I knew it!
The story hit the Los Angeles Times yesterday.
“Killing cats to restore island backfires as rabbits take over“
Thanks to my old friend from college, Paul Helton, for the entry in his blog calling my attention to the story.
It’s a simple story. Feral cats were blamed for ecological problems on a remote island south of New Zealand. The response–kill the cats. But when the cat eradication was over, unintended consequences ensued that just made the problems much worse and it will now cost millions to repair the damage.
There’s a more detailed story in The Guardian.
Warning! Editorial comments follow.
I was sorry to see Lee Cataluna’s anti-gambling column today in which she refers to gambling as “an infection seeking an opportunity to invade and destroy.”
It seems to me that this reflects the irrational fear of gambling that infects a portion of our population. I say “irrational” because it demands a suspension of belief in everyday reality.
The reality, from all available data, is that gambling is deeply entrenched in Hawaii. The bad part is that, at least here in the islands, it is forced to be illegal gambling by antiquated laws and puritanical religious traditions.
And it’s the illegal gambling and the crime empires it breeds that cause our problems.
I know. This isn’t politically correct among liberals here, but it’s true. Saying “don’t let legal gambling infect Hawaii” is just saying “leave the gambling in control of our organized crime friends.”
People like to gamble. Look at the lure of Las Vegas, a Hawaii tradition. Who are we to say that people who enjoy vacationing in Vegas are doing so because they’re infected by some insidious fever?
It may be that gambling is not a good choice for Hawaii and that it could conflict with the “image” we want to project. It may be that our government infrastructure isn’t up to the administrative challenge. In other words, there may be practical reasons to sidestep full scale legal gambling. But let’s look at the issue rationally and make policy decisions without getting tripped up by the hangovers of our missionary past. Haven’t we had enough of trying to legislate morality?
And while I’m on a politically incorrect train of thought, I’m also sick of all the blathering about the legislative pay raises.
The recent attacks by pundits, reporters and editorial writers have all fallen into the old trap of politicizing the issue of salaries of public officials. The constitutional amendment that set up an independent salary commission was designed to lessen if not eliminate the political nature of these decisions, recognizing that in the long run we’re better off without the temptation to make those filling key positions the whipping boys of the moment.
It’s interesting to me that with all those spouting off on the issue, none have even mentioned, much less addressed, the 500-page report of the salary commission and the evidence and rationale behind its eventual recommendations. It’s not like their proposals were pulled from thin air, or devised in backroom deals, as knee-jerk punditry would have us believe.
I get crazy reading things like today’s Star-Bulletin editorial, which so casually misstates facts.
Even if you don’t like the pay hikes that were recommended and adopted, they weren’t created by the constitutional amendment. They were created by the commission. After, I might add, a pretty exhaustive review of evidence. I can’t say the same thing about the editorial.
Was the amendment “artfully designed to authorize generous salary hikes”, as the Star-Bulletin editors would have you believe?
Actually, the commission did not recommend matching legislators pay hikes to the raises of other public workers, saying that would have brought negative public reaction.
Editorial writers, as key shapers of public opinion, in my view have an obligation to begin with a grounding in facts. Since they have failed in this, perhaps readers will want to start with the source documents and make up your own minds.
You can download the commision’s full 508-page report from the Department of Human Resource Development, while the House Blog provides a link to a summary report circulated at the Legislature.
Dan Seto, head of the Planning Division of the Hawaii State Judiciary, commented on the Salary Commission report on his blog last year, and I’ll quote him at length.
As expected, there have been concerns expressed about the level of the recommendations. But I will note several critical and revealing factors that you may not be aware of:
Since 1990, all of the positions have had long periods of time where no salary increases were made (between nine and thirteen years). At the same time, those covered under collective bargaining contracts, Unit 13 for example, have received raises averaging about 3.5% per year. If you take that average and total it over that period it would be about 66% in collective bargaining increases. In addition, during that time, inflation has decreased the dollar’s buying power by about 54%. So, these position have seen no or few increases while, at the same time, what they had was seriously eroded by inflation.
