Wisconsin Republican Representative, and chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, wrote a review of Jeffrey Sachs' new book, The Price of Civilization, in last weekend's edition of the Wall Street Journal. Ryan entitled his piece America's Enduring Ideal, with the sub headline,
"Jeffrey Sachs is only the latest in a long line of thinkers to reject the values of our commercial republic."
In order to provide my readers with an unedited sense of Mr. Ryan's thoughts and writing style, I've reposted his review in its entirety.
"Free enterprise has never lacked for moral critics. In the mid-18th century, for instance, the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau rejected the proposition that the free exchange of goods and services, and the competitive pursuit of self-interest by economic actors, result in general prosperity—ideas then emanating from Great Britain. In a commercial society, according to Rousseau, the people are "scheming, violent, greedy, ambitious, servile, and knavish . . . and all of it at one extreme or the other of misery and opulence." Only a people with "simple customs [and] wholesome tastes" can be virtuous.
In "The Price of Civilization," Jeffrey Sachs carries Rousseau's argument into the 21st century. Mr. Sachs, a development economist at Columbia University, believes that "at the root of America's economic crisis lies a moral crisis: the decline of civic virtue among America's political and economic elite." The book's veneer of economic analysis cannot conceal what is essentially a crusade against the free enterprise ethic of our republic.
Only through a reshaping of our principles and a reordering of the American economy, Mr. Sachs believes, can we become "a mindful society." We must abandon a culture that is defined by hard work and the striving for upward mobility and an economy that has unleashed unparalleled prosperity. Hard work impedes leisure. Ambition is a vice. Economic growth hurts the planet.
The corporation is the antagonist in this morality play. Mr. Sachs refers early and often to widespread "suffering from the decline in corporate tax rates" and properly identifies a pernicious trend that both political parties have fallen victim to over the years: crony capitalism. But it is not just the rapaciousness of corporate interests that disturbs the author. He sees a deeper conspiracy at play. The marketing industry is referred to as the "dark arts of manipulation," and television has been dangerously left "almost entirely to the private sector." Our commitment to limited government and free enterprise has allowed "market values [to] trump social values." We are scolded time and again for letting business interests encourage our faults and fallibilities.
"Through clearer thinking," Mr. Sachs writes, "we can become more effective both as individuals, and as citizens, reclaiming power from corporations." This reclamation will come primarily from punitive tax and regulatory measures. Mr. Sachs is undaunted by any thought that such a regime might worsen unemployment. The trained economist assures us: "Economic theory indeed supports the view that high tax rates can actually spur, rather than hinder, work effort." He argues that financial incentives ought not to matter in a mindful society and is confident that well-intentioned social engineers can suspend the laws of economics.
One need not look far to find the inspiration for the America that Mr. Sachs seeks. He is explicit about his ideal, and it is Europe. America should match the high tax and "active labor market policies" found in the German and Scandinavian economies. The Constitution imposes too many restrictions on government interference for Mr. Sachs, and we'd be better served if we moved toward a "French-style" constitution that consolidated the executive and legislative branches and empowered experts to help us manage the "complexity of our economy." On the most effective means of petitioning one's government, Mr. Sachs sounds eerily Greek (A.D. 2011, not 500 B.C.): "A new political party can be combined with other forms of political agitation—consumer boycotts, protests, media campaigns, and social networking efforts—to put the most egregious leaders of the corporatocracy on notice."
Advocating for the European model seems particularly ill-advised at the moment, given the current state of affairs across the Atlantic. Yet Mr. Sachs is untroubled by the contradictions between the Europe of his imagination and the crisis-ridden continent as it exists today. He writes: "The countries that failed to raise taxes adequately—such as Greece—are now paying the price in a massive fiscal crisis, as in the United States." Too many industrialized countries, in his view, have fallen victim to the "race to the bottom" mentality of lowering corporate tax rates and depriving their governments' coffers of the money needed to pay their mounting bills.
The "price" of civilization, we find out, is quite steep.
A "civilized" society will cost Americans roughly $12 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade. Mr. Sachs concedes that he could lower the bill if the economy were to grow fast enough to stabilize the debt, at which point a roughly $8 trillion tax hike would suffice. The proposed means by which the federal government can expand as the economy shrinks: raise corporate tax rates (and plead with our global competitors to stop reducing their business taxes); raise the top individual income tax rate; raise taxes on investment, energy, bank balance sheets and financial transactions; and impose a national sales tax.
Mr. Sachs is honest enough to acknowledge that the "rich" are not nearly rich enough to pay for his ever-expansive vision of government. We're told that "each of us with an above-average income" (i.e., $50,000 per household) must "understand that if we are prudent, we can make do with a little less take-home pay."
Such appeals to the citizenry to make sacrifices might be more compelling if Mr. Sachs coupled them with calls for spending restraint in Washington. Instead, his budget proposal insists on the need to "augment" government spending by trillions of dollars in the years ahead. Thus the sacrifices of citizens are to be made to increase the size and scope of a federal government that Mr. Sachs admits has demonstrated little aptitude for allocating resources efficiently or even fairly. This conundrum leads him to a conclusion that would be comical if he were not deadly serious: "Yes, the federal government is incompetent and corrupt—but we need more, not less, of it."
Yet at its core "The Price of Civilization" is not about taxes or economics. It is about the "pursuit of happiness" as one academic understands it.
Enshrined in the country's founding documents, "the pursuit of happiness" has long been recognized in America as a natural right to be secured by good government. As the Founders understood it, "happiness" referred to human fulfillment, to a well-lived life of virtue in this world and ultimate fulfillment in the next. In ensuring that its citizens are free to seek their happiness, government was to promote neither hedonism nor materialism. It was to secure the right to pursue happiness by not interfering with either normal commercial transactions or freedom of worship.
In "The Price of Civilization," Mr. Sachs is asking the right questions. What is a life well lived? What should our government's role be in building a more virtuous society? What policies should it pursue to promote fulfilling lives for its citizens? If such questions direct us to the moral wisdom of our cultural traditions, they can indeed help to balance the excesses of capitalism and so help us to extend its benefits to all.
Yet Mr. Sachs's gospel of happiness draws not on the inspired tradition of the Founders but rather on the Utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham. In the 1780s, Bentham proposed that "happiness," which he equated with "pleasure," could be mathematically measured. It was not sufficient, he thought, for government to protect our rights if it was to vouchsafe our pursuit of happiness. Government must instead quantify "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" and set policies and goals accordingly. There was a science to satisfaction, Bentham claimed, and it was a puzzle that trained experts could solve.
Channeling Bentham, Mr. Sachs calls for the establishment of a national metrics for life satisfaction and sets a 10-year goal to "raise America's happiness." Although the specific measures are hazy, the steps are clear: For people to be happy, their government must increasingly shield them from the challenges of life. The good life is thus defined as one of ever-more pleasure at the expense of work.
