TFP Column: We Need A Law

I know that I have been absent from the pages of the TFP for a couple of weeks, and I want you to know that there are reasons for this to have happened.  Most of them involve an admission of sheer intellectual laziness and occasional bouts of creative nonappearance.

That being said, it appears that Editor-in-Chief Michael Miller has once more placed his well-deserved reputation in jeopardy by accepting my latest effort, "We Need A Law".

Please understand that I mean no disrespect to the victims of the recent Boston Marathon tragedy.  That being said, I can't ignore the current government practice of using the despicable behavior of whoever created these bombs to commit additional despicable behavior in their continuing attempts achieve the same goal as terrorists by restricting personal freedom and increasing government control.

On a more positive note, it's only the middle of the week and the TFP "Star" edition is just hitting the streets.  In addition, there will no doubt be a number of far more uplifting written efforts later in the week in Toledo's highest circulation Sunday and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper for the last four years, the Toledo Free Press. 

What To Do About Guns Now

The president announced today that he's going to put VP Joe Biden in charge of an effort to make us all safer; an effort which will include consideration of returning so-called 'assault weapons' bans from by-gone days.  The VP is an experienced politician, but is probably more well known for his unarmed assaults on English grammar than his knowledge of assault weapons.  VP Biden has previously been given a rating of 'F' by the National Rifle Association for his gun control regulations stance, so we can be sure that he will be taking an aggressive position on this new assignment.  There's no doubt that semi-automatic and automatic weapons can dangerous tools in the hands of madmen with a will to use them (something that Joe has proved he can do with nothing more than a microphone).  Before we seek to take away those tools or define those madmen however, perhaps we would be best served to look at the historical record.

After all, if you really want to see madness and the use of guns, you have to turn to .... governments.  Joseph Stalin is credited with the quote, "A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."  Stalin should know, since during his reign of terror in the Soviet Union, he apparently had some 20,000,000 Soviet citizens eliminated.  Joe is not unique in his pursuit of it however, though most of those of a like mind did so in regulation-filled, totalitarian regimes where the private ownership of guns was restricted and the use of a gun was incidental to much of the killing going on.  When these kinds of governments are not killing their own citizens with guns, they normally try to amuse themselves by killing their neighbors with them.  This inevitable result is called War, and in War even good nations find themselves killing people with guns in order to protect themselves from these evil ones.  No one seeks to deny ownership of such weapons to these governments for such self-protection. 

One of the other things that governments like to do with such weapons when not using them on their own citizens or those of nations they're at war with is to sell them to other nations for similar purposes.  Should we then be concerned that the government that would like to create additional language to restrict gun ownership in this country is the one that has a history to handing not only guns, but far more sophisticated weapons to people like Mao Zedong in China, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt; only to see those weapons eventually turn up and be used against us.  In fact we've yet to be given a reasonable explanation for the government's recent effort to sell similar guns not to an allied government, but to Mexican drug cartels in an infamous escapade known as 'Fast and Furious'.  Some or all of this might lead a reasonable person to conclude that taking gun restriction recommendations from a group of people with a huge and consistent record of epic failure might be ludicrous at best.  It's also interesting to note that many of the same politicians now calling for denial of such ownership to citizens in this country have access to armed security details using these very weapons to protect themselves.

Of course the other component here is the madness involved with someone who takes up a gun (knife, axe, or homemade bomb) and thinks it would be a good idea to end people's lives.  The cries are going up already for society to be more diligent in identifying these people early on, and stopping them before they can commit their heinous acts.  I don't know about whether such a "Minority Report" world can even exist, but I do know that it's one that I would be afraid to live in.  It's a world of George Orwell's 'thought police'; a world full of government watchers and of even more government regulations on guns than there are now (currently some 20,000) from well-meaning politicians and bureaucrats attempting once again to prove in their misguided efforts, that they are incapable of defeating the law of unintended consequences.  Knowing all this, one can't help but wonder why those involved are attempting to get us into another situation in which we need to wonder both 'who gets to decide' and 'who watches the watchers'.  