In fact, whether you take the Unit 13 collective bargaining increases and adjust the 1990 salaries for these positions forward, or take the inflation rate and adjust likewise, the Commission’s recommendations would still be lower than either of those metrics. In other words, these positions are still trying to “catch-up” to what other state employees have gotten or just trying to stay even with inflation, but are failing to do either even with these increases.
And so it goes on this Sunday morning. Now for some coffee.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Consideration of the promotion of gambling in Hawaii seems to pit stakeholders in so-called free-market capitalism – against those believing that elected government has an obligation to regulate in terms of societal and environmental health. Put another way: Which benefits our Hawaiian community more – money generated from casinos? – or the public and environmental good stemming from their absence on these islands? Which engenders a population sustained by healthy community empowerment?
One viewpoint is motivated by money primarily – money games that manipulate gullible people to seek unearned profits. The other viewpoint considers environmental and societal degradation through state sanctioned addiction profits. (And no, good live entertainment, food, and such does not require gambling. However, those things ARE worthy of further discussion and development.) While supporters may frame the discussion as one of antiquated moralizing, sensible opponents of legalized gambling realize this is an issue primarily about societal and environmental pollution.
Healthy sustainable development of these sacred islands, and education of our keiki begins with awareness of our right to declare that we do not do anything for money. That is for Las Vegas. Aloha ‘aina? Casinos don’t give a rip for such things. Leave them in the desert. Hawaii has riches and potential that legalized racketeering hasn’t the slightest concern for, or appreciation of.
In Hawaii, we have more righteous work to do than to turn more of us into stupefied consumers. And while it might pay some bills, turning our young adults into whores and pimps isn’t in our best interest either.
Ian, if evidence is important to you, please show me evidence that people stop in at cockfights on their way home and blow the family paycheck on bets.
Legal gambling attracts far more people to participate than I believe we see on these islands for illegal games. It also legitimizes “investing” that paycheck in the hopes of instant riches.
There is abundant evidence supporting that, including (here) the popularity of air trips to Las Vegas, where gambling is likely the bigger draw than the entertainment. I do know people who work hard, take their families to Vegas, and come back disappointed. Time and time again. Of course, one day they will strike it rich, so they keep going.
My hunch is that if gambling were institutionalized, the illegal games would see an increase also. Gambling=ok would be the message. It also opens up a new argument, if ok for everyone, why not start a racket of your own?
Incidentally, prudent use of one’s money is not just a “liberal” value but is held by many conservatives as well.
Better arguments than I can present here will come out during the session. Meanwhile, you can bet that politicians will clean up handily as the gambling lobbyists roam the halls of the Legislature, pockets stuffed with bri… campaign contributions.
We should at least join one of the lotteries such as Powerball. There would be no need for any physical structures,nor any real opportunity for organized crime to make inroads. The biggest roadblocks will be the travel industry.
Your point about the salary raises is on the mark. I could care less if legislators get a pay raise since it’s not an issue I can directly impact what with the salary commission’s process.
However, it is interesting to note that not one editorial or reporter has ever mentioned that legislators (and cabinet members) didn’t get raises for over ten years when everyone else did.
Now, some out there will feel that politicians deserve no raises ever; indeed, that they shouldn’t even get paid. But to simply bash politicians for not refusing the raises without any historical context is irresponsible.
As far as gambling goes, it’s amusing to read about how politicians will just line their pockets with contributions from gambling interests. Again, the facts don’t bear this out.
Check the campaign spending commission website. I don’t see dozens of politicians getting tens of thousands of dollars from gambling lobbyists.
If the inference is that politicians are getting illegal payoffs, then anyone with credible evidence of this should submit it to the proper law enforcement authorities for prosecution. Otherwise, to simply say politicians will “clean up handily” with no evidence to back it up is also irresponsible.
Gambling/Casino money is tracked. See:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=N07
Hawaii will be no exception if the issue is in play. There’s no inference that the payoffs are illegal. It’s part of our democratic system that they are legal. There’s tobacco money in Hawaii, insurance money, drug company money, it’s naive to assume that there is no gambling money.
