TFP Column: Who Should We Fear On 9/11?

Yes it's been a while since I last penned an effort for the Toledo Free Press, but since Editor-in-Chief Michael Miller has rather high standards for a publication that has just earned more awards this year from the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists, it's difficult to offer something that meets them.

Of course this week's effort, "Who Should We Fear On 9/11?" doesn't come close to meeting such standards (which is probably why your truly didn't win anything); but Michael has been kind enough to put it up this week on the TFP website anyway (probably out of a miquided and mistaken feeling of sympathy).  On the other hand, perhaps he was simply looking for someone to look the anniversary of this tragedy without waving the flag.

This has been a busy week in Toledo, with the Mayoral and City Council primaries just completed and the Glass City still in full festival mode; so anyone wanting to keep up with what's going on in Toledo and Northwest Ohio will need to spend a bit of time on the website, at least until this weekend's edition comes our of  "The Best Weekly Newspaper" in Ohio for what is now the fifth straight year, The Toledo Free Press.

Terror Alert: IRS

In a rather rare showing of unasked for enterprise, the Department of Just Blowing Smoke Security has released a second terror alert during the month of May.  Upon reading the Cheetos-stained scrap of paper that was slipped out from beneath the locked door of their Command Center (an attic room that we keep them locked in for their own protection, as well as ours),  I couldn't help but note the timely nature of their warning.  Well, not exactly timely, unless of course you measure timeliness based on when Congress finally gets off of their fat behinds and tries to do its job about something that everyone else has know about for over a year; but I just figured that like the President, they just finally got around to reading about the issue in the papers.

I guessing that by now some of you may have already figured out what's coming here ... a special alert regarding a group of federal government bureaucrats who are making everyone in this country's life a living Hell.  No, I'm not talking about Department of Homeland Security or the Environmental Protection Agency (though Lord only knows I could be); but instead about pernicious pack of pencil pushers known as the IRS.  Surprisingly enough, this is not to be confused with the Internal Revenue Service (though they are certainly an organization made up of poisonous pond scum ...  Oh crap, now I'm going to get audited), but an even more corrupt crowd within the mindless minions of the unelected elite, the Insidious Reprisal Syndicate.

These deceitful bureaucratic bastards actually have their hooks into most of the federal bureaucracy, and are largely responsible for attacks on citizens in this country who refuse to lie down quietly and do what they are told when instructed by those far wiser than they in government service tell them to.  Drain a mosquito-infested pond to protect you children from blood-sucking parasites (no, not the Internal Revenue Service again) spreading disease and they will be the ones taking you to court to make you refill (and restock) it.  Turn a parking lot into a green space (or vice versa) and they will contact you to perform a site restoration.  Attempt to move jobs to another state (let alone country) in order to provide lower costs goods and services to the public and they will work their will to prevent it.  Seek to create jobs in any state in this country, and they will be the ones reprimanding you over violation of arcane regulations in the massive document known as the Federal Register that prevent you from doing so.  And of course, try to start a tax-exempt group to teach the Constitution written to define and limit the government to a nation that has mostly long since forgotten it and a bureaucracy which simply seeks to ignore it, and they will be there to stall the paperwork.

What's amazing in this particular alert is that the government has already somehow managed to correctly identify the perpetrators in the Internal Revenue Service in this case, as low level employees in the bureaucratic maze who acted in such a horrifying fashion without instruction from management, without written guidelines (in triplicate) to follow, and without the knowledge of managers at any level in their respective bureaucracy.  We know this of course, because no one certainly at the managerial level, the senior staff level, or certainly not at the cabinet level itself, would allow such a blatant violation of the First Amendment, nor an obvious politicizing of the bureaucratic process to knowingly occur ... let alone condone it.  (Sarcasm, you decide.)  In fact, this secret society of depraved drones has once again so successfully managed to work their evil will on Conservative groups, that their efforts have mostly escaped current Congressional inquiry, testimony before Congress by the acting Internal Revenue Service Director (acting in fact, seems to have multiple meaning where this job is concerned), and an internal Inspector General audit (which was only able to conclude that no government funds were misused any more than normal by the departmental employees committing these egregious acts).

Not surprisingly, the DJBSS was unable to provide any identifying characteristics for members of the IRS, which of course is exactly the point of their existence.  Outwardly they are just as inconsiderate, smug, and unproductive as any other nameless, faceless bureaucratic drone, so they are well able hide amongst other innocently bungling brethren at will.  They seldom achieve (by choice) either notoriety or guilt.  Having burned off their fingerprints as part of a particularly gruesome initiation ritual, they never leave evidence behind.  Their particularly destructive actions however, eventually come to light.  (Some say that this is on purpose, and acts as a sort of 'Kilroy Was Here' signature for them.)  Like a rotting corpse, at some point the sickening smell of their misdeeds gives them away.  Strangely however,  their transgressions seldom lead to  anything beyond a few weeks of newspaper headlines and a string of meaningless Congressional investigations that allow the Committee Chairman and a few other members to grab some posturing, camera time, and cheap headlines in the political lull before seeking campaign contributions for their next re-election bid.

Because of the particularly bloody trail that these vile, villainous vandals leave in their wake (sorry, I was having a "V is for Vendetta" moment), the DJBSS is raising the terror threat for the couple of days until the inconsequential hearings in Washington can resume to RED.
        

     

Empty Words and Empty Suits

It's six weeks since the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, perhaps long enough to gain some perspective on the situation.  Perspective however, is exactly what seems to be lacking where Benghazi is concerned.  Instead we have firebrands on the left insisting that patience is required to get to the truth on something that's only a story because of politics, and firebrands on the right demanding answers from the White House as to what actually happened before voters go to the polls.  Apparently lost in all of the potential political hype of course is that four Americans are dead, including an Ambassador.

But I guess we've become rather blase about the murder of a mere four people.  After all, soldiers get killed in the two wars we are still fighting overseas and they barely rate a footnote at the end of the Sunday news talk shows.  Perhaps even worse, soldiers are also killed in training accidents while in the process of maintaining readiness to serve their country and that often doesn't rate the news at all.  But it's not just soldiers that die, people are killed in this country every day: on work-sites, in shopping malls, and on city streets.  Some are innocent, some are guilty, and some just find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Unless the media can find a way to make these senseless killings part of an pre-disposed personal agenda that they have on gun control, societal violence caused by movies and video games, or left vs right partisanship however, these senseless deaths are soon relegated to a back page line or two so that we can talk about Lindsay Lohan's most recent court appearance.

So what is it about Benghazi?

Well perhaps because the killing of diplomatic personnel is an issue of a national prestige that seems to be suffering rather badly these days from everything from a loss of international primacy to having to go cap in hand to borrow money from those we only recently considered one of our bitterest enemies.  Americans after all do like to feel exceptional and don't much care for being part of the pack, let alone at the mercy of it.  Part of it might be from seeing this as an apparent failure to control and utilize the technologies that we have pioneered.  Satellite telephones, emails on the Internet, and real-time pictures taken by aerial drones did nothing to prevent, let alone stop what was happening to our people. 