The Framers of the Constitution understood that the danger from weapons comes not only from bad men who would seek to use them for evil deeds, but from bad governments capable of doing evil in the denial of what they called 'inalienable rights' and attempted to protect themselves and future generations.  They experienced such denial at the hands of what many considered to be a madman at the head of the government in England, and experienced how the use of arms almost exclusively held by that government (even to the point of bringing in foreign mercenaries) could be used to pursue evil intent.  They understood that like madness, Government too is a form of power; and that it can only be judged by the tools it uses and the ends it seeks.  While the tools may not be judged as good or evil, the ends pursued must be; and must be constantly guarded, lest they turn to evil.
                                        
It's strange that I, who have not only never owned a gun, but have never fired one in my 57 years of existence (cap, water, and BB guns excluded of course) should seek to defend against additional ownership restriction.  Perhaps it's because I'm a reader of history however, and understand that the worst depredations of history come in societies that restrict ownership of guns exclusively to their government.  History likewise shows us that areas with additional restrictions on gun ownership does little more than take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens while leaving them in the hands of criminals.  So what do we do about guns now?  Perhaps as little as possible.  Finding a way to protect the children in our schools at least as well as we protect our politicians is an obvious goal.  Finding a way to understand and to protect ourselves from the irrational behavior of troubled individuals should also become a greater priority.  Allowing those politicians to place further restrictions on law-abiding citizens attempting to protect themselves from things that government cannot and will not ultimately be able to however is unwarranted and unnecessary. 

TFP Column: Four More Years

My effort last week for the TFP concerned the period running up to the election, so it seemed only fitting that this week's should be about what we have to look forward to in the period after.  No, I'm not going to give you any hints as to what I talk about in "Four More Years", lest you come to your only conclusions as to its nature and not bother to actually read it.      

On the other hand, using my link to get over to the website will at least get you over to a place where you can find out everything that's going on in Toledo and Northwest Ohio in both the mid-week "Star" edition.  What you don't find out now in the "Star", you absolutely know will be in Toledo's largest Sunday circulation offering and Ohio's Best Weekly Newspaper for so many years in a row that we're beginning to lose count (OK, it's four); the Toledo Free Press. 

TFP Column: Laboring Under A Misconception

“If you work hard, sooner or later your boss will notice, you’ll do better, and earn more,” is what my father told me as a boy.

At least that was the beginning of my premise for this week's TFP effort, "Laboring Under A Misconception".  These days I wonder however, as I contemplate the re-establishing of a career in the current crazy economy and the insane attempts of the government to try and control it. 

But listen, this is a busy enough week with another hurricane approaching New Orleans and the storm that's expected to be going on in Tampa at the Republican National Convention over the next couple of days.  So I'll just encourage you to read some of the award winning journalism of a paper that just picked up four individual awards from the Ohio Society of Professional Journalists (and no, I didn't win one of them, though Michael Miller won two).  If that weren't enough, we're talking about the largest Sunday circulation in Toledo and now the winner of the best weekly newspaper in Ohio for the FOURTH straight year, the Toledo Free Press.

TFP Column: The EPA Is Starving People

The heat of the summer seems to be moderating, but the drought continues throughout most of the Midwest.  It seems likely that in spite of more land being planted in corn this year, the harvest in this grain is likely to be less (in fact the Department of Agriculture has told us so).  Corn prices have gone up significantly in the last few years, so farmers seem well-protected by a combination of these higher prices and government programs in place.  

Corn however is food, and less of it means less to eat for people around the world, since the US is a principle exporter of this grain.  There will be even less of it to eat however, with EPA regulations on bio-fuel seeing a fair amount of the harvest being turned into ethanol.  Putting two and two together, it was not a great leap of math to determine that "The EPA is Starving People".  The numbers in this effort all come from reliable sources (none of them owned by NBC), so it might be worth the effort of a few minutes.

We are early in the week however, so there's likely to a lot more to see (maybe even from me); both in the mid-week Star edition and in this week's edition of Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's best weekly newspaper for the last three years in a row, the Toledo Free Press.

When Pigs Fly

Sometimes our government does things so incredibly out there that it makes you realize that literally no one can make this stuff up.  (Well you could, but it would be a lot of hard work and still probably not be as funny.)  So laugh if you will, but if the Department of Transportation gets their way with a recent guidelines update, it may soon be easier for Pigs to fly than for most of the rest of us.  And they will not be the only members of the animal kingdom that might be taking to the skies.