I think the problem with the salary commission is that essentially it is a smokescreen to mask public attention from such pay raises. The majority of commission members are appointed by the legislators, and the commission’s “recommendations” go into effect without public discussion or a legislative vote. The legislature can only stop the planned raises, and what’s the chance of that? Also, the raises were planned before the current economic crisis. There’s no question that legislators deserved more pay, but unlike the judiciary, department heads and the executive wings, Hawaii’s legislators are seasonal employees. Legislative pay is funded with tax dollars, and as such there should be at least a modicum of public scrutiny, instead of relying on the decision of a small group of hand-picked commission members.
Hmmmmmmmmm…………. As usual, much to chew on here.
Regarding gambling, I share your politically incorrect view that we should at least have a rational discussion, despite my puritanical New England upbringing. 😉 However, your analysis fails for at least a couple of reasons.
First, gaming just moves money from one pocket to another, except to the extent that it targets tourists. But if we have the tourists, then we don’t need the gambling, especially considering the downsides for the local population (even if the estimate of its impact is cleansed of hysteria). If there is money to be “found,” it is to be found in the millions of dollars (perhaps tens or hundreds of millions of dollars) that we currently ship to Las Vegas. The questions should be, “can we compete for our the money that we are currently exporting?” If not, the tourist money won’t be worth the risk.
Second, where in the world is the evidence that “it’s the illegal gambling and the crime empires it breeds that cause our problems”? Poverty, lack of education, poor health care, dead-end jobs; THESE are the causes of our problems. Illegal gambling and organized crime? C’mon, I thought you said we should look at the issue rationally?
As for the salary commission, I, too, am sick of the chest beating of editorial board writers seeking to play to the fools in the crowd. But, as Burl points out, the commission is not the wholly independent entity you portray. A majority of its members are appointed by legislative officials and while that does not mean its recommendations are suspect per se, it at least bears mention (which you omitted).
On the other hand, Burl is ever so wrong to refer to legislators as “seasonal employees.” While the legislature as a whole may meet for only four months, the phones of individual legislators ring with constituent demands year round. Add expected participation at community forums, task forces, etc. and you have a full time job that the voters will end at the next ballot if the legislator views it otherwise.
Or, another way to look at it is: “You get what you pay for.”
While I do agree there is no need for puritanical hysterics, even a clear-headed assessment of gambling will show that it will have negative impacts. Put aside the obvious that more people will get addicted since it becomes a legal activity.
First, it’s about the amount of disposable income in our community. Say you have $1000 a year for entertainment. You spend $500 on gambling which means you no longer will spend that $500 on movies, restaurants, etc. So while gambling interests may gain, other activities suffer.
Secondly, you basically alter the image of Hawaii as a family destination. In general, gambling and family tourism don’t mix.
Third, people who can afford to go to Vegas will continue to do so. Vegas is a world unto itself and I don’t think even the most rapid supporters of gambling see Hawaii becoming the “Las Vegas of the Pacific.”
As far as the salary increases go, ohiaforest makes a good point. I would suspect if you calculate that the average full-time worker works roughly 2000 hours a year that legislators come very close to that amount in a given year.
During session, not many work less than 40 hours a week and, indeed, many work many more hours than that.
In the off-session, I don’t know of any legislator who simply doesn’t show up at any site visits, informational briefings, community meetings, school activities, etc.
Go to the capitol in the months leading up to the session and it’s clear that many are doing the ground work with briefings, meetings, etc.
Only the most ignorant of people or those who are intent on unfairly maligning legislators would claim that they only work four months of the year and do nothing for the other eight months.
Lastly, the salary commission, like many other boards and commissions, had members that were appointed by the legislature and the governor. That said, all the meetings were subject to the sunshine law and public input was invited.
It’s not as if they met in secret and their recommendations were hidden from the public.
This thought isn’t completely related, but when I first came to Hawaii I noticed that salaries were depressed compared to a similar position on the Continent. It’s no secret, of course. And the cost of living is on the high side. Reading the papers, at that time, I noticed what I thought was a strange habit — scrutinizing the pay of almost anyone with a negative implication. It is as though the higher the pay, the more attention the salary got. And still, the salaries were lower than back home. Then I learned that “the nail that sticks up is pounded down”, which, while applied to someone who does better than anyone, I thought might also apply to someone who makes decent money. It is as though we think Hawaii shouldn’t have a better pay structure. If we did, pay would be higher almost across the board. The “price of paradise” includes, it seems, pounding down on anyone who gets reimbursed fairly.
