Closing government was unwarranted

“;Better safe than sorry”; was not, by itself, an acceptable explanation for shutting down schools and state offices last Friday because of a wind forecast. Indeed, such a simplistic criterion could justify such closures every time it threatens to drizzle.

Did anyone else notice that all private businesses and stores on Oahu were open for business, despite getting the same weather forecast? Unlike our state government, if they closed up for all the state and federal holidays plus “;wind days,”; they'd go out of business. But not government. 

It's simply way too easy for officials to waste our tax dollars without fear of being held accountable.

Make up lost work by canceling holiday

Let's assume our governor and two mayors did the right thing in declaring last Friday a paid holiday in anticipation of the forecasted high winds. This means the federal government did the wrong thing as its employees put in a regular work day albeit it was a federal agency - National Weather Service - that made the forecast.  Let's not be so harsh on Gov. Linda Lingle, Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann and Maui Mayor Charmaine Tavares for stealing from the taxpayers one day's productivity of their employees. For public schools and the University of Hawaii losing one day of instruction in a short school year or semester is no small matter.

Very simply, Lingle, Hannemann and Tavares can declare an upcoming '09 holiday a regular working day. There are many to choose from! The unions would cooperate if you just ask them. Hopefully, this technique will set a precedent.

Many government workers are conscientious and have much work to do. Let's have confidence that Lingle, Hannemann and Tavares will be honorable leaders and carry out the above suggestion (or something similar) to uphold the honor of their employees. They have a chance to soundly silence the many harsh critics of the woefully wasteful government way of doing things. Imua!

Legislators should prove their worth

As I watch the debate over whether or not state legislators should forego their 2009 salary increases, a couple of thoughts come to mind. First, of course they should. Hawaii is entering a period of economic hardship and it is unconscionable that our elected representatives would accept a 35 percent pay increase while, in the private sector, businesses are closing and jobs are being lost. That's the same private sector that pays those legislative salaries.

My second thought is, are there other places where the Legislature can cut costs? Since about 2002, appropriations to run the Legislature have increased by an eye-popping 80 percent! If you look at the fiscal year 2002 appropriations for the Senate and House, plus supporting offices and functions (Legislative Auditor, Ombudsman, etc.) it all tallies up to just under $21 million. In FY2009, it's a bit more than $38 million.

When the economy was good the incremental growth was a bit more tolerable. But now that taxpayers are hurting it seems reasonable to ask why the government needed all that extra money in the first place. Are we getting 80 percent more value out of the Legislature? How about cutting the Legislature's entire budget by 80 percent until legislators can demonstrate to taxpayers how those additional funds improve their performance?

It's long past time for our elected representatives to experience a reality check. Kind of like the one the private sector faces.

Excise tax hike would aid state and counties

Instead of raising state taxes to help education and city fees to fund sewer improvements, the state and county governments should raise the Hawaii excise tax 1 percent. Half of this 1 percent would go to county sewage improvement projects and the other half for the state education system. The excise tax hike would be less painful and also a better distribution for billing between the rich and the poor. The more rich you are, the more things you will buy and the more contribution you will provide for sewage and education improvement.

Don't start charging students for testing

Making parents pay for the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) when it is taken by public high school college-bound students, was proposed before the Legislature by Superintendent Pat Hamamoto, in the current state Department of Education budget. This while exempting the parents of children with special needs, limited-English proficiency and “;the new poor”; from having to pay. Despite the anticipated “;deep and long-lasting recession,”; her proposal is most unwise. Not only must Hawaii public school graduates compete in the global job market, the public schools also compete locally with many superlative institutions of secondary education - Mid-Pacific Institute, Punahou School, Saint Louis School, St. Andrew's Cathedral School, Kamehameha Upper School, Iolani School - to name but a few. The state Department of Education will receive more than $47 million in “;military impact aid”; over the next year.

The PSAT has a better reputation than any other norm-referenced test in history. Military families will opt out as soon as next year's spiral of scores - downward - is published.