Most of it I think however, may be from the sorry realization that we have once again become victims of the 'empty suits and empty words' that plague our bureaucratically driven government.  For it appears that once again lives have been needlessly placed in jeopardy (and ultimately lost) due to political agendas, CYA rhetoric, and bureaucratic morass that seeks not calm deliberation, but over-cautious lassitude in its dealings with the rest of the world. "The bureaucratic mentality is the one constant in the universe," according to Dr. Leonard McCoy (yeah, the one from Star Trek).  And while taking wisdom from a sci-fi movie seem ridiculous, anyone exposed to government quickly recognized that it's nevertheless true.  In fact this is common and non-partisan malady of bureaucracy, where the recurrence and severity of advanced manifestations can and will be influenced by whoever the current tenant of the White House is. Those symptoms decrease significantly with a powerful personality in the Executive Mansion, but are equally susceptible to Analysis Paralysis setting in with a timid resident who would prefer to 'lead from behind'.   

While there's a lot of rumor and misinformation out there, what we do know about Benghazi however is that (as with many of the other senseless terrorist acts that have been committed against this country), there were plenty of warning signs that it was going to happen.  Not surprisingly, there were empty suits with their empty words on the scene; evaluating information and undoubtedly cautioning against appearing too provocative in protecting our people by making our diplomatic compounds more safe.  There were other empty suits as well, busy recommending strategic errors in not only failing to increase the protection of a diplomatic mission in what was and is clearly an unstable country, but in fact reducing it significantly instead in the days leading up to the anniversary of a terrorist success story of 9/11.  

If such agenda-driven inertia from the gutted garments in charge was not enough of a recipe for disaster, this situation was also burdened with the apparent silent somnolence of other career bureaucrats.  Bureaucratic drones, whose greatest danger has been from paper cuts, gave themselves and their fellows a seven hour Reality TV show from aerial drones and consulate cameras instead of responding.  In spite of the horror I'm sure they felt during this high tech marathon of mayhem, I suspect that there was little more dialogue in the room than those four empty and infamous word, "Let's wait and see".  Unless there are strategic moves that have yet to come to light (something hardly likely) what we saw as their response was: no planes were sent to fly air cover or close ground support for those in danger, no rescue teams were dispatched to those in need, no ships currently deployed in the Med were move closer in case their Marines were needed, and in fact no effort was made even to reinforce an embassy in Tripoli that was being warned it might also be facing imminent attack.  The empty words of empty suits apparently ruled the day once more and four who honorably served this nation were little more than served up for martyrdom by them.

I don't much care whether this helps or hurts the incumbent or his opponent.  I don't really care about what the theories for Ambassador Steven's visit to the Consulate in the first place might or might not be.  What I do care about however, is the pencil pushers in Washington are supposed to be defending the people who defend this nation, regardless of how it looks or whose agenda it inconveniences, did next to nothing.  Every bit of information that continues to leak out to the public about this attack on our diplomatic mission in Libya in fact points out how many empty words from empty suits that we've already gotten, not only as it was going on, but in the days that followed.

I'm sure that the days ahead will be full of additional information coming out in bits and pieces; along with the inevitable rumor, innuendo, and conspiracy theories as to the 'facts' of the situation.  I'm sure as well, that those same empty suits are working harder now to get their stories straight than they did then to help those in real danger.  I'm absolutely certain however, that when we look back after all the intelligence agency investigations and Congressional hearings are completed and the reports have long since been filed away, all that will remain is a dirty little secret that will remain unwritten and unrecognized.  That secret, unfortunately, is that American lives have once again been needlessly lost.  They were put at ultimate risk by the mouthings of empty words coming these empty suits, and few of those who will put in their twenty years and retire from the safety of Washington DC will even remember their names in the end, having never similarly risked their empty little lives.  

Please note that nowhere in this effort have I accused anyone of lying, though quite frankly the effort has blood running from my mouth.  I am however, getting rather tired of the continued parsing of previous statements.  Sure it's easier to 'Monday Morning Quarterback' and make these decisions now; but the only thing worse that the so-called professionals backpedaling on the strategies that they've executed (or in this case, failed to) is them playing the "that depends on the definition of is" games about the statements previously made with regard to these failures.  It not only doesn't rise to the level of responsibility that's goes with the authority granted their positions, but it dishonors the memory of those who gave their lives as a result of them.

I Want To Be A Crony

I'm not normally big on promoting things from other blogs, though I'm always happy enough to cite the reference material I 'borrow' from fellow bloggers.  This is an exception that I'm happy to make for Mark Cunningham however.  It doesn't matter which party you belong to or what to what side of the aisle you lean.  It's both thought provoking and funny (and only a couple of minutes long).

Now while I may refer back to it in future efforts, I wanted to share it with you now without much in the way of embellishment.  So without further eloquence and absolutely no ado at all (sorry, I had a "Knight's Tale moment there), I give you "I Want To Be A Crony".

As for those of you expecting a mid-week rant, my attempt at doing so seemed to turn in to something worth offering to the Toledo Free Press.  If Michael accepts it, I will publish a link as soon as it's available.   Thanks ....  

Population Density

(For those of you unfamiliar with "Just Blowing Smoke", let me state for the record that while I attempt to cover serious issues during the week; the weekend is normally reserved for complete nonsense.  While even I concede that the difference is all but indistinguishable; you can still expect that sarcasm lock key has firmly been pressed today.)

The City of Los Angeles is making a renewed and conscious push to increase population density around the major arteries of its mass transit system by enforcing special new zoning laws. Since LA is the model of urban sprawl and the home to a particular breed of silly people; the more I considered this, the more it confused me.

Oh sure, with the cost of housing in southern California (or anywhere else in the state for that matter), you'd have to be pretty dense in the first place to want to sign on to a new mortgage in these troubled times.  (Come to think of it, wasn't it stupid people buying houses that created a good chunk of the problem in the first place?)  What I couldn't understand however, was what advantage to the city there was to having so many dense people living in such close proximity to each other.  While a concerted push to gather all those considered 'slow on the uptake' together in certain areas might be beneficial to law enforcement (criminals have long shown themselves to be amongst the densest of the species and would therefore be easier to keep an eye on); the attempt to gather the weak-minded together through zoning laws might be considered a form of profiling that should be considered illegal and concentrating patrols in such an area might therefore cause more problems for law enforcement than it would solve?

I also couldn't help but wonder whether having so many dim-witted people living together might create additional burdens on other city services.  Were accidental fires more likely to occur in an area filled with obtuse individuals?  Were toilets more likely to clog after inappropriate things had been flushed down them by people who were simply too dim to know better, causing sewer line issues?  Would special traffic signals have to be installed in such areas to prevent oafish citizens from hurting themselves or each other in crossing streets?  And what did any of this have to do with putting these simple folks around the transit system?

Then it hit me!  

