Not true.
A new administration, for starters, would have dropped the governor’s costly and unproductive “fight” against federalization and cooperate with the feds to ensure a smoother transition and more federal assistance. We would not have the “uncertainty” that now grips the business community. Employers and workers would know what rules to follow. This clarity, in itself, would have improved the CNMI business climate.
A new administration would have meant a new, and possibly a better, way of dealing with the government’s budget problems, CUC, the Retirement Fund, tourism and the economy. In contrast with the Let it BE (payless) team, at least one of their opponents were interested in crafting new policies, had specific plans regarding these issues and were directly consulting with stakeholders. A first term governor, for sure, would not have allowed a payless payday. He would not be butting heads with the congressional delegate, PSS and the judiciary. But the current governor can no longer seek another term and is, not surprisingly, more willing to inflict widespread pain.
He has nothing to lose, politically speaking. He just needs to reward his supporters and punish his opponents to keep everyone on their toes until the end of his term.
A new administration would not have hired additional employees. It would have simply replaced the Covenant team with its supporters. The current governor, however, had to make new deals prior to the runoff, requiring additional hiring after the elections. That’s what’s happening now.
A new administration, moreover, would not have given the impression that it was intentionally running the CNMI into the ground so it could ram a Saipan casino bill down the people’s throats. There would be no talks of marijuana legalization and political status renegotiation either. A new administration would have been more interested in long-term solutions than quick-fixes or nostalgia for the TT days.
Heinz, for example, favors a part-time legislature and alternative energy projects. The governor wants emergency powers, period.
“Heinz and Arnold are veteran lawmakers. Why didn’t they do what needed to be done when they were in power?”
This was the oft-repeated criticism against the governor’s main opponents in the last elections. It is also nonsense. The governor runs the CNMI government, not lawmakers. He has the power, not lawmakers. He alone is in charge. That’s why then-Speaker Fitial ran for governor in 2001 and 2005. He wanted to be the leader so he could lead. He did not. He had a failed administration. But you re-elected him.
Wouldn’t a new administration also make mistakes and create problems? Sure. But again, it would have been more accountable to voters, more sensitive to public clamor, more thoughtful, more careful. A new administration would have done things differently.
This is all hypothetical, to be sure. But it certainly is a more plausible hypothesis than the wishful thinking back in November that “Letting it BE” would be better for the CNMI.
Elections, in any case, matter and choosing the right candidates is always important.
As for “not offering solutions,” this newspaper, on the contrary, has offered nothing but solutions in its editorials: the government must not spend money it doesn’t have; it must stop hiring nonessential employees; it must downsize; it must privatize CUC and other public services if possible; it should re-assess its pension system and benefits; it must be more transparent; it should cooperate with the feds during the transition period; it must pass a new and balanced budget. We have also urged the people themselves, time and again, to use their power in effecting needed changes. CNMI voters can pass laws through the initiative process and recall their incompetent leaders. They can apply pressure to their elected officials by organizing and speaking out like the free citizens that they are. They and they alone can usher in what the CNMI needed in November and still needs today: New thinking, new approach, new leadership.
Send feedback
//