But happiness in this world results not from avoiding challenges but from meeting them. Happiness is the recompense of real effort, whether intellectual or physical, and of earned success. It comes from achievement—from doing something of economic, artistic or emotional value. The satisfaction to be taken in producing valuable things brings with it a lasting sense of personal fulfillment. Mr. Sachs's design for paternalistic government will only impede the pursuit of happiness.
Mr. Sachs is more accurate when he argues that economics is not merely about making money. It must serve the higher cause of human well-being and moral development. He is right to dislike the greed and vulgarity that can accompany bourgeois life. But he is wrong to attribute these phenomena to capitalism uniquely. Discord and imperfection arise from human nature. The question is how they can be contained and redirected. Capitalism, together with our moral traditions, has long offered a solution consistent with individual freedom. Mr. Sachs's approach does not.
Mr. Sachs likely overstates Americans' enthusiasm for restrictions on work, for the denial of constitutionally protected freedoms or for government controls over media and technology. His conception of the good life could perhaps be mutually agreed to in a small, isolated and homogeneous society. But here in the United States it would have to be imposed on a diverse and globally integrated nation of more than 300 million people. That is neither possible nor desirable.
The freedom and independence of the American population can best be guaranteed by allowing the people to govern themselves through their elected representatives; by keeping limits on the size of government; and by encouraging each of us to take responsibility for our own well-being. We can best be aided by our families, communities, churches and local institutions—and by the government only as a last resort.
For, ultimately, Mr. Sachs's quarrel is with our founding principles of equality and liberty. Underlying the arguments in "The Price of Civilization" is a contention that the Constitution is too conducive to freedom, that it endorses an economic system too friendly to growth and the satisfaction of appetite, that it creates political institutions too inattentive to our national character.
In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson defined "a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." The contrast with Mr. Sachs's idea of "good government" could not be more stark.
The Founders thought of America as exceptional, but Mr. Sachs thinks that this claim is a myth and that the country's present greatness a historical aberration. Our decline is, thankfully, inevitable, he says: "America will not again dominate the world economy or geopolitics as it did in the immediate aftermath of World War II. That was a special historical moment; we can be glad that economic progress throughout the world is rapidly creating a more balanced global economy and society."
It is through this prism of decline that we may better understand Mr. Sachs's calls for an overbearing government to take more earnings from you and make more decisions for you, as well as his instructions for hard-working Americans to restrain their ambitions and accept their current place in life. He seeks nothing less than to replace the vision of the Founders—the ideals of individual liberty that have enabled America to achieve the unrivaled social, material and spiritual flourishing of the past two and a quarter centuries—with one that relies almost solely on the wisdom and beneficence of an intrusive, unlimited government.
The dialogue between capitalism and its critics is an old one, and it will continue. But as citizens of a self-governing nation, Americans must choose from time to time between alternative visions for our future. This book's budget proposals and economic policies are profoundly revealing. They lay bare the real agenda of those who wish us to abandon the American idea and consign our nation to the irrevocable path of decline. If only in that sense, "The Price of Civilization" is a useful contribution to the conversation we must have in order to make informed political choices in the years ahead."
I think Ryan's review speaks for itself. He does an excellent job at three things. First, he casts Sachs' prescriptions for the US as being incredibly socialist, pro-big-brother government, and expensive. Second, he places Sachs in a long line of similarly-reasoning statists who either distrust or despise the 'little people' who, in the US, actually vote for who will govern them. Finally, he ties what appear to be just choices concerning economics and the functioning market economy of the US into, ultimately, a choice of fundamental values by which each person may, or may not, be free to pursue her/his own happiness as s/he sees it.
My own commenst on Ryan's review and, indirectly, Sachs' ideas, takes a different tack.
Jeffrey Sachs' bio includes 19 years teaching at Harvard. In all that time, surely he should have, or could have, sat down with Harvard's Robert Nozick to discuss the nature of the state, utopia and, well, as Nozick's famous book title expressed it, anarchy.
You see, what I see Sachs doing is saying something like this,
'The US is a marvelous society. If we could only just radically change the Constitution or, better yet, just tear it up and run a socialist, command society, it would be perfect. All the resources, size, geographic benefits, and a large population, only requiring the removal of individual freedom, and we've got the perfect society.'
Nozick, in contrast, would probably reply,
'No, Jeffrey. This is the US. If you want to form your envisioned high-tax, high-spending, government-by-command society, you and your ilk should go freely associate elsewhere with your own, new set of rules and form that utopia. But not here, thanks. Those of us here are keeping the Constitution. You must go elsewhere with your own merry band to found your new society.'
Nozick is all for each group of similarly-thinking people to establish its own free association.
So what I don't get, in a theoretical sense, is why progressives keep trying to hijack the US and its Constitution, or simply ignore the latter, rather than go found their own alternative association/society.
Well, I do know why not. Because it's harder in this day and age to collect a few million people, find desirable land that isn't already someone else's country, and found a new society.
Ryan does a service by revealing that Sachs and his kind are trying a stealth hijacking of America, because if they simply produced their entire plan and values publicly, they'd be rejected.
And should be. Because to do what they want, well, they can probably just fly to any of several European nations and feel right at home.
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Why Do State & Local Government Directly Employ So Many Workers?
Amidst all the trouble being caused by teachers and other state and local workers in New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Ohio, I've been wondering just why local and state governments directly employ so many workers?
Let's start with a small, local example- your town's parks and recreation department. I understand hiring a director for the function- sort of. Ideally, a committee of town council members could oversee the function, or one manager could handle several functions. So let's assume that this function, along with a few others, is managed by a managerial-level town employee who is not unionized.
Why would any town want to hire and be responsible for managing and paying the people in a function like this? It's essentially doing landscaping and outdoor maintenance work for the town's properties. So why not just contract with as many local such firms as necessary to perform the work? Bidding such work out to existing firms should get the town something approaching the marginal cost for such work, without incurring headaches involved with actually managing and paying the workers involved. No strikes, no compensation negotiations. And the town would have the advantage of routinely rebidding contracts, not to mention having recourse for work not performed, or poorly performed.
The same could be said with more local functions, such as school staffs, waste treatment plants, etc. If one didn't already have the precedent of existing school staffs, unions and such, why would a town or district bother with hiring anyone below a superintendent of schools? As a town official, I'd much rather outsource teaching to either individually-hired teachers, or a company which supplied whole school teaching and administrative staffs. Prices for the contract could be set relative to student performances, while the town remained free of long term liabilities for benefits paid to the staffs. That would be the concern of the providing company.
About the only state or local function you might not want outsourced would be the police function, due to their use of force to compel citizens' compliance. Firefighting isn't really all that special, once prices reflect the risks of the work. As with schools, the actual buildings would be built and owned by the town.
By avoiding direct employment of many workers, local and state governments would accomplish several things. First, they'd always be able to solicit the best, most productive solutions from competing bidders for their work. Second, without dedicated employees, redesign of processes, departments, etc., would be much easier, because the government wouldn't directly employ the affected workers.
Third, workers doing government jobs, via contracts, would have the same risks everyone else does regarding employment, yet enjoy private sector labor markets and prices.