Having driven far too many miles, far too slowly on LA freeways over the years, I realized that perhaps the city had finally figured out a way to make a serious attempt to get some of the worst idiots off their highways and onto buses and trains.  This was brilliant!  Not only would this allow more intelligent commuters to travel on these multi-lane masterpieces of modern transportation more quickly, but it would also likely help those using public conveyances to commute to and from work.  Saving them the cost of automobiles, insurance, and $5 plus per gallon gas would allow them to divert this new found wealth into paying for homes that they probably still couldn't afford.  Of course you'd still have to figure out a way to make these dummies want to move there in the first place, and to walk past their cars and on to the transit stations, but it might be a start. (Maybe they could come up with a program of IQ-based property tax incentives.)

Eventually however, I began to wonder if such a grand scheme, no matter how masterfully conceived and executed, could actually succeed.  After all weren't Washington DC and its surrounding suburbs packed with some of the densest people in the nation, with no pervasive benefit coming from collecting those whose elevator doesn't go to the top couple of floors into one area.  One might even be able to successfully make the case that concentrating these dense people, as we have, into areas where the primary sources of employment are federal agencies and the national legislature might actually have had a deleterious long term effect on the nation.  (Many have made the case that it already has.)

Of course I've never heard anyone discuss that there had ever been an actual plan to increase the number of numskulls in Washington, though perhaps the prospect of a safe and well-paying and simple minded government job is in and of itself enough to attract those who will never be considered the 'brightest bulbs on the tree' (and a fair number of those who might glow a bit brighter).  Maybe there's just something about not being 'the shiniest coin in the purse' that lends itself to the talents required for government service and attracts them, like moths to the flame.  Maybe the single minded pursuit of incredibly tedious, mostly useless paperwork; all wrapped in pretty red tape and filed in triplicate is something that appeals to those who could be considered a bit slow on the uptake.  

Perhaps this even goes a long way to explain Charles L'Enfant's design of Washington itself, where the east-west streets are all named with letters and the north-south streets with numbers ... a recognition that a subtle aid for mostly senseless residents to make their way around the seat of the national government more easily was a necessity.  Perhaps this is even why the Capitol City was built on mostly mosquito-infested swamp land that would have been otherwise found unsuitable and uncomfortable for use to those considered far more sensible.

With such an obvious example of failure before it, the LA experiment with population density is likely to be proved an idea as dumb as those it expects to influence.

Update:

More recently released statements in the news find that LA is now trying to cover their tracks (pun intended) with this whole effort up by saying that all of this is actually an environmental issue.  (Perhaps they had gotten wind of this post coming out and decided to do a little proactive damage control.)  In a marvelous bit of political spin, they have apparently come forward to claim that the goal that they were in fact attempting to achieve was not that of getting stupid people sequestered into specific selected areas of the city, as was apparent from the wording of their original announcement; but instead that of getting 'a lot of people' concentrated in multi-family dwellings around their mass transit system. (Nicely played LA, nicely played indeed ...)

None of the more recently released statement speaks to how they expect to crowd people into town homes and apartment buildings in the capital of urban sprawl when they could instead be living in single family homes, unless of course they're stupid.  But that's OK, if history has taught us anything, it's that everyone will blindly accept the statements of government officials without question when what they're trying to tell is they are smarter than contractors in knowing what they can do with the property that they own and likewise smarter than people in knowing where they can and should live.

Come on now, how stupid do they think we are anyway?  (Don't answer that.)

 
                    

Quote of the Day

It seems like I haven't done an extended quote in a while, but I'm just finishing up Milton and Rose Friedman's "Free to Choose", and this one about the Interstate Commerce Commission struck me as particularly appropriate when considering much of the bureaucratic overreach going on today, as well as the impending Supreme Court decision on the 'Patients Affordable Healthcare Act"  (and remember that this book was first published in 1980):

"The ICC illustrates what might be called the natural history of government intervention.  A real or fancied evil leads to demands to do something about it.  A political coalition forms consisting of sincere, high-minded reformers and equally sincere interested parties.  The incompatible objectives of the members of the coalition (e.g., low prices to consumers and high prices to producers) are glossed over by fine rhetoric about "the public interest," "fair competition," and the like.  The coalition succeeds in getting Congress (or a state legislature) to pass a law.  The preamble to the law pays lip service  to rhetoric and the body of the law grants power to government officials to "do something."  The high-minded reformers experience a glow of triumph and turn their attention to new causes.  The interested parties go to work to make sure that the power is used for their benefit.  They generally succeed.  Success breeds its problems, which are met by broadening the scope of intervention.  Bureaucracy takes its toll so that even the initial special interests no longer benefit.  In the end the effects are precisely the opposite of the objectives of the reformers and generally do not even achieve the objectives of the special interests.  Yet the activity is so firmly established and so many vested interests are connected with it that repeal of the initial legislation is nearly inconceivable.  Instead, new government legislation is called for to cope with the problems produced by the earlier legislation and a new cycle begins." 

Limited Government

Many of us who have spent any amount of time studying the Constitution still maintain that this document under which the second form of the federal government of the United States was created was designed in order to limit the scope of that government.  While there was a consensus that the Articles of Confederation had created a central body too weak to much longer survive, there was still a great deal of concern so soon after the Revolution that one much stronger would prove equally inimical to both the rights of the states and those of citizens.


And so it was that in "The Federalist Papers" James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay sought to allay the fears of the people that this new document did not do just that.  Of course they did so following a very strict interpretation of this document, a point of view no longer widely held by many of those currently in power; but by doing so they managed to get each of the thirteen original States to ratify the document.  Even then, ratification was not assured without an agreement placing some additional protection into the document itself, and the first ten amendments or "Bill of Rights" were born.


Today's far more liberal interpretations of the Constitution, as well as the often voiced concept of a 'living Constitution' are causing some of us to revisit this concept of a 'limited government'.  We are challenged however in that strict interpretation by a two-party ruling elite far more concerned with protecting their own rice bowl than with the rights of the people that they swore to serve when taking their oath of office.  Perhaps therefore, it's time that we took up once again the concept of additional protection from an over-reaching national legislature and bureaucracy.  


I therefore propose that we begin to lobby for an addition to the Republican Party Platform in the months leading up to the convention in Tampa for ... Term Limits.  Don't get me wrong here, I don't propose that we limit the terms in office of legislators, much as I would like to, as there is little chance that we could get those elected to office to lift their heads from the government trough long enough to even consider such blasphemy.  Instead I would like to propose a mandatory limit on the length of time that any new law or regulation can remain in effect without being approved again.  Failing to gain that approval, such a law or regulation in question would be automatically rescinded.  Without seeking demand for a specific timetable, I would off the suggestion of three years for new legislation passed by Congress and one year for new regulations instituted by agencies and bureaucrats without the approval of Congress.


The time periods themselves are less important however than the concept of a forced review.  Suggesting a three year review for legislation should allow for the periodic party swings in the legislature.  If a law has merit, such merit and the law itself should prove easy to defend even amidst the pendulum swings of party public favor and renewal should still be all but assured.  Should such legislation prove over time to have been either inadequate or over-reaching, the three year period should prove sufficient to allow it to lapse with no loss of face to either party or the legislators who originally passed it.