I can’t explain it. Shouldn’t we compare what our legislators earn to what they would earn elsewhere, perhaps in a state with a comparable cost of living? I haven’t done that research, but newspaper reporters might do it as part of their stories. If Hawaii legislators’ pay is in the ballpark, we have nothing to complain about.
Let’s put each class of work “in the ballpark.” The plantation is dead, yet we still try to depress wages here. We also don’t really know where the money goes in our own economy, or what a better economic model would be.
Agreed with Larry G. that comparison of legislative salaries to those paid on the continent would be informative. That’s precisely the rationale HMSA uses to justify its executive compensation package. Unfortunately, they don’t use the same model when it comes to physician reimbursements or staff pay. Moral of the Story? Look at as much info as possible, keep that that which compares oranges to oranges, toss what compares oranges to apples, be consistent, and let the chips fall where they may.
I have no truck with getting what you pay for. But it’s the legislators themselves who keep their season part-time. Maybe their phone rings year-round — but they aren’t required to answer. Some legislators DO attend hearings year-round—and many don’t. That means some parts of the state are better “represented” than other parts. Some legislators are more committed to their constituency than others, but no matter how you describe it, it’s a seasonal job. There is nothing to prevent a legislator from taking an eight-month powder.
Frankly, the short legislative season is an artifact of territorial days, when Uncle Plantation handled the community business. Hawaii has grown beyond that.
Burl, the frequency, length, and starting date of legislative sessions in Hawaii are set by the Constitution, not the legislature. Maybe that’s another reason to have a Con Con — someday.
As for the timing or length of the session being a vestige of territorial days, I’ll have to defer to you on whether that is historically true in Hawaii. Let’s look at what goes on elsewhere.
Until the early 1960’s, only 19 states met annually, the rest were biennial. The numbers were reversed by the mid-70s and now 44 states meet annually, although six of those (Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, New Mexico, North Carolina and Wyoming) limit subject matter (to, for example, the budget) in one of the years. The other six (Arkansas, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon and Texas) meet every other year.
As for session length, in the early 1960s 17 states did not limit the length of their sessions and 10 had indirect limitations based, for example, on available apporpriations. Over the next three decades, the trend was toward sessions of a defined length that tended to be shorter. Currently, only 12 states do not limit the length of their sessions, the remaining 38 limit their session length based on their constitution (28), statute (4), available appropriations (3), or chamber rules (3). States with sessions of defined length meet anywhere from 20 to 120 days per year.
Does territorial residue explain limited duration legislative sessions in 37 other states? Should we “grow beyond” a limited legislative session when 37 other states haven’t? Do you suppose legislators in those states are considered “seasonal employees”?
I don’t know. You be the judge.
Uh, the state constitution can be amended by the legislature. You don’t need to call a con-con to do that.
And some states don’t pay their legislators anything.
” Lee Cataluna refers to gambling as “an infection seeking an opportunity to invade and destroy.””
Isn’t that funny. while we have countless local tv ads extolling the virtues and joys of 99 percent of Hawaii’s population visiting the 9th island, Vegas!
I usually side with Lee’s stances but this smacks of trying to be overly Pee Cee.
Burl, do you really think there are legislators whose answering machine says, “Uh, you called at the wrong time. I will return you call the day session opens in January”?
I don’t know of any. Do you?
And you’re right that the legislature can put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. However, I don’t know if there is a groundswell or a grassroots movement of any sort that is raising the issue of a year-round legislature, a unicameral legislature, etc. If Hawaii has “grown” past the plantation mentality, why hasn’t there been anyone raising these issues?
In fact, why don’t you start it up and see if anyone joins in?
As far as some states not paying any salary (not true, by the way, when you factor in per diem), you could posit that for almost any position. For example, if the governor, president of UH, the football coach, mayor, even journalists were paid zip, people still would run or apply for those jobs.
But, really, is that the solution?