|
A couple of impressions have struck me in the past week……
I
watched a great deal of the network coverage of our major parties
national conventions. There were several items of interest. However,
something I missed entirely was much mention of political platforms
that would be emphasized during the campaigns. Laying the platform on a
plank-by-plank basis was one of the major purposes of the conventions
in days gone by. It is just another example of how modern politics are
less about issues and more about personalities.
Now
that the conventions have run their course and the parties have chosen
their respective tickets, the candidates have begun to talk more
specifically about what they believe to be important issues in the
elections. The planks seem to be more the candidate's individual ideas
instead of the parties' broad view of issues.
I
have been disappointed by one of our presidential candidates
emphasizing "education" as a plank in his platform. As a school board
member I was not impressed with the Federal Governments involvement in
our local school system. Federal monies amounted to about 5% of the
total operating budget of our district. The effort it took to get that
5% was really more than it was worth. I would have been happy to
operate on the 95% that came without strings and hoops to jump through.
Moreover, the Fed is not responsible for education. The states are. And
it is a small issue when compared to the overwhelming seriousness of
other issues that should be spoken of by a presidential candidate.
Things like the national deficit, trade imbalances affecting the
economy, and our influence and actions throughout the globe, including
our national security.
On
the other hand, I have heard the other presidential candidate pledge
that he would veto any legislation that came to his desk loaded with
"pork", otherwise known as "earmarks". I think that's a good thing if
he can get it done, but with way the legislative process works, I'm not
sure he'll really be able to do it.
Both
are advocating "change". At this point, I'm not sure what that might
mean. In either case, it will be two (the President and Vice-President)
against over 600 (Senators and Congressional reps). Those are long odds.
My
second impression has to do with our new airport. Yes, I'm back to that
again. The media has made a real point to emphasize the reductions of
flight services to markets both large and small. Many small town
airports are seeing carriers leave their cities. It is not a good time
for the airline industry in general, and consequently it is not a good
time for airports either.
So
what is my point? In my opinion, we should be spending a minimum amount
of precious capital, building a minimally functional airport until such
time that we see some kind of normalcy arrive as a result of whatever
shake-out transpires in the industry. That means a minimum length
runway, a minimum terminal (one gate should suffice, but certainly no
more than two), and minimum infrastructure. Based on what we are seeing
in the news, we may soon have no carriers in Panama City.
Building a major facility sooner is not always better than later.
|