As for regulations, since most do not go through the debate of 'elected officials' in the first place, the review process should come much quicker.  Legislators who have abrogated their Constitutionally mandated responsibility and authority to create law in this country would be forced to take up the issue of accountability that much quicker and at least attempt to do the will of the people; and be themselves judged for doing so.


In addition to addressing new laws, a process which likewise mandates the review of at least 10% of existing legislation should become a part of this obligation.  There are far too many confusing and contradictory laws and regulations on the books to allow for continued addition to their number.  A recognition of this fact and a way to force the a clean up of the issued cannot help but have a positive effect.  A mandatory review would likewise provide the incentive and political cover for elected officials to do so without jeopardizing their political futures.  It would likewise put agencies and bureaucrats on notice that their actions should not be unilaterally attempted without eventual consequences.


Now many might believe that placing Congress under such an enormous encumbrance would not allow them time to pass 'new' legislation or regulation.  So be it!  If one job was created or saved by virtue of bringing the runaway train of the national legislature under even that much control, it would be worth it.  Perhaps the burden of such a mandatory review would be just the caution that Congress requires before imposing its will in the way of new laws and rules. The national register (the list of federal regulations) is already over 81,000 pages long.  That single fact alone should dictate that it's far past time that something can and must be done to provide new limits.  The tax code is over 71,000 pages, far too complex for anyone to comprehend or be able to comply with.  Forcing Congress to review each law or regulation may be just the impetus that they need to simplify the entire tax code.


At the very least, adoption of such a proposal into the platform of one of the major political parties might scare potential candidates from taking on such a burden, and dissuade today's generation of professional politicians from seeking to return to the job.  Recognizing this as comparable 'Labors and Sisyphus' may allow some new blood to finally seep into the anemic arteries of a largely spineless group of lawmakers; thereby promoting the real hope and change that this country so desperately needs.

December 7th

.

(Update: Some hours after this post was put up, the House did in fact pass REINS by a vote of 241-84, with 4 Democrats crossing over and joining the Republicans present for passage.  The White House issued a press release threatening to veto it if the Senate passes the measure.)


It would be difficult for anyone in this nation not to realize that today is the 70th anniversary of the attack at Pearl Harbor; and many today writing blog posts will touch on the dastardly nature of the attack, the courage that so many exhibited on that awful day, and the terrible sense of purpose that awakened in the American people as it entered the last conflict ever preceded by a Declaration of War by Congress.  While I have written such efforts myself in the past, I found myself focusing on another part of the story instead.

Many know (or at least should know if they had  paid attention in American History or watched any of the number of films about the attack), the US at the time could decrypt the Japanese diplomatic code, but not the military one; and there were hints and warning in those communications that went largely ignored.  What most forget however, is that not only weren't the operational army and navy commanders at Pearl Harbor (or any of the other major commands around the world) privy to much of the information in these decryptions, but perhaps even President Roosevelt himself was not included on everything that was being translated in those messages.  

Regulations that had been put in place for the safety of a nation under the threat of impending war by some in unelected positions, in fact did everything but protect us.  Thousands of lives were lost, at least in part, as a consequence of this misjudgment. The men who created these regulations were not evil, but were misguided in thinking that they and they alone knew best what was best for the nation.  These thoughts struck a chord in me as I considered a couple of things that have recently come to my attention.
 
A recent piece in the City Journal called "The Regulatory Thicket" by Iain Murray and David Schoenbrod speak directly about regulation, and its astonishing growth in this country.  Of course it would be easy to blame Congress (and mostly accurate)  for creating their share of this ponderous pile of policy; but that would be letting them off the hook for likewise creating the un-elected and out-of-control bureaucratic monster to whom they have relinquished the responsibility for the rest of it.  As Mr Schoenbrod tells us, "The Office of Management and Budget has estimated that since 1980, federal regulators have written more than 130,000 rules, an ever-thickening tangle that Americans and American firms must reckon with."  Mr Murray goes on to cite an annual report compiled by Wayne Crews called "The Ten Thousand Commandments" that shows that the Federal Register (the big book of Federal regulations) has grown since 1996 from 67,000 to 81,405 pages.   

One cannot help but wonder at what could possibly have possibly been going on in a 15 year period that it required this 18% increase in regulations.  While questioning the cause, one might also wish to consider what impact the regulatory beast has on the economic growth of businesses in this country in the current recession; especially small ones whose small staffs make dealing with compliance even more difficult.  The 'City Journal' piece in fact states:  "The costs of complying with regulations average $10,585 per employee" according to the Small Business Administration (SBA), "enough to throw a small firm of 20 employees with $200,000 in profits into just-breaking-even territory".  Murray reports that the SBA  estimates that, "the regulatory burden on our economy is a staggering $1.75 trillion annually".

(It should be pointed out that these numbers are before most of the "Affordable Health Care Act" (Obamacare) became law, and before a great number of the regulations required for its full implementation are yet in place.)

One cannot help but compare such sums to the amounts being tossed around by the Administration, Congress, and Keynesian economists for what they believe is the type of stimulus ideally required to jump start the US economy.  What kind of stimulus might be produced if this regulatory morass were in temporarily reduced; or better still, eliminated?

Strangely enough, Congress is currently considering HR 10, the "Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011". The REINS Act (man, they really need better acronyms for these bills) is designed to impede the addition of new rules by dividing regulations in two categories of cost, using $100 million worth of burden as line between "major" and "non-major" ones.  Major ones would require submission to the Congressional committee whose responsibilities the regulation would fall under, and passage by a joint resolution of Congress or by Executive order before going into effect.  Non-major rules would go into effect unless, after similar review by Congressional committee, a joint resolution of Congress is passed or Executive order issued to keep them from doing so.

Of course, even if REINS manages to get through the House, there isn't a prayer that the Senate will allow it to see the light of day.  Reduction in government regulation is tied to the potential number of unionized government workers required to write and enforce them.  This is turn is tied to the unions those workers belong to, unions who have pledged significant sums to the re-election of the President and other incumbent politicians in Washington this close to an election; which is anything but good politics.

Such potential roadblocks do not deter Murray and Schoenbrod from taking it even further however. They propose setting up a bipartisan commission to review existing rules and identify those that need repeal.  This group would conduct cost / benefit analysis of such regulations and make recommendations to the House for their continuance or removal.  They further suggest a five year 'sunset provision' on all new regulations, which would make them subject to automatic review before extension.  They even have the temerity to suggest creating 'enterprise zones' where businesses might be free of some of these onerous regulations to be able to establish themselves on a profitable basis at lower costs.

Of course these are all intelligent (and some would say common sense) ideas, but like many considered in 1941, they seem unlikely to be put in place.  I can't help but think back on this day however, and wonder if whether Admiral Husband E Kimmel would have wished for a few less regulations early in December of 1941.



.