Aside from giving state and local government employees special benefits by being employed directly by government, what is the real value of this arrangement? It's fine to have higher-level managers of functions employed by the government, but, lower than that, it would make sense to have citizens' tax dollars used to spend on the best among competing solutions, rather than provide cozy long term employment for those fortunate enough to secure such a job.
What's gone on in New Jersey for over a year and, more recently, in Wisconsin and Ohio makes me think about this topic a lot.
Let's start with a small, local example- your town's parks and recreation department. I understand hiring a director for the function- sort of. Ideally, a committee of town council members could oversee the function, or one manager could handle several functions. So let's assume that this function, along with a few others, is managed by a managerial-level town employee who is not unionized.
Why would any town want to hire and be responsible for managing and paying the people in a function like this? It's essentially doing landscaping and outdoor maintenance work for the town's properties. So why not just contract with as many local such firms as necessary to perform the work? Bidding such work out to existing firms should get the town something approaching the marginal cost for such work, without incurring headaches involved with actually managing and paying the workers involved. No strikes, no compensation negotiations. And the town would have the advantage of routinely rebidding contracts, not to mention having recourse for work not performed, or poorly performed.
The same could be said with more local functions, such as school staffs, waste treatment plants, etc. If one didn't already have the precedent of existing school staffs, unions and such, why would a town or district bother with hiring anyone below a superintendent of schools? As a town official, I'd much rather outsource teaching to either individually-hired teachers, or a company which supplied whole school teaching and administrative staffs. Prices for the contract could be set relative to student performances, while the town remained free of long term liabilities for benefits paid to the staffs. That would be the concern of the providing company.
About the only state or local function you might not want outsourced would be the police function, due to their use of force to compel citizens' compliance. Firefighting isn't really all that special, once prices reflect the risks of the work. As with schools, the actual buildings would be built and owned by the town.
By avoiding direct employment of many workers, local and state governments would accomplish several things. First, they'd always be able to solicit the best, most productive solutions from competing bidders for their work. Second, without dedicated employees, redesign of processes, departments, etc., would be much easier, because the government wouldn't directly employ the affected workers.
Third, workers doing government jobs, via contracts, would have the same risks everyone else does regarding employment, yet enjoy private sector labor markets and prices.
Aside from giving state and local government employees special benefits by being employed directly by government, what is the real value of this arrangement? It's fine to have higher-level managers of functions employed by the government, but, lower than that, it would make sense to have citizens' tax dollars used to spend on the best among competing solutions, rather than provide cozy long term employment for those fortunate enough to secure such a job.
What's gone on in New Jersey for over a year and, more recently, in Wisconsin and Ohio makes me think about this topic a lot.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Your Tax Dollars At "Work?"
An anonymous reader left a comment yesterday on this post. The text of the reader's comment was showcased in this post.
But there's more to it than that. It appears that the reader left a trail showing a misuse of your tax dollars.
Here's why.
Thanks to Sitemeter, I have the commenting reader's ISP information. Usually I'd keep some of it private, but not this time. See for yourself.
Domain Namesenate.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address 156.33.59.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms)
ISP U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
Location
Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : Virginia
City : Vienna
Lat/Long : 38.912, -77.2716 (Map)
Language English (U.S.)en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinNT
Browser Internet Explorer 8.0Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution:1613 x 1008
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Feb 22 2010 2:30:59 pm
Last Page View Feb 22 2010 2:48:48 pm
Visit Length 17 minutes 49 seconds
Page Views 6
Visit Entry Page http://conservativei...ys-death-panels.html
Visit Exit Page http://conservativei...ys-death-panels.html
Out Click Post a Commenthttps://www.blogger....=7746442432328731504
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Feb 22 2010 2:30:59 pm
Visit Number4,417
It appears someone in the Senate Sergeant At Arms office was using this government ISP to read my blog and leave politically-motivated comments. And the location wasn't the Capitol, or a Senate office building. It is Vienna, Virginia. Perhaps that's where the ISP is located, but that's sort of hard to believe.
In any case, the reader had a bias. And it's hard for me to understand why we are paying taxes for some moron in the that organization to read blogs like mine and comment on them.
Of course, if the Senate employee wasn't on duty when surfing, then why is s/he using government resources and leaving politically-motivated comments from a government account?
Somehow, it seems fitting someone so stupid would be working for the federal government.
Hopefully, supplying the detailed ISP, time and other information may help someone identify the culprit and have him fired. Maybe I'll scare up a phone number down at the Capitol to alert the Sergeant At Arms for the Senate of this situation.
So much for efficiency in government. Now you know your tax dollars are paying for some government union employee to surf the web on your dime.
But there's more to it than that. It appears that the reader left a trail showing a misuse of your tax dollars.
Here's why.
Thanks to Sitemeter, I have the commenting reader's ISP information. Usually I'd keep some of it private, but not this time. See for yourself.
Domain Namesenate.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address 156.33.59.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms)
ISP U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
Location
Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : Virginia
City : Vienna
Lat/Long : 38.912, -77.2716 (Map)
Language English (U.S.)en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinNT
Browser Internet Explorer 8.0Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor Resolution:1613 x 1008
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Feb 22 2010 2:30:59 pm
Last Page View Feb 22 2010 2:48:48 pm
Visit Length 17 minutes 49 seconds
Page Views 6
Visit Entry Page http://conservativei...ys-death-panels.html
Visit Exit Page http://conservativei...ys-death-panels.html
Out Click Post a Commenthttps://www.blogger....=7746442432328731504
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time Feb 22 2010 2:30:59 pm
Visit Number4,417
It appears someone in the Senate Sergeant At Arms office was using this government ISP to read my blog and leave politically-motivated comments. And the location wasn't the Capitol, or a Senate office building. It is Vienna, Virginia. Perhaps that's where the ISP is located, but that's sort of hard to believe.
In any case, the reader had a bias. And it's hard for me to understand why we are paying taxes for some moron in the that organization to read blogs like mine and comment on them.
Of course, if the Senate employee wasn't on duty when surfing, then why is s/he using government resources and leaving politically-motivated comments from a government account?
Somehow, it seems fitting someone so stupid would be working for the federal government.
Hopefully, supplying the detailed ISP, time and other information may help someone identify the culprit and have him fired. Maybe I'll scare up a phone number down at the Capitol to alert the Sergeant At Arms for the Senate of this situation.
So much for efficiency in government. Now you know your tax dollars are paying for some government union employee to surf the web on your dime.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The New Hidden Unions
Yesterday's lead staff editorial in the Wall Street Journal conveyed a chilling fact. A fact which is displayed on the nearby chart which accompanied the article.
As of last year, US public union membership surpassed that of private unions.A little-known act in JFK's brief presidency was allowing public, state and federal government workers to unionize. In a recent piece on that topic, the author noted that even FDR and LaGuardia opposed this, because they considered government workers honor-bound to serve the people, in exchange for their public-trough-sourced jobs.
It's taken nearly 50 years, but look at the damage JFK wrought.