According to the "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel:  Draft Technical Assistance Manual", airlines will be 'helped to comply' (you know, forced by the government under penalty and fine) to allow not only such animals as the pot-bellied version of swine (the pot-bellied human version having been allowed for many years already), but dogs, miniature horses, and monkeys to be allowed in the cabin as service animals to see to the needs of those considered by such regulations to be disabled. 

In these recently released 'regulation updates' (regulations which total some 200 pages) that I spotted in a Fox News piece by Todd Starnes, service animals used by a passenger with an accepted disability must be allowed to accompany such a passenger into the cabin and remain there so long as it doesn't obstruct an aisle.  If space isn't available, the airline is required to speak to passengers (asking them to switch seats if necessary) until the animal is accommodated. 

We all know what a pain in the ass it is these days to go through the rather onerous and time consuming process of security checks and luggage restrictions that passengers must go through in order to get aboard an airplane these days.  The entire system has become such a morass of examination, regulation, and intimidation that many of us simply choose to fly only when no realistic alternative presents itself.  One can only speculate therefore, on what new terminal adventures await the air traveler when sharing the security lines with 'Arnold the Pig', 'Bonzo the Chimp', or a miniature version of of 'Trigger the Wonder Horse'.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm all in favor of those with Special Needs getting a helping hand in enjoying life to the fullest through traveling by air.  Why should we, who require no more special assistance in flying than detailed instructions on how to operate a seat belt, breathe into an oxygen mask if one drops in front of your face, or grab a seat cushion as a flotation device in the unlikely event that your plane attempts a 'water landing' (you know, does a really awful job of trying to imitate a boat) be the only ones willingly to subject ourselves to the gulag-style treatment afforded us by the TSA and the simmering hostility of many current airline employees? (Not that we don't deserve it.) 

Besides, I can't wait to find out what the TSA pat down procedures are going to be for this Noah's Ark of personal assistants.  I'm also looking forward to some vocal and over-the-top demonstrations by members of PETA; not for the use of service animals as personal servants for the disabled (which may be a line that even they will not cross), but for subjecting these 'animals are people too' to the abusive practices of the Mall cops of the TSA.  In fact, if one were to take this to its illogical extreme (a duty for which I am particularly well-suited); one could ask what the ramifications would be if TSA's procedures were to be considered inhumane in the eyes of PETA or the ASPCA (let alone the Humane Society), since they were originally developed for use on humans.

I'm also curious to see how airlines will deal with animal allergy issues that are bound to come up.  Having long ago retreated in the face of the peanut threat, how will they now deal with the potential of their recirculated air carrying animal dander to passengers who may be hypersensitive to such exposure?  How will such sensitivities be determined before boarding, and will the person with the disability (along with the offending service animal) be required to relinquish their seat(s) or will the one with the allergy (which could also be considered a disability) be required to deplane? 

Additionally, what about phobias?  It's not that I personally have any fears in regards to miniature horses or monkeys flying (except of course, for the horrible ones in "The Wizard of Oz"); but then again, I've never been trapped in an airplane at 30,000 feet with a 'My Little Pony' that's got a case of the gallops or a 'Curious George' getting just a bit too curious where I'm concerned.  Will flight attendants be required to learn the additional skills of roping and tying for our four-legged friends, or proper restraint techniques for our simian cousins?

And as for the potential terrorist threat, there's no telling where those who believe that the soles of shoes and underwear are OK places to hide explosives will be able to make of these new regulations.  While I believe that religious proscription will probably maintain the safety of pot-bellied bacon bearers, the rest of the animal kingdom could well come under serious threat as they are added to the list of potential and unknowingly suicidal explosive devices.

Now lest anyone think that the DOT has completely lost its frigging mind, they have at least placed some limitations on service animals, and are allowed to reject some species on these Greyhounds of the air (the buses, not the dogs).  Animals coming into question include, but are not limited to:  "ferrets, rodents, spiders, snakes, and other reptiles" (though with multiple ocular opportunities, certainly a 'seeing eye spider' makes a creepy sort of sense).  It does however beg the question:   

If snakes can be banned, and with them ferrets (a member of the weasel family); will the promotion of these new guidelines cause members of Congress to be banned from returning to their districts by air, even as service animals?