The Future of Government and Higher Education?

.
Many in the 'Occupy' movement are complaining about the burden of student loans that they have after leaving an institution of higher learning. Having completed a degree in English Renaissance Literature or Sociology (and not paid attention during those boring economics courses), they are only now discovering that their investment in higher education is not going to pay the dividends that the broker (Admission's Counselor) encouraging them to speculate led them to believe.

Now finding themselves so underwater on college loans that they will never be able to achieve the American Dream of being underwater on a mortgage, they (like many homeowners) look to the government for relief.  Like many in banks, auto manufacturers, and green energy companies, they would like some assistance to help them survive the piling of one bad loan upon another, in their own form of investment 'bundling'.  It is their contention that government's involvement and intervention is not only preferable, but essential.  Some even go so far as to say that government should provide such education as a 'right'.

(Am I the only one who's noticed that the group constantly asserting 'rights' are those on the 'left'?) 

While not normally being one for capitulating to the demands of those with little in the way of logic and reason on their side (evidently these too were courses mostly ignored).  There are times when one must seek a more compassionate perspective; and I am willing to expend the effort required to do so.

Oh I don't believe that these loans should be forgiven.  Personal responsibility is something that society should prize, and not allowing them the opportunity to accept responsibilities for past mistakes and pay back legitimate financial obligations would be doing them a serious disservice.  I am willing to concede (or accede, as the case may be) to their cries for government intervention in higher education if that is the path that they wish to take.  In fact, I believe that some of the proposals that progressives in both education and government have told us for many years have reaped great rewards in society as a whole should be used as a model of such intervention.

I therefore propose:

* Reducing or eliminating much of the funding in pure research at universities that sees no likely immediate return.  Like that done for defense or space exploration, most could be done away with in the name of attempting to maintain the costs of operation within reasonable growth percentile.  There should likewise be a National Research Board to strictly monitor and regulate what research is done and who will do it in the name of fairness. There's no point in having one university duplicate the research of another .... that's simply inefficient.  Ultimately we need to recognize that Professors are after all teachers; and teachers get paid to teach, not financed for working on a patent that could make them rich.  

* A National Board of University Departments would have to take control and come up with rules to cover the regulation of all university departments, their budgets, and even their necessity.  I'm sure that a mostly college-educated bureaucracy could come up with a set of guidelines in enough annoying detail for even the most prestigious of universities to be able to understand and follow.  Just as with research, it would be inefficient to have too many colleges too close to each other, duplicating the departmental offerings of others.  Certainly some form of government regulation could relieve some of this duplication and function in as efficient a manner as say, government regulated railroads.

* A National College Housing Authority will be needed institute rent controls for dormitories across the country.  Student housing is a classic example of people living on minimal (or even borrowed) income that need affordable housing.  It would not be fair to let universities take advantage of this need through market regulated pricing structures when so many are in need.  Additionally, universities should be mandated to provide low-income housing to any and all students that require it as a measure of egalitarian compliance.  Something will likewise have to be done in regards to food for these students, but that can be addressed by further regulation and bureaucracy after the housing issue is addressed. 

* Perhaps a National Tuition Board should be appointed as well.  Colleges like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale simply cannot be allowed to charge whatever extravagant prices for their offerings they choose, regardless of the services they offer or the potential advantages that a diploma issued by them provides.  To do so would hardly be fair to those to whom it's not available.  Of course it's possible that they could allowed to continue to charge what what the market will bear for their product (perish the thought), but only if no federal money in the way of grants, loans, subsidies, or funding in any way, shape, or form is provided to the university.  If even $1 is accepted by any part of the university, they too become subject to the rules of a faceless bureaucracy that probably graduated from far less grand institutions (and in the bottom half of their class). 

* Of course, all of this leads to the logical conclusion that in fact a Government Board of Admissions would also be required.  You can't just have people taking government money for education and spending it wherever they chose.  A government regulatory board to apportion admissions to all universities using that money would be required.  Through the use of government efficiencies and 'mandated fairness' to determine the placement of students, a sufficiently egalitarian method of placement could replace the current unfair method of having them simply choosing a school based on its educational expertise, the pleasant nature of the campus, or whether the student feels that an education in such a place would be enjoyable.

You know, if we are going to in effect, nationalize higher education, perhaps professors should be put under government employment standards while we're at it.  Based on teaching ability, education, and testing, they would be granted government occupational pay levels or 'grades'.  University Administrators would likewise be given government ratings to provide an equitable level of compensation for all of those in salaried positions.  Of course such strict structures as the granting of 'tenure' or allowing paid leaves like 'sabbaticals' would need to be done away with, as they would hardly fall within existing federal employment guidelines and compensation plans.  Professors would however, have a government pension to look forward to; and at least be able to compete on a equal footing for advancement once they reach the 'full-performance level' of their existing position.

I can't help but wonder how many professors would be out in the quad protesting in solidarity with their students if such a double dose of of their demands were granted to them?  I wonder how many of those universities would allow them to do so if they understood that the strong arms of federal bureaucracy were about to tightly embrace them?  I wonder how many of those students would be protesting if they knew that new federal regulation and restriction on their choices was going to be the likely result?  Then again, perhaps among the other things that they have yet to learn is that with government funding comes government control.  But such would inevitably be the case for the future of government and higher education if those in 'Occupy' get their wish.

. 

Ideological Inconsistency

.
I am becoming increasingly frustrated by what is apparently the most widespread epidemic in the world today, ideological inconsistency.  From the pundits to the electorate, few have managed to escape a malady afflicting the nation.  While I don't consider myself above occasional bouts that must be treated, I do try however to give myself regular inoculations of the cold, hard facts in a largely successful prophylactic effort.  Perhaps that's why the dissonance of arguments on both the left and the right seem so confusing to me these days.

Conservatives want to remove subsidies from farmers (something long overdue), solar and wind technology, and ethanol producers.  They claim that industries and technologies that are marketable do not require government assistance in order to survive.  How then do we explain the inconsistency to their wanting to continue subsidies to oil companies and defense contractors?  Is the oil industry not profitable without government assistance?  If such assistance were removed, would they not maintain their profit margins through the market?  And how much has been and is still being poured into corporations developing technologies that this country will never deploy in its own defense?  How much treasure is wasted in contractor malfeasance and featherbedding for projects woefully behind schedule or those that will never succeed?  

Progressives for their part, want to pull the financial plug on any form of energy coming from oil and coal which are already in place and generating inexpensive power much needed for potential economic growth; leaving in place supports for energy sources that will never be more than marginal ones incapable of supplying current, let alone future needs, in anything like their present form.  They somehow manage to forget fact that according to their ideology, subsidizing corporations is inherently evil (especially when any of their manufacturing is done overseas), apparently capable of setting aside such ideology in the name of 'green technology'.  Ideology likewise seems irrelevant when it's pointed out that ethanol produces more pollution (and less energy) than oil; or the concept that while mercury pollution produced by the burning of coal is unforgivable, that released when an energy-saving light bulb is broken is OK.