Here's a good example. It's from the editorial,
"The political scientists Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo recently wrote in the Weekly Standard about the 2006 example of former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine shouting to a rally of 10,000 public workers that "We will fight for a fair contract." Mr. Corzine was supposed to be on the other side of the bargaining table representing taxpayers, not labor."
In the past year, the largest growth segment for employment has been.....government! And the average salary in the sector has risen, as well.
That's right. In the midst of a deep recession, government workers have benefited with more money and more jobs.
Having so many government workers leads to them organizing for higher taxes to pay...themselves. And generally swelling the public sector at the expense of the rest of us who actually work for a living.
If for only this reason, this is why outsourcing as much government work as possible to the private sector, via contracting, is a good idea.
Instead, we now have a larger union bloc voting to expand government than we have private industry union members. By comparison, the private sector unions were a mere distraction.
Monday, January 11, 2010
An Unsustainable Trend
Glenn Beck presented a fascinating, if troubling, chart on this evening's program.
Starting in, I believe, 1935 or 1939, the chart compared private sector vs. government job creation through the present day.
While the private sector line began far above the government one, its slope was shallower, and it exhibited some variability.
By contrast, the government employment line had a higher slope and appeared to have a much more constant, unwavering pattern.
Chillingly, the lines crossed in 2007, then showed private sector jobs plunging significantly below the government employment curve.
That's right. Currently, and for the past 3 years, the US employs more people in government jobs than in private sector jobs.
Scared yet?
As Beck noted, the government employees are paid with tax dollars. Taxes come from working residents of the US.
How long can we have fewer workers supporting the larger number of government workers?
Starting in, I believe, 1935 or 1939, the chart compared private sector vs. government job creation through the present day.
While the private sector line began far above the government one, its slope was shallower, and it exhibited some variability.
By contrast, the government employment line had a higher slope and appeared to have a much more constant, unwavering pattern.
Chillingly, the lines crossed in 2007, then showed private sector jobs plunging significantly below the government employment curve.
That's right. Currently, and for the past 3 years, the US employs more people in government jobs than in private sector jobs.
Scared yet?
As Beck noted, the government employees are paid with tax dollars. Taxes come from working residents of the US.
How long can we have fewer workers supporting the larger number of government workers?
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Peggy Noonan Almost Hits the Mark
Peggy Noonan almost got it right this weekend in the Wall Street Journal when she opined,
"This is historic. This is something new in modern political history, and I'm not sure we're fully noticing it. Americans are starting to think the problems we are facing cannot be solved.
Part of the reason is that the problems- debt, spending, war- seem too big. But a larger part is that our government, from the White House through Congress and so many state and local governments, seems to be demonstrating every day that they cannot make things better. They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths- spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally. And in the long term everyone- well, not those in government, but most everyone else- seems to know that won't work. It's not a way out."
Noonan actually refutes herself by the end of that second paragraph. If she had simply added the phrase,
"by our increasingly professional, lifetime political class"
to that last sentence in the first paragraph, she'd have hit the mark exactly.
How is it she could write "well, not those in government, but most everyone else- seems to know that won't work," but claim we are dispirited and feel overwhelmed by our problems?
Nobody I know, with a brain, thinks our problems are overwhelming us.
They think the problems are overwhelming power-hungry professional pols who just want lifetime sinecures and more power.
Sensible Americans understand that we must spend less via government, trim entitlements, reverse 60 years of deficit spending, and focus on defining objectives for our current combat situations, then achieve the objectives.
These problems are far from insoluble by Americans who want to go about their business unhampered by government.
But for too-long-sitting Senators and Representatives with half a dozen years in office and dreams of as many more, or one of their state's Senate seats, those solutions don't sound like fun.
Less power. More accountability. Fewer lush promises made with other peoples' taxes.
Maybe Noonan's friends are too set in their government ways, and, by extension, so is Noonan.
She almost had it right.
But not quite.
She knows the right answer, but, like so many careerists in and around national politics, she can't bring herself to say it.
Term limits. Less federal power. No more professional politicians.
It's that simple. Solving that problem might be overwhelming. But not debt and spending. Not even war.
"This is historic. This is something new in modern political history, and I'm not sure we're fully noticing it. Americans are starting to think the problems we are facing cannot be solved.
Part of the reason is that the problems- debt, spending, war- seem too big. But a larger part is that our government, from the White House through Congress and so many state and local governments, seems to be demonstrating every day that they cannot make things better. They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths- spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally. And in the long term everyone- well, not those in government, but most everyone else- seems to know that won't work. It's not a way out."
Noonan actually refutes herself by the end of that second paragraph. If she had simply added the phrase,
"by our increasingly professional, lifetime political class"
to that last sentence in the first paragraph, she'd have hit the mark exactly.
How is it she could write "well, not those in government, but most everyone else- seems to know that won't work," but claim we are dispirited and feel overwhelmed by our problems?
Nobody I know, with a brain, thinks our problems are overwhelming us.
They think the problems are overwhelming power-hungry professional pols who just want lifetime sinecures and more power.
Sensible Americans understand that we must spend less via government, trim entitlements, reverse 60 years of deficit spending, and focus on defining objectives for our current combat situations, then achieve the objectives.
These problems are far from insoluble by Americans who want to go about their business unhampered by government.
But for too-long-sitting Senators and Representatives with half a dozen years in office and dreams of as many more, or one of their state's Senate seats, those solutions don't sound like fun.
Less power. More accountability. Fewer lush promises made with other peoples' taxes.
Maybe Noonan's friends are too set in their government ways, and, by extension, so is Noonan.
She almost had it right.
But not quite.
She knows the right answer, but, like so many careerists in and around national politics, she can't bring herself to say it.
Term limits. Less federal power. No more professional politicians.
It's that simple. Solving that problem might be overwhelming. But not debt and spending. Not even war.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Why HSA's Are The Way To Go For Health Insurance
Yesterday I read "Theodore Dalrymple's" excellent editorial on the notion of a 'right' to healthcare in the Wall Street Journal. "Dalrymple" is the pseudonym of Anthony Daniels, a British doctor.
His argument that there is not such a thing as a 'right' to healthcare was persuasive. Daniels crystallized it in this passage,
"When I then ask my interlocutor whether he can think of any reason why people should not be left to die in the street, other than that they have a right to health care, he is generally reduced to silence. He cannot think of one.
Moreover, the right to grant is also the right to deny. And in times of economic stringency, when the first call on public expenditure is the payment of the salaries and pensions of health-care staff, we can rely with absolute confidence on the capacity of government sophists to find good reasons for doing bad things."
Daniels' observation immediately gave rise in me to a clear argument for partially-government-funded health savings accounts, or HSAs.
Suppose you give in to the notion that everyone in the US has a "right" to health care. But, you don't want to needlessly infringe on anyone's private rights to choose their health care providers, or what is treated, within a societally-agreed level of affordability?
What would you do to effect that? Easy.
