll just airbrush out memories such as when her Superferry promotion, probably the biggest potential boost to struggling neighbor island economies and agriculture, got squashed by liberal-progressive-eco partisan activists and was abandoned by the Democratic party and their passive-aggressive business and union patrons. And who can forget the heartwarming “bipartisanship” for Republican Senator Fred Hemmings’ proposed Duke Kahanamoku Surfing Reserve?  The Senate passed it unanimously, but the House killed it because no Republican could be allowed to take credit for such a beloved and popular act. Governor Lingle was forced to declare it by executive order.

As Sam Slom, the Hawaii State Senate’s sole Republican commented, politics may be the art of compromise but he had never seen “bipartisan” on any election ballot, never heard pleas for  “bipartisanship” in any Hawaii Democratic Party convention speech, and he was puzzled to hear such talk at the Hawaii GOP Convention.

“Compromise and collaboration, does not mean turning away from liberty, limited government, individual responsibility, fiscal accountability, and equality of opportunity. In fact, I believe these are same values shared by almost everyone in the state of Hawaii,” Lingle said.

Ed Case, Democrat also running for US Senate said “...the sooner we get beyond the gladiatorial circus and get down to work together, the sooner we'll forge sustainable and workable solutions...”

Good luck with that.  

This is the big divide right now:
do we as a nation move forward with bigger, costlier , more indebted and more powerful government, or do we go the other direction to smaller and more efficient and less controlling government?  

Do you want the government to run your life more, and run it into the ground as it has been lately, or do you want to run your own life, and run the government too?

How does one compromise on that?
One cannot, and still be true to core principles.
Leadership is all about describing your vision and goals, and then persuading others to follow your cause and so empower you to achieve them.

“All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.”  Edmunde Burke (1790)

“ It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise. For instance, one may bargain with a buyer over the price one wants to receive for one’s product, and agree on a sum somewhere between one’s demand and his offer. The mutually accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of trade, namely: that the buyer must pay the seller for his product. But if one wanted to be paid and the alleged buyer wanted to obtain one’s product for nothing, no compromise, agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total surrender of one or the other.
There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property...
There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.”  Ayn Rand (1966)
       
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile -- hoping it will eat him last.”
Winston Churchill (1938)   

If business as usual is the road to destruction, then gridlock is not a bad thing.

The next elections cannot come too soon.
Embrace liberty.

Dr. Gutteling is Vice-President of the Conservative Forum for Hawaii