Meanwhile Congress continues pointless ideological discussions of how to cut the growth of spending in the future instead of the actual spending in the present that's behind our runaway debt. In a perfect example of conflicted dogma, the left and right simultaneously debate how to raise revenue (taxes) without raising taxes (except on those paying most of them already).  Naively believing that this time they can tax the hideously rich (some of whom are already in Congress) without having them lobby their way around it or move their money out of the US to avoid such taxation entirely (and further hurting the economy); they ignore the elephant in the room that even if they were capable of such a monumental feat of legislative legerdemain, the sum taken in wouldn't come close to balancing the government's books (paying 1-2% of the current deficit by most respected estimates).

While they wrestle with this insubstantial demon, the unmistakable monster of government bureaucracy before them continues its reign of terror, absorbing more money and power with each passing moment.  In this government-approved version of "Oliver Twist", the young orphan attacks the grown-ups with his plate, and beats them about the head and ears while taking whatever he determines is his fair share. Ideologically weak legislators on both sides of the aisle, intimidated by this unruly juvenile delinquent, seem unwilling or unable to curb his monstrous appetite; nor can they deny him the increasing authority he takes without asking.  Regardless of Ideology, everything be damned when the business of 'government as usual' is at stake for these unelected courtiers of an increasingly corrupt system.

And of course what discussion of distorted and duplicitous ideology would be complete without touching on the choosing of a Republican challenger for the sitting President that's so much in the news and on the minds of 'those who know'.  USA Today for example, talks recently about non-candidate Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey never entering the race as a governor who after all, "has held office for less than two years" (a crime that they consider Sarah Palin equally guilty of).  True enough as far as it goes, unless one wishes to look at the time before Christie entered office, when in 2008 we elected a junior Senator from Illinois with 'less than two years experience' (and who spent most of that time campaigning for the office he currently holds), to the highest office in the land .

Not to be left out on capricious and incoherent thinking, those on the right still talk about a movement to draft this man of relative inexperience during the national convention where they hope to pick a replacement for one that they complain does not have a proper background and experience of leadership required to perform this function.  

Herman Cain is likewise attacked for a lack of experience from the left and the right, but no one asks whether the experience of running a profitable business is better that of leading an unprofitable government, or why the experience of being a professional politician is a good in and of itself.  We've had experienced politicians in the White House much of the 20th and 21st Century after all, and what have they gotten us except into the mess we now find ourselves desperately seeking a way out of.

Strangely, the only candidate with a consistent ideology is the one most disregarded and demonized.  One cannot help but wonder that if consistent ideology is sought by Republicans, what clearer choice could they have?  Who has more knowledge of what caused the financial disaster we stand on the brink of or spoken more clearly on its solutions?  Who has likewise spoken more often and plainly on a return to a Constitutionally limited government that so many claim as their ideology? 

Instead of praise for such ideological purity however, Paul has been marginalized.  In spite of the fact that he has more experience at working with Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress than any of his counterparts, he's seen as unable to do so.  In spite of apparently standing for exactly what the Republican electorate claims they want from the next candidate for the highest office in the land, the argument continues to be over which of the other candidates is the most electable lesser of evils.  

Like Alice down the rabbit hole, the whole concept of consistent ideology has become 'curiouser and curiouser'.  At a time when we most need an outlook based on an objective analysis of the facts before us, what we get is anything but. The facts today don't seem to count except in how they are capable of being edited into soundbites that fit a pre-existing ideological vision more twisted than the Red Queen. We've so lost sight of what it means to hold firm to anything like the tenets of a consistent personal philosophy that we may soon use H G Wells instead of Charles Dodgson to say that, 'in this country of the blind, the one-eyed man will soon be forced to have government mandated and paid for Lasix surgery'. 

.

It Will Be A Cold Day

As Winter continues to maintain its icy grip on the Midwest, it cannot help but bring back thoughts of my youth (you know, the last Ice Age). I remember my parents chiding me over the often capricious requests that I made of Santa Claus each Christmas, and the similarly ridiculous requests that I made at birthdays and on various weekends throughout my adolescence; all of which went equally unfulfilled. "It will be a cold day in Hell when that happens mister," was the reasoned response that I usually received from them to such unreasonable entreaties. Knowing that they had only my best interests at heart, I therefore reasoned that strange and probably unhealthy things would only happen to me when the temperature dropped in the netherworld. 


These thoughts now often come to mind as I consider the frigid temperatures in the early days of 2011 and the nature of the things that have gone on in this country recently, without any request from me. Government spending is out of control; but not to fear, the Republican Party has taken over control of the purse strings. Unfortunately the Republican Party that often claims to be fiscally conservative seems intent on proving it by cutting federal spending by amounts only visible through a microscope. 


Such paltry striving does not prevent Democrats from demonizing them however and obstructing even these insignificant efforts. Political rhetoric has been deemed never so pointless or rancorous as it is today (the latter a premise that I disproved in a previous post). Nevertheless Democrats, having complained about being kept silent during prior Republican majorities, refused to allow Republican voices to be heard when the tables were turned. Not content with being bad winners at the time, they added insult to injury by accusing their gagged opponents of having nothing to say but "no". Now the tables are once again turned (at least in one legislative House), and they now have little to say, except in the Senate where they seem to have nothing to say but "no". Republicans, having so recently suffered in stoic silence; took the reins in the House and proceeded to once more silence Democrats. (Proof that whatever comes around goes around, or that no idea in history is dumb enough that it does not repeat itself.) 


Never fear however, because the United States is the bastion of capitalism and the defender of the rule of law. Then Legislators forced banks to lend money to people who couldn't pay it back and demonized these institutions for getting into financial trouble by doing so. Soon after, the federal government in effect nationalized two major auto manufacturers in this country, ignoring both the Constitutional considerations of doing so and existing case law on bankruptcy for these corporations' debtors; while imposing its arbitrary will on all parties concerned. Having carefully considered its position, government ruled in favor of union pension funds over other legitimate debt holders and became partners with those unions in owning these companies. After saying it had no interest in running them, it then dismissed the president of one (GM) in favor of one more to its liking, decided on advertising policy and the scope of product line, and went on to purchase a number of cars from ... well, itself. 


At least we knew however, that Congress would not violate the sanctity of the founding documents and the principles of private business practices. Then it mandated who private insurance companies would provide health coverage for, what rate increases will be found acceptable for such coverage, and what doctors would be reimbursed by these companies for care. In doing so, they refused to consider whether such steps will allow either the doctors or insurance companies to make a profit or even survive as free market entities under these regulations. Most amazing of all, most stood by in mute ignorance as a government which wouldn't understand even the concept of truth if it bit them in the ass told us that they could insure 30 million more people under a government program without it costing taxpayers more money. 


The Executive branch of the federal government, not to be outdone by these shenanigans, decided that it could ignore the rulings of the Judiciary branch (with which it is supposed to be equal); at least as they pertain to implementing the aforementioned health care legislation or its executive orders and bureaucratic bans on off-shore drilling for petroleum products that this country now desperately needs.