You'd provide each person with a government-funded HSA. Every taxpayer would be allowed a credit sized to allow purchase of health insurance. Those taxpayers above a certain income threshold would get no further assistance. Those with no income would be given a voucher with which to purchase health insurance. Those below a threshold would be provided with an actuarially-determined payment into their HSA, in addition to the health insurance credit or voucher.
In this manner, everyone would be 'covered.' Everyone would have insurance, and those too poor to have money for deductibles or out of pocket health expenses would get money in an HSA, to be used only with approved medical care providers.
Once someone has used up their government-provided HSA dollars, they are on their own. We can't provided unlimited health care to everyone. But family and friends could spend their HSA dollars for really sick relatives or friends.
Nobody would have their right to choose providers, or care, rationed by anyone else. And 15-20% of our economy, the health care sector, wouldn't be radically altered to allow for a government-run system.
Thus, a wealthy country, like ours, could relatively easily provide real, cash health care assistance to those who need it, without changing private medical care systems.
Further, the expense has to be funded in cash, so Congress would have to place the expense of this assistance on budget. The public would see just how much its compassion really cost.
Let's see, private rights not infringed, an entire economic sector not taken over by government, poor people provided dedicated health care assistance.
Not a bad way to provide healthcare, if you really think it's a "right" we must guarantee. Clearly superior to the 1,000+ page pig of a bill being rammed through Congress by Wonderboy and his minions.
His argument that there is not such a thing as a 'right' to healthcare was persuasive. Daniels crystallized it in this passage,
"When I then ask my interlocutor whether he can think of any reason why people should not be left to die in the street, other than that they have a right to health care, he is generally reduced to silence. He cannot think of one.
Moreover, the right to grant is also the right to deny. And in times of economic stringency, when the first call on public expenditure is the payment of the salaries and pensions of health-care staff, we can rely with absolute confidence on the capacity of government sophists to find good reasons for doing bad things."
Daniels' observation immediately gave rise in me to a clear argument for partially-government-funded health savings accounts, or HSAs.
Suppose you give in to the notion that everyone in the US has a "right" to health care. But, you don't want to needlessly infringe on anyone's private rights to choose their health care providers, or what is treated, within a societally-agreed level of affordability?
What would you do to effect that? Easy.
You'd provide each person with a government-funded HSA. Every taxpayer would be allowed a credit sized to allow purchase of health insurance. Those taxpayers above a certain income threshold would get no further assistance. Those with no income would be given a voucher with which to purchase health insurance. Those below a threshold would be provided with an actuarially-determined payment into their HSA, in addition to the health insurance credit or voucher.
In this manner, everyone would be 'covered.' Everyone would have insurance, and those too poor to have money for deductibles or out of pocket health expenses would get money in an HSA, to be used only with approved medical care providers.
Once someone has used up their government-provided HSA dollars, they are on their own. We can't provided unlimited health care to everyone. But family and friends could spend their HSA dollars for really sick relatives or friends.
Nobody would have their right to choose providers, or care, rationed by anyone else. And 15-20% of our economy, the health care sector, wouldn't be radically altered to allow for a government-run system.
Thus, a wealthy country, like ours, could relatively easily provide real, cash health care assistance to those who need it, without changing private medical care systems.
Further, the expense has to be funded in cash, so Congress would have to place the expense of this assistance on budget. The public would see just how much its compassion really cost.
Let's see, private rights not infringed, an entire economic sector not taken over by government, poor people provided dedicated health care assistance.
Not a bad way to provide healthcare, if you really think it's a "right" we must guarantee. Clearly superior to the 1,000+ page pig of a bill being rammed through Congress by Wonderboy and his minions.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Who Does Your Representative Really Represent?
Have you ever considered who your elected federal Congressional District Representative actually represents? Or, perhaps more specifically, whose interests?
Isn't it either the House Speaker's or Minority Leader's?
Yes, you and several thousand other voters elect a Congressional Representative. And, under the Constitution, with a short, two-year term, s/he's supposed to be super-sensitive to your desires and wishes, right?
But that isn't what happens in our modern world of permanent federal legislative careers, is it?
Once stepping foot in the the District of Columbia, our elected Representatives are quickly introduced to the realities of their new job and career path. If they don't play ball with their party's 'leadership' in the House, get ready for: a lousy office, small administrative budget, no help authoring or passing legislation, awful committee assignments and, if they are really bad girls or boys, having the national and state party machinery actively recruit and run a competing candidate in the next primary. Or sit passively by and let the newly-elected Rep lose the next general election.
Right now, Frisco Nan and John Boehner hold more sway over your elected Representative than you and your fellow district voters do.
Your elected Representative's own careerist goals quickly displace her/his sensitivity to voter agendas. With both party's Representatives playing this game, voters always lose.
That's why term limits, reduction or elimination of Congressional pensions and benefits, and a check on salaries are needed to make Congress cease to be a career.
It should be a revolving door for passionately interested citizens with effective ideas on solving topical problems. Not a lushly-padded stepping stone to a federal career in which nobody ever has to listen to voters again.
Isn't it either the House Speaker's or Minority Leader's?
Yes, you and several thousand other voters elect a Congressional Representative. And, under the Constitution, with a short, two-year term, s/he's supposed to be super-sensitive to your desires and wishes, right?
But that isn't what happens in our modern world of permanent federal legislative careers, is it?
Once stepping foot in the the District of Columbia, our elected Representatives are quickly introduced to the realities of their new job and career path. If they don't play ball with their party's 'leadership' in the House, get ready for: a lousy office, small administrative budget, no help authoring or passing legislation, awful committee assignments and, if they are really bad girls or boys, having the national and state party machinery actively recruit and run a competing candidate in the next primary. Or sit passively by and let the newly-elected Rep lose the next general election.
Right now, Frisco Nan and John Boehner hold more sway over your elected Representative than you and your fellow district voters do.
Your elected Representative's own careerist goals quickly displace her/his sensitivity to voter agendas. With both party's Representatives playing this game, voters always lose.
That's why term limits, reduction or elimination of Congressional pensions and benefits, and a check on salaries are needed to make Congress cease to be a career.
It should be a revolving door for passionately interested citizens with effective ideas on solving topical problems. Not a lushly-padded stepping stone to a federal career in which nobody ever has to listen to voters again.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
What Would The Founding Fathers Say About Today's Communications Technology?
My business partner and I recently found ourselves pondering the question that is the title of today's post.
Considering a collection of men including Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, one cannot help but believe they would be thrilled at the immense scope of instant, broadly-distributed online communications options available today.
Imagine Franklin twittering. Or Jefferson's daily political blog. What would Sam Adams and Tom Paine have done with freely-available blogging capabilities?
Surely, the founding fathers of the American experiment would be pleased to see such freedom of expression available so ubiquitously.
However, at the same time, I would hazard to guess that they would have tweaked the design of government a bit, in light of such freely-available tools to incite passions in the citizenry.
For example, consider this post from just a year ago. It has probably become the most-searched and -read post on this blog.
