This is why my blog is called the soapbox.

I live in an unincorporated area of Pinal County just south of Phoenix. The post office recently decided to change our zip code as it is one of the fasted growing areas in the state, if not the country. Or at least it was until the housing market fell apart, but the point is that there are a TON of people down here in a zip code that is just very full. There are people that are very upset with this, but that is not my issue at the moment. My issue is that for years, a segment of the people down here have wanted to incorporate into a town. I haven't made up my mind about this, I see advantages (a library closer than 45 minutes) and disadvantages (the taxes to fund the library). So just last week I start getting emails about a changing the name of the area at the same time as they change the zip code. The first email I recieve is about how a county supervisor is changing the name without input from the community, that this is being railroaded through without our say or knowledge. This concerns me, as it should. Next I get an email about how the supervisor and post office have decided to extend the deadline for this name change to allow for community involvement. Great! So far I'm right where they want me. Not thinking about WHY we need the name change, or who is asking for the name change, but just glad I get to be a part of it. But as the days go by and a I get a couple more emails about the process of choosing the name, I begin to lose my sheep status. I start thinking, what is the point of this name change? Is it the post office asking for a name to go along with the new zip code? Was it just an opportune time to create an identity apart from Queen Creek? Is it the first step towards incorporation? I start researching. I look at all the emails I've recieved. I look at the website of the Greater San Tan Area Coalition, the group that is co-ordinating this name change. I email them myself when I cannot find a reason specifically stated in all of this.

On the Greater San Tan Area Coalition"s website, I read several times that their goal is not to incorporate, but only a way of banding together to voice our wants and needs to the entities that control the area, Pinal County, Queen Creek, etc. The emails state this as well, including the reply to my own, which says "The name change is to give an identity to the unincorporated northeastern section of Pinal County - nothing more nothing less. This is not about incorporation or annexation or anything of the such. Simply an identity... ". Sounds good so far. However, I don't think that is the truth.

The news is stating that this is a step towards incorporation. I look at the items the GSTAC are concerned about. Protecting open space, attracting business, creating a plan for shopping and residential areas, traffic control, amenities (I assume this means a library, maybe a recycling program, a fire department, etc). These are all goals that require incorporation. An open space plan would require an environmental impact survey as well as an overall plan for our area. Where are the housing developments going, the shopping centers? That requires decisions on traffic control, new roads, etc. This kind of planning costs money, lots of money. Amenities cost money. How will they get that? A tax of course. But how? If we continue in to be an unincorporated part of Pinal County, how will the county tax us and not other areas. Can't use a sales tax. You might be able to create a special zone, a difficult proposition. Most likely we would have to incorporate. Only a city government is capable of providing the resources needed to accomplish the goals stated by the Greater San Tan Area Coalition.

Which brings me to the problem. The Greater San Tan Area Coalition is lying. They are trying to start the process of incorporation without our consent. They are telling us this is only a designation on an envelope, but it not. They want us to feel like a group because we will be more likely to behave like a group apart from Pinal County and Queen Creek. It is manipulation, plain and simple. My concern at this point is not whether a town of Bella Vista or whatever the name becomes is a good idea. It is how we are getting there and how can I trust those that are setting themselves up as the political entity to create this town when they lie right from the first step. As for the why, I never got a straight response, but I think it's obvious.

Makes you go hmmm..

My sister sent this quote to me a while ago, and it keeps coming up in conversations.

Owners of capital will stimulate working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism. — Karl Marx, 1867

It's really stuck in my brain. I wish I knew what I could do something about the situation it describes. Scary that Karl Marx, father of communism, laid out (simplistically) the financial and political situation we are in now. Scary this was in the making 150 years ago. Scary nothing was done. Scary that there seems to be no suggestions to rectify the financial situation without exacerbating the political situation. I like Obama for many reasons. My main concern with him is his socialist leanings. Throwing money at major bankrupt corporations and then requiring government ownership even in a small part is just to close to communism for me. It gets us much farther down that slippery slope than we should be. As for saying it's temporary, yeah right. So was the federal income tax after WWII. It was supposed to go away as soon as the financial situation at the time was resolved, which was our war debt.

As bad as it might make things for many people, I really think that we should let the market correct this. Let capitalism do it's job. Let those companies die and new healthy companies grow from the ashes. The majority of workers would find new jobs with the new companies. The time between would be awful for everyone, but in the long run I think that time would be shorter. A healthy company will be able to overcome the situation better than a sick company that must be propped up for years before any real improvement is seen. Just give the money we would use to bail out old decrepit companies to new, more vital companies.

This is too fearsome of a possibility for many people, so perhaps we can find a middle ground. Only give certain of those companies seeking bailouts a small loan, enough to pay the very basics for a short amount of time. If they can make changes in that time, maybe give them one more small loan. If not, bye-bye. You had your chance.

What kind of criteria should we have for choosing which corporations get this loan? The willingness of the VIP's or high paid employees give up bonuses and luxury benefits should be one. Maybe a bonus could be offered once the company was back in the black for those employees that that stayed with the company through the bad times. Would those same people consider a deduction in salary? What kind of changes at what cost would be necessary to make the corporation a viable business again? How vital is this company and are there other corporations in the same industry being evaluated? If so, how does it compare? Let's take the auto manufacturers for example. If GM agrees to restructure their employee compensations by eliminating bonuses in excess of say $10,000 (this would not penalize the average worker), bring the benefit package for the top earners to the same level as the rest of the employees packages, as well reduce the salaries of those individuals, as well as make necessary changes to their business model, then that is the company we should help out. If Chrysler makes only token concessions in reducing the exorbitant compensation packages of high earners and instead fires half the admin and manufacturing employees, then maybe they aren't the company to back. Government has to look at this as an investor would. What company is most likely to succeed the soonest. Unlike an investor, it should not become a part owner, it should not own stock, or in any way become a part of that company. Perhaps that company could be taxed at a higher rate to repay the loan once a certain milestone is passed (ie-a number of profitable quarters, a certain amount of time), or simply a re-payment of the loan. Will people be hurt if the company not bailed out fails? Of course. But how many will be hurt when we find ourselves in 20 or 30 years with major industries owned by the government? We know how that works out. Government cannot run a business, the methods are all wrong.

Another thing I find scary is the potential for abuse by so called "civil servants" of the congressional kind. How many Congressmen and Senators will buy up shares of a company that the government has a stake in, and then use the combined power of both shareholder and legislative body to make a gazillion dollars? Or blackball other advances and competitors? How will that affect the affordability and availability of fuel efficient vehicles? On corporate pollution? On other evironmental considerations? On any other progress?

The possiblility (I believe certainty) that abuses will occur out way any benifit we would see in the next few years. We would be selling our national soul to the devil.