With the ball back in their court and seeking a new level of the ridiculous, Congress passed legislation that allows the government to determine how many fund-raising bake sales can be held at public schools and what fat and sugar content of the items sold at them will be permitted. If all of this serendipity were not enough to signal the coming Apocalypse, the fourth branch of government (Bureaucracy), feeling left out the mix in exercising power that it was never intended to have under the Constitution, issued new dietary guidelines for those of us no longer in school, and made every cow fart and every breath we exhale into a toxic substance contributing to the planet's doom. The fact that such regulations support a theory coming increasingly under question was considered of no consequence in the process. (Though admittedly, expecting facts to be the basis for political decisions is probably a bit crazy anyway.) 


Speaking of crazy, I wouldn't mind getting a little sanity in the media in the days ahead. Though having some of the pundits and personalities curb their imaginations, reduce their volume, and eliminate their 'fire and brimstone' preaching would make it a less target rich environment; a little less doom and gloom might make some of the other madness more bearable. I also wouldn't mind having government stop trying to help me as much as they seem to want to lately. Quite frankly, I am coming to believe that their motives are suspect, their help is more than I can afford, and their giving it is more likely to do me harm than good. If it's all the same to those in Washington, I would like them to stop before they help me to death. 


In spite of this however, and the dire predictions for December 21, 2012 by the Mayans for the 'End of Days', I still remain unprepared to consider that my place of residence is becoming Hades. In the spirit of full disclosure, I must admit that I did once live in an Ohio town only one letter off from one of its other appellations (a little town called Gahanna), but that was long ago. 


I cannot further help but recognize while there is an amusing irony involved in the contemplation of Global Warming while staring at the low level of mercury in the thermometer, and I chuckle occasionally when thinking of the name of the NHL team currently passing the puck around in New Jersey, I refuse to take such things as a sign. 


Nevertheless, I cannot help but find myself occasionally amused over the long ago remonstrations of my parents and the frozen conditions we are enjoying. And while we have assurances from Puxatony Phil that spring is around the corner, I cannot help but think:

"It will be a cold day indeed ..."

Senate Confirmation & The Size of Government

There has been a lot of discussion in recent decades over the Senate's inability to get through the confirmation process for federal appointees. In spite of the fact that the Senate was designed to be a more deliberative branch of the legislature and less prone to quick decisions, both parties have complained about the process when they were in charge of the White House, and both have been guilty of foot-dragging to impede it when they could. An Associate Press story published in last weekend's in Kansas City Star spoke about a new bi-partisan effort on the part of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) to streamline this process as part of the changes that the Democratic majority is looking to make in the Senate rules. 


Reading the article however, I am convinced that the problem has nothing to do with the bi-partisan effort being proposed. Hidden in the fifth paragraph and only lightly touched on, it is in fact set before us in very plain language. There the story states: "Reid noted that they Senate was responsible for confirming 1,215 executive branch nominees and that number keeps rising". Passing over this rather astonishing number without comment, the story goes on in the same paragraph to cite a Brookings Institute study that points out that "the number of core policy positions the president must fill has risen from 295 when Ronald Reagan took office to 422 for Barack Obama". 


Not referenced in the article, as it has nothing to do with the Senate effort, is that on top of the increase of those lined up before the Senate, there are over thirty executive branch positions, often known as 'Czars', who do not require confirmation before taking up their responsibilities. The application of simple mathematics to this growing group of bureaucratic drones shows us an increase in the executive branch counselors of 30% in the thirty years since Reagan took office in 1981. Add in the numbers for the requisite support staff that senior policy advisers and judicial appointees undoubtedly require to perform their authorized functions and multiply the resulting total by the average bureaucratic salary and benefit package in the federal government, and one cannot help but come to the conclusion that we are talking about several hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions) each year. 


So setting aside the desire for rule changes in Senate committees, we might instead come to the conclusion that the problem with the confirmation process is not the political wrangling that seems to go on regardless of the party in power; but with the sheer magnitude of the list of positions that must be confirmed. Perhaps without even consciously knowing these numbers before, the problem that many Tea Party members and other Conservatives perceived with the federal government was not with the man sitting at its head (as is often accused), but instead with the number of paid sycophants that the holder of the office surrounds himself with.


Quite frankly, numbers on such a scale smack more of a royal court than that of an elected head of a representative republic. Since both parties have held the high chair in the last thirty years, both must share in the guilt for making it so. The growing layers of bureaucracy not only increase the cost of government at a time when we can ill afford it, but create in these fiefdoms unaccountable to the Electorate a ruling class that's the antithesis of the principles on which this country was founded. 


I have no out-of-hand objection to bi-partisan efforts on federal appointments of good candidates or to rules changes in the Senate to improve the appointment process. I would be pleased to discover however, that as part of any effort taken in the plan of Senators Reid and McConnell, they will likewise strive to reduce the number of appointees required to go through the process. I would be happier still to hear that this and future presidents will join this effort and say that they will expedite the process further by either eliminating such positions or failing to fill them. 


Very often the problems of government are difficult to see and almost impossible to resolve. In the case of the Senate confirmation process however the issue appears to be large enough to be easily identified (though I would hesitate to use the expression "elephant in the room" by way of description) and the solution equally simple to undertake.

Encroachment

In football when the team playing defense attempts to line up in an area beyond where they're supposed to, a penalty is called for "Encroachment" and the offending team is marched back five yards for the rules infraction. In examples that I have talked about in this blog and in a column for the Toledo Free Press, agencies of the federal government appear to be regularly committing the same type of rules violations, attempting to usurp the authority of the legislative and judicial branches of the government in an attempt to push forward a progressive political agenda. 

• Medicare regulations that go into effect January 1st are pushing forward a proposal for end-of-life care (also known as Death Panels) that the legislature rejected while passing health care reform. 
•  The Agriculture Department is taking charge of school bake sales and the food sold at them in the name of protecting our youth from unhealthy food without a mandate to do so. 
•  The Department of Health & Human Services has told health care providers that they will not be able to raise rates more than 10% without the permission of that agency, in spite of being given no such pricing authority in this industry. 
•  Having failed to gain authority through "Cap and Trade" legislation, the Environment Protection Agency has nevertheless decided on its own to regulate the emissions of CO2 (a substance that at other times and places is considered naturally occurring) for oil refineries and power plants. 
• The Department of Homeland Security has decided that global climate change is now a national security threat and will form a panel to identify and assess the impact that it has on their mission whether they have the authority to or not. 
•  The FCC has broken new ground on multiple fronts, ignoring a letter from members of the Senate as well as court rulings to assume control over parts of the Internet. 

 It would be criminally naive to believe that these Cabinet level agencies, with Secretaries appointed by the Executive Branch of government, made these moves without explicit or implicit permission if not approval of the president. In fact we were warned that this was a possibility when some parts of the aggressive legislative agenda of the the Obama Administration were rejected in Congress. 