If Franklin & Co. were writing the Constitution today, amidst our modern communications technologies, I think that, if they opted for direct election of Senators, they would condition nomination for that office to those who had served in statewide or other elected federal posts, i.e., US Representative, for at least 6-8 years.
Their original intent was clearly to represent the States, not the people, per se, in the Senate. Today's one-issue wonders, such as Patty Murray (a/k/a the mom in tennis shoes) from Washington, or Wonderboy from Illinois, would not have been elected because they would not have met qualifications for the office.
I think the founders would also, were they alive today, impose term limits. They never envisioned a professional political class. In their day, Congress didn't even meet for most of the year. It was a part-time job, and its members had to return home to actually make their living.
Having seen today's full-time, professional political class in action at the federal level, I believe the Founders would prevent that through term limits, limits on the amount of time during the year in which Congress could be in session, or draconian limits on Congressional pay, with the removal of a pension, in order to reinforce the nature of the offices as service to the citizenry, rather than a lifetime career.
With such opinion-shaping power available via free online blogs, inexpensive websites, and the interlinking of cell phones and the internet, I believe the Framers would have sought to provide more buffers for parts of the federal government from the increased influences of immediate, broadscale public opinion on the deliberations of Congress.
Considering a collection of men including Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, one cannot help but believe they would be thrilled at the immense scope of instant, broadly-distributed online communications options available today.
Imagine Franklin twittering. Or Jefferson's daily political blog. What would Sam Adams and Tom Paine have done with freely-available blogging capabilities?
Surely, the founding fathers of the American experiment would be pleased to see such freedom of expression available so ubiquitously.
However, at the same time, I would hazard to guess that they would have tweaked the design of government a bit, in light of such freely-available tools to incite passions in the citizenry.
For example, consider this post from just a year ago. It has probably become the most-searched and -read post on this blog.
If Franklin & Co. were writing the Constitution today, amidst our modern communications technologies, I think that, if they opted for direct election of Senators, they would condition nomination for that office to those who had served in statewide or other elected federal posts, i.e., US Representative, for at least 6-8 years.
Their original intent was clearly to represent the States, not the people, per se, in the Senate. Today's one-issue wonders, such as Patty Murray (a/k/a the mom in tennis shoes) from Washington, or Wonderboy from Illinois, would not have been elected because they would not have met qualifications for the office.
I think the founders would also, were they alive today, impose term limits. They never envisioned a professional political class. In their day, Congress didn't even meet for most of the year. It was a part-time job, and its members had to return home to actually make their living.
Having seen today's full-time, professional political class in action at the federal level, I believe the Founders would prevent that through term limits, limits on the amount of time during the year in which Congress could be in session, or draconian limits on Congressional pay, with the removal of a pension, in order to reinforce the nature of the offices as service to the citizenry, rather than a lifetime career.
With such opinion-shaping power available via free online blogs, inexpensive websites, and the interlinking of cell phones and the internet, I believe the Framers would have sought to provide more buffers for parts of the federal government from the increased influences of immediate, broadscale public opinion on the deliberations of Congress.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Glenn Beck's New Movement: The 912 Project
Fox News' new hire, Glenn Beck, recently began the 912 Project. Announced last month on his highly-rated 5PM weekday program, it seeks to facilitate individual Americans in returning to pre-911 principles and values. According to the website, the effort currently has about a quarter of a million members.
As I watched a few weeks ago, Beck revealed an ordinary-looking kitchen-type table on his set and began talking with Chuck Norris via video link. Norris, at his ranch, had gathered a large group of individuals to observe and participate. Hearing Beck describe this next step in his group's development, that of gathering together with like-minded neighbors around kitchen tables, I immediately recalled Frank Capra's famous movie, Meet John Doe.
Here are two YouTube clips about it. The first is the original trailer, and the second is a scene from the movie.
As I watched a few weeks ago, Beck revealed an ordinary-looking kitchen-type table on his set and began talking with Chuck Norris via video link. Norris, at his ranch, had gathered a large group of individuals to observe and participate. Hearing Beck describe this next step in his group's development, that of gathering together with like-minded neighbors around kitchen tables, I immediately recalled Frank Capra's famous movie, Meet John Doe.
Here are two YouTube clips about it. The first is the original trailer, and the second is a scene from the movie.
In the film, "John Doe Clubs" are formed across the nation. Beck's 912 Project seems to emulate this, although he's made no mention of the parallel. Nor, to my knowledge, has anyone else. But the similarity is unmistakable.
Unlike the movie, where the character played by Eward Arnold attempts to hijack the movement, I don't think Beck has any intention of leading the project. He genuinely seems to be attempting to provide a skeleton for a self-organizing, truly grassroots citizen movement to retake government at any and all levels. Especially, I would think, Congress.
I've spoken with my partner about this a few times, speculating on what might ultimately result from the Project.
While, as I noted above, I don't expect Glenn Beck to attempt to control the movement, I do expect him, at some point in the near future, to suggest that the local groups consider demanding that candidates for office in 2010 take a pledge to uphold the 912 Project's principles and values, or face opposition from one of the group's members in that locale or district.
Can you imagine what would happen if 40 or 50 sitting, partisan House members were defeated by party-independent members of the 912 Project? It's not hard to envision the group demanding that one of their own be elected Speaker, with the party first succumbing to their demand gaining more representation on various committees.
Further, one could imagine the 40-50 independents being content to leave the House leaderless until their demands are met. It's unlikely that either party would or could compromise around them and select a partisan Speaker in that environment.
Who knows what could happen in the Senate, where an uprising that took, say, 10 seats could cause havoc with Wonderboy's programs.
I remain very interested to see where Beck's efforts at providing support for this type of movement lead.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Pity Michigan Its Hapless Politicians
I live in New Jersey.
I'm far from proud of that fact. I fervently wish I lived in another state. I wasn't born here, and, God willing, will move when circumstances allow, to a more conservative state.
But at least I don't live in Michigan.
Tuesday's Wall Street Journal ran a piece discussing the hilarious efforts of the state's Democratic governor, Jennifer Granholm, to attract the film industry.
Usually, states capitalize on one, or more, of three things which they possess: desirable geographical location, or; a unique or prized benefit to a particular industry, such as academic or craft talent, or; a significantly lower cost of doing business.
Silicon Valley is where it is because of the combination of fine universities and an area in which many talented engineers wished to remain. Boston's Route 128 technology belt shared this, with its dependence upon MIT and Harvard. Southern states provided lower labor costs to many industries.
What does Michigan offer the film industry? Empty old auto plants, for one. And tax breaks, for another.
Neither of which is even remotely unique among states.
The Journal article notes how the effort has failed, so far, to create meaningful, lasting jobs in the state. Apparently expectations were for as many as 3,600 new jobs from the film industry in the state.
Instead, a few films simply took advantage of narrow tax incentives for a specific movie, then left the state with no lasting benefit.
Maybe it's the result of too many years of reliance on three aging US industrial titans. It would appear that the state's politicians are as bereft of ideas for adding value with the state's population and resources, as well as an ability to face reality, as its once-vibrant auto makers are.
Then again, maybe bad ideas like Granholm's will eventually lead to a cleaning out of the state's old, tired Democrats and an infusion of more entrepreneurial governmental officials.
I'm far from proud of that fact. I fervently wish I lived in another state. I wasn't born here, and, God willing, will move when circumstances allow, to a more conservative state.
But at least I don't live in Michigan.
Tuesday's Wall Street Journal ran a piece discussing the hilarious efforts of the state's Democratic governor, Jennifer Granholm, to attract the film industry.
Usually, states capitalize on one, or more, of three things which they possess: desirable geographical location, or; a unique or prized benefit to a particular industry, such as academic or craft talent, or; a significantly lower cost of doing business.
Silicon Valley is where it is because of the combination of fine universities and an area in which many talented engineers wished to remain. Boston's Route 128 technology belt shared this, with its dependence upon MIT and Harvard. Southern states provided lower labor costs to many industries.
What does Michigan offer the film industry? Empty old auto plants, for one. And tax breaks, for another.
Neither of which is even remotely unique among states.
The Journal article notes how the effort has failed, so far, to create meaningful, lasting jobs in the state. Apparently expectations were for as many as 3,600 new jobs from the film industry in the state.
Instead, a few films simply took advantage of narrow tax incentives for a specific movie, then left the state with no lasting benefit.
Maybe it's the result of too many years of reliance on three aging US industrial titans. It would appear that the state's politicians are as bereft of ideas for adding value with the state's population and resources, as well as an ability to face reality, as its once-vibrant auto makers are.
Then again, maybe bad ideas like Granholm's will eventually lead to a cleaning out of the state's old, tired Democrats and an infusion of more entrepreneurial governmental officials.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
A Better Way To Pursue Infrastructure Spending
As the New Messiah's infrastructure pork barrel has rolled into Congress this week, conservatives everywhere worry about the waste and corruption sure to follow in its wake. Congress has already passed several hundred billion dollars worth of road and bridge spending bills following the collapse of the Minnesota highway bridge two years ago. How could we possibly still need even more of this spending?
As Frisco Nan and Harry Reid blathered about the necessity of this Federal spending orgy, my conviction that it is exactly the wrong thing to do has become ever stronger.
What else might one do if infrastructure repairs and improvements truly are necessary?
Well, other pundits have observed something that concerns me, as well. That is, states and municipalities find dozens of 'necessary' projects when someone else- the Federal government and other states' taxpayers- pays for them. In fact, in this sort of game, the winner is the one who loads up his request with the highest dollar amount of projects, since taxes from other states will be, in effect, paying for them.
Therefore, the best way to avoid the waste we've already seen in this infrastructure bill is to approach it in an entirely different manner.
First, make the originating state or municipal authority issue bonds for the projects. After all, if they are truly economic in nature, and will improve business volumes, add jobs, or otherwise improve and enlarge economic activity, then a bond issuance should make sense. If not, the project isn't worthwhile on its own merits.
Where the Federal government can help is to offer, for a price, bond insurance. By using an objective scoring mechanism for risks, costs and benefits, bond insurance could be provided less expensively by the Federal government, thus reducing borrowing costs for the local authorities. After that, the actual raising and paying off of the invested amount is in the hands of the requesting communities, as it should be. There's no reason why Federal money should be borrowed for local projects, when the locales can do the same.
In this manner, the Federal debt level doesn't rise, and only projects which communities feel they can actually pay for will be built. No ice skating rinks in Texas or prostitute service projects in California.
As it now stands, thousands of communities, and the states, are behaving like the spending authorizations are coming from somebody else's money. Which is ultimately not true. As citizens, we'll all be liable for repaying all of this dubiously-spent largess from additional Federal borrowing, or inflation-creating printing of more dollars to pay for these projects.
There is a better way to assure Americans that whatever infrastructure projects are put forth are truly economically viable. Shouldn't we try that, instead of wasting so many tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money?
As Frisco Nan and Harry Reid blathered about the necessity of this Federal spending orgy, my conviction that it is exactly the wrong thing to do has become ever stronger.
What else might one do if infrastructure repairs and improvements truly are necessary?
Well, other pundits have observed something that concerns me, as well. That is, states and municipalities find dozens of 'necessary' projects when someone else- the Federal government and other states' taxpayers- pays for them. In fact, in this sort of game, the winner is the one who loads up his request with the highest dollar amount of projects, since taxes from other states will be, in effect, paying for them.
Therefore, the best way to avoid the waste we've already seen in this infrastructure bill is to approach it in an entirely different manner.
First, make the originating state or municipal authority issue bonds for the projects. After all, if they are truly economic in nature, and will improve business volumes, add jobs, or otherwise improve and enlarge economic activity, then a bond issuance should make sense. If not, the project isn't worthwhile on its own merits.
Where the Federal government can help is to offer, for a price, bond insurance. By using an objective scoring mechanism for risks, costs and benefits, bond insurance could be provided less expensively by the Federal government, thus reducing borrowing costs for the local authorities. After that, the actual raising and paying off of the invested amount is in the hands of the requesting communities, as it should be. There's no reason why Federal money should be borrowed for local projects, when the locales can do the same.
In this manner, the Federal debt level doesn't rise, and only projects which communities feel they can actually pay for will be built. No ice skating rinks in Texas or prostitute service projects in California.
As it now stands, thousands of communities, and the states, are behaving like the spending authorizations are coming from somebody else's money. Which is ultimately not true. As citizens, we'll all be liable for repaying all of this dubiously-spent largess from additional Federal borrowing, or inflation-creating printing of more dollars to pay for these projects.
There is a better way to assure Americans that whatever infrastructure projects are put forth are truly economically viable. Shouldn't we try that, instead of wasting so many tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Illinois' Latest Governmental Shame: Governor Rod Blagojevich
Current Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is following a long and rich history of corruption in the Land of Lincoln.
As this newstory recounts, Blagojevich is the fourth governor of the state to be on the way to the Big House in less than forty years.
The Illinois Democratic governor of my youth, known back then- no kidding- as 'Honest Otto' Kerner, was convicted while on the Federal bench.
"Walkin'" Dan Walker, another Democrat who emulated Jimmy Carter and walked across the state, and into the governor's mansion in Springfield, was imprisoned for S&L-related fraud.
George Ryan, a Republican, left office for a jail term on account of selling licenses and leases while Secretary of State. In that, he continued the proud tradition of his predecessor in the 1970s, Paul Powell.
In those days, I recall that Illinois residents wrote their drivers license payments not to "Secretary of State of Illinois," nor "Illinois DMV," but directly to "Paul Powell."
Upon Powell's death, hundreds of shoe boxes full of uncashed checks were found in his home.
Nice work if you can get it.
There are so many interesting angles to the Blowdryovitch (that's what they call him back home) scandal.
For example, why did Federal DA Patrick Fitzpatrick wait until after the November election to move on the Illinois Governor? You have to suspect political calculation on the part of the Illinois Democratic mafia.