No more egregious attempt by one branch of the government to nullify the separation of powers has occurred since "The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937". In this legislative proposal by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, an attempt was made to grant power to the executive branch to appoint additional Justices to the High Court (up to a maximum of six) for every sitting member above the age of 70-1/2. Though the bill ultimately failed due to adverse public reaction, it is universally considered as an attempt by FDR to pack the High Court in order to get one more sympathetic to his New Deal legislative agenda and subvert one that was ruling parts of it unconstitutional. 


Evidently the current Administration has learned something from the mistakes of prior progressive presidents. Understanding that its current agenda was not and will not be approved and that the approval of what is still a Conservative Supreme Court was unlikely and irrelevant, it turned instead to a bureaucratic and regulatory process that was not in place on the same scale during FDR's time. If the legislative and judicial branches could be not counted on to do the right thing as proposed by the President, one need simply find an expedient way to go around them. 


Regardless of altruistic motives involved, the relative good for the country that might or might not occur, or whether you approve of the agenda being implemented is immaterial at this point. The simple fact of the matter is that the federal government was created with a system of checks and balances to prevent just such an overreaching by one branch of government and protect citizens from any one branch becoming too powerful. Any attempt to subvert those protections by any person or group must be considered inherently wrong. 


We have yet to see how the Legislature will react to some of these recently passed regulations and whether it will attempt to bring these agencies to heel through its control of oversight and budget. We must likewise wait as legal challenges are mounted to some of the legislation that apparently gave these agencies their regulatory powers. 


There is little doubt in my mind however, that a clear violation of the rules has already been committed. If it were within my power as referee of this game; I would certainly throw the yellow flag and charge this President, these Cabinet Secretaries, and their agencies with the penalty of Encroachment.

TFP Column: 2011 The Year of the Bureaucrat

With this being a week between holidays, I am assuming that much of the content for the Toledo Free Press is being put up early to provide an opportunity for its employees to enjoy these last days of the year. 


So it is at least with a piece that I put together this week, "2011 the Year of the Bureaucrat". While many are looking back at the year that was with fondness or regret, I am looking forward to the year coming with a touch of fear. Since so much of this content being posted prior to the normal publication date, it's difficult for me to call out any specific pieces of interest this this week's TFP; but I expect that anyone who looks will find much to their liking. 


While I'm at it, I would like to express my gratitude to Tom Pounds, publisher and Michael Miller, editor-in-chief, for including my efforts in the TFP in 2010. I would further like express my wishes for a Happy New Year to Mr Pounds, Mr Miller, and everyone at the Toledo Free Press for their kindness, their friendship, and their tireless efforts in producing an outstanding product.

Happy New Year to All!

Bureaucratic Tipping Point

Like many things throughout history, government bureaucracies may have reached a tipping point in this country. Once considered essential to protection, most (like their union counterparts) have long since become little more than self-perpetuating parasites whose major, if not only concern is in increasing their own size and budget. 


These leeches have grown in number and flourished under oversight responsibilities long ignored by a Congress more concerned with re-election, bring home pork projects, and protecting their own favored status than they are about doing their jobs. But some of these agencies are beginning to reach new levels of arrogance in their continuing efforts at control of every aspect of society, while ignoring any attempts at restraint. 


Two particularly egregious examples of this occurred just this week. Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), announced the formation of a task force charged with "identifying and assessing the impact that climate change could have on the missions and operations of the Department of Homeland Security". 


The idea proposed here is that the concept man caused global climate change is now a matter of national security. The claim that follows is that since the DHS is in charge of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), that it needs to extend its mandate into the areas of global climate in order to deal with flooding, wildfires, and hurricane activity caused by such climate change. 


Setting aside that most if not all of the claims tying global climate change to every recent disaster happening in the world are anecdotal, that the model changes on an almost weekly basis, and that there is little or no evidence to back them up; it nevertheless remains that the expansion of her responsibilities is not up to her. Congress in fact created the DHS after the events of 9/11, and set up its mandate under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to attempt to deal with protection from further attacks. 


In addition to creating this cabinet level department and post in the first place, Congress is further responsible for funding the department for its mandated activities. Since this funding level was set up before the current expansion, one cannot help but wonder therefore what part of their existing responsibilities they will choose to de-fund in order to take on these new ones. Considering that DHS (also in charge of the TSA) failed to recently prevent a man from accidentally bringing a loaded gun on an airplane in Houston, is facing increasing derision for the body scan and pat down policy that has proved all but useless and treats all this country's citizens as potential terrorists, and has failed almost entirely in securing the southern border of this country from the incursion of potential terrorists, continued violation of this border by illegal aliens, and the expansion of Mexican drug cartels; one would think it a tad over-reaching for this department to attempt to expand its responsibilities rather than to properly fulfill its original mandate. 


 DHS is not alone however, and the Federal Communications Commission has likewise moved this week to extend (or perhaps overextend) its regulating responsibilities. 


Yesterday the FCC adopted regulatory control of the internet in the form of "Net Neutrality". The FCC proposes to protect service providers from blocking or slowing access to certain websites, in spite of the fact that such a problem currently doesn't exist. What it will do however, is create a foothold for the FCC in controlling the internet and the beginnings of a regulatory morass that service providers and website hosts alike will have to negotiate in the future. Worse still, is the fact that doing this, the FCC is ignoring the authority of other government branches in its attempt at expansion of its mandate. Congress has already warned the FCC that it has no legal standing for interference where the internet is concerned, and will undoubtedly consider striking down this new expansion by joint resolution. Such a resolution already has wide bi-partisan support, and having the FCC ignore a letter sent to it by 30 Republican Senators last week will undoubtedly add to cry to follow through on doing so. 


Additionally, the FCC makes this move despite a ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (the court which holds authority in such matters), which told them specifically that they have no authority in the area of traffic management on the internet. 


These two agencies are not alone in writing their own rules, and this is a problem that we often see when dealing with unelected officials. The IRS and SEC can both run their hearings using a rule of 'guilty until proven innocent' regardless of the fact that this goes against existing legal principle in this country. The EPA can decide on its own to assume regulation of carbon dioxide in spite of the fact that it is a naturally produced substance. The USDA can determine the number of bake sales held as school fund raisers and the type of food that can be sold at them, whether this has anything to do with 'Agriculture' or not. 


These unelected sycophants largely ignore common sense, the rule of law, and their elected and judicial counterparts as irrelevant and temporary obstacles to the assumption of increasing power and control they deem necessary to protect us from ourselves. They deem themselves far wiser than the rest of us and above the law ... because for the most part, they are allowed to. While ostensibly operating for our protection, the only ones truly protected in all of this massive regulatory process are the increasing number of government functionaries seeking an ever greater control over every aspect of our lives. 


The increasing pace of this expansion and encroachment may now well have reached a tipping point where such continued growth becomes almost unstoppable however, and the increasing number of regulations (over 78,000 pages of them according to the Federal Register) almost insure that at some point soon every aspect of our lives will fall under the auspices of bureaucratic control and everyone will be in violation of something.