Clearly, with only a 6% point margin of victory, the New Messiah would have probably lost the November election, had Blagojevich been arrested a few days before that first Tuesday.
Doesn't this illustrate how corrupt and rotten is the nest of Cook County, Illinois Democratic vipers from which our President-elect was spawned? It is unimaginable that all of the key Democratic party players didn't know this was going on.
So, why didn't our New Messiah work to change any of this? Instead, he willingly turned a blind eye to it, while scrambling up his own political ladder, knifing old mentors in the process.
Will Illinois voters choose a Republican replacement, the better to punish the deeply-corrupt Democrats? One can only hope. It would be a fitting reaction, should the downstate Republicans finally mobilize and manage to regain at least one seat.
Is the Anointed One complicit in any of this? Well....that is the $64,000 question, is it not?
As William Bennett noted on Hannity & Colmes last night, we just don't know yet. The denials haven't yet been sufficiently sweeping from the Illinois rookie's camp. We don't know whether any of his underlings did him a 'favor' that will come back to haunt him.
Remember, Nixon didn't initially know of the plumbers' activities. His crime was obstruction of justice, not planning the original crime.
Oh....and Jesse, Jr? What about Candidate #5? The Feds explicitly state that somebody representing Jackson approached Blagojevich. Jackson's denial was carefully wordsmithed to avoid denial of responding to requests for bribes to get that Senate seat. He only denied initiating the process- not participating.
Should be interesting to watch this unfold. Of course, the stench of the mess will hang heavy over the Rookie's inauguration.
Wasn't this how Carter's era began? Bert Lance and "Ham" Jordan causing embarrassment from virtually the get-go?
Yes, it's Carter-time again, folks. Only, I predict that this next administration will look Carter look moderate and competent by comparison.
As this newstory recounts, Blagojevich is the fourth governor of the state to be on the way to the Big House in less than forty years.
The Illinois Democratic governor of my youth, known back then- no kidding- as 'Honest Otto' Kerner, was convicted while on the Federal bench.
"Walkin'" Dan Walker, another Democrat who emulated Jimmy Carter and walked across the state, and into the governor's mansion in Springfield, was imprisoned for S&L-related fraud.
George Ryan, a Republican, left office for a jail term on account of selling licenses and leases while Secretary of State. In that, he continued the proud tradition of his predecessor in the 1970s, Paul Powell.
In those days, I recall that Illinois residents wrote their drivers license payments not to "Secretary of State of Illinois," nor "Illinois DMV," but directly to "Paul Powell."
Upon Powell's death, hundreds of shoe boxes full of uncashed checks were found in his home.
Nice work if you can get it.
There are so many interesting angles to the Blowdryovitch (that's what they call him back home) scandal.
For example, why did Federal DA Patrick Fitzpatrick wait until after the November election to move on the Illinois Governor? You have to suspect political calculation on the part of the Illinois Democratic mafia.
Clearly, with only a 6% point margin of victory, the New Messiah would have probably lost the November election, had Blagojevich been arrested a few days before that first Tuesday.
Doesn't this illustrate how corrupt and rotten is the nest of Cook County, Illinois Democratic vipers from which our President-elect was spawned? It is unimaginable that all of the key Democratic party players didn't know this was going on.
So, why didn't our New Messiah work to change any of this? Instead, he willingly turned a blind eye to it, while scrambling up his own political ladder, knifing old mentors in the process.
Will Illinois voters choose a Republican replacement, the better to punish the deeply-corrupt Democrats? One can only hope. It would be a fitting reaction, should the downstate Republicans finally mobilize and manage to regain at least one seat.
Is the Anointed One complicit in any of this? Well....that is the $64,000 question, is it not?
As William Bennett noted on Hannity & Colmes last night, we just don't know yet. The denials haven't yet been sufficiently sweeping from the Illinois rookie's camp. We don't know whether any of his underlings did him a 'favor' that will come back to haunt him.
Remember, Nixon didn't initially know of the plumbers' activities. His crime was obstruction of justice, not planning the original crime.
Oh....and Jesse, Jr? What about Candidate #5? The Feds explicitly state that somebody representing Jackson approached Blagojevich. Jackson's denial was carefully wordsmithed to avoid denial of responding to requests for bribes to get that Senate seat. He only denied initiating the process- not participating.
Should be interesting to watch this unfold. Of course, the stench of the mess will hang heavy over the Rookie's inauguration.
Wasn't this how Carter's era began? Bert Lance and "Ham" Jordan causing embarrassment from virtually the get-go?
Yes, it's Carter-time again, folks. Only, I predict that this next administration will look Carter look moderate and competent by comparison.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The Efficiencies of Markets vs. Governments
Companies with profit motives move cautiously. They don't 'build and and hope consumers will come.'
If business managers in various commodities markets had requested capital two years ago to meet longer run demand with increased capacity in the short run, but not planned to make money for two-three years, it's unlikely their projects would have been funded.
The oil industry stopped providing large amounts of excess refining capacity years ago, because it depressed profits. Lee Raymond is responsible for bringing higher, more consistent refining profitability to ExxonMobil by his more closely aligning refining capacity with demand growth.
But the recent economic events in Asia, and the corresponding rise in living standards there, took him, and many other businessmen, by surprise.
Hey, they're capitalists and consumers after all! Who knew? So as their incomes have increased, and they have amassed more wealth, they are eating better and buying/driving cars. Just like Americans and Europeans.
Would some plodding inter-governmental task force have gotten this one right? Avoided food price inflation and supply shortages?
Doubtful.
The good news is, markets, via profit-driven suppliers and demand inelasticities, will solve this disequilibrium pretty darn fast.
If business managers in various commodities markets had requested capital two years ago to meet longer run demand with increased capacity in the short run, but not planned to make money for two-three years, it's unlikely their projects would have been funded.
The oil industry stopped providing large amounts of excess refining capacity years ago, because it depressed profits. Lee Raymond is responsible for bringing higher, more consistent refining profitability to ExxonMobil by his more closely aligning refining capacity with demand growth.
But the recent economic events in Asia, and the corresponding rise in living standards there, took him, and many other businessmen, by surprise.
Hey, they're capitalists and consumers after all! Who knew? So as their incomes have increased, and they have amassed more wealth, they are eating better and buying/driving cars. Just like Americans and Europeans.
Would some plodding inter-governmental task force have gotten this one right? Avoided food price inflation and supply shortages?
Doubtful.
The good news is, markets, via profit-driven suppliers and demand inelasticities, will solve this disequilibrium pretty darn fast.
Demand and supply mismatches in grains could be resolved within 18 months, or a little more than one growing season. Poultry and beef will take a bit longer, with the meat supply, now being slaughtered as margins narrow, will probably expand in 3-5 years.
Energy has been responding to higher price signals for two years, and will continue to do so until, suddenly, oil and natural gas supplies will outpace demand, and prices will plummet.
If we let them.
Of course, if the US Congress or a new President begin to tamper with natural economic cycles and price signals, expect more pain and longer timeframes during which to wait for producers to develop more capacity for a suddenly more-demanding world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