(Hey wait a minute!  I have been confronted for years by my employer with responses for raises that I would see my next one when pigs fly.  It sounds to me like it may well be time to step up and ask for that well-deserved salary increase.)

TFP Column: Soda Jerk

While it may seem as if I have been delinquent in putting up a mid-week posting, it's only because every time that I came up with an idea this week, I ended up sending it to Michael Miller at the TFP.  Instead of rejecting both out of hand, amazingly Michael accepted both efforts.  So instead of a mid-week post, you will get a link to a second mid-week column.

The second one this week is entitled "Soda Jerk", and speaks to Mayor Michael Bloomberg's regulatory proposal to ban sugary drinks of more than 16 ounces.  Now NYC's Mayor has already banned smoking (which tends to make people gain weight), and well as the use of Trans fats for cooking in the city.  One cannot help but wonder what the Mayor will ban next if this next effort fails to reduce the weight of New Yorkers fails.  (You also have to wonder if the Mayor has been spending time with Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson, who thought that Guam might tip over if too many people were on it.)

Having produced two 800 word writing efforts already this week, it's likely that I will wait until Saturday to do further structural damage to the national discourse.  There will certainly be more to come from other sources however, at least in Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

The Inalienable Right to Stupidity

There's been a lot of talk in recent years about the Rights that we have in this country as human beings and as citizens of this great nation (in fact, more than there usually is after NYC's Mayor Bloomberg decided to try and save New Yorkers from large soft drinks).  Some are worthy, some are even inspiring; but some are tedious and boring, some are simply bogus, and some could even be considered rather far-fetched.

No discussion of Rights in this country of course, is ever possible without first mentioning "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"  (or Property, depending on whether you go with Jefferson's original, or the sanitized version that ended up on parchment) that has come to define the message in the Declaration of Independence. While this was certainly a sound base to build upon, by the time the Founding Fathers had gotten around to writing the Constitution, many of the same people who signed the Declaration had become rather cynical about what would happen to their Rights when having to replace the looser Articles of Confederation with the stronger central government outlined in this new document.  They were wary and distrustful of the amount of power now being place in the hands of that new government.  (Pretty smart guys those Founding Fathers.)  

In spite of the reassurances of some of the finest minds in the nation at the time as to the limits and restraints placed by that Constitution on this new federal government in "The Federalist Papers", they wanted written guarantees as to Rights that would be protected before signing on the dotted line.  A list of twenty such rights was handed back to the nation by James Madison (Jefferson couldn't help, as he was in France at the time), twelve of which were voted on, and ten later passed to became the first ten Amendments to this new Constitution and came to be known as the "Bill of Rights".

With all due respect to the efforts of 'The Father of the Constitution', who I suspect is now whirling like a dervish during his dirt nap when considering some of the feeble attempts put forward masquerading as Rights in this country, I am shocked ... shocked I tell you, by the big one that even he apparently missed.  I'm not sure for example, that 'affordable housing', 'a living wage', or 'free contraception' would have made any list that he would have submitted to Congress (even if it had been available).  Having just gone through a war with the greatest empire of his time over the Rights they believed that they were entitled to 'by their Creator' ... and won it, I doubt that he would have been amused by such mundane concepts, let alone submit them for serious consideration.  In so doing however, he was in fact denying the people of this country the one fundamental Right that even the Declaration's troika failed to list  .... The Right to Stupidity.

Come on now, admit it.  We're all falling back on this Right far more times than any of us would like to admit (and far more than the ten listed in the Constitution).  Have you bungee jumped lately or jumped out of an airplane with nothing between you and certain death but an over-sized handkerchief? How about ordering that triple cheeseburger with the large fries (you know, the kind that makes your cholesterol go up before the first bite)?  Smoke two packs of cigarettes a day for thirty years and still don't think you're setting yourself up for lung cancer?  Drink a quart of vodka every week, but you aren't concerned about the condition of your liver?  Hitting the tanning booth three times a week, but aren't worried about those new freckles that you're getting? How about when you told one of your friends that despite all the warnings, you were still convinced that you'd get your money back out of Social Security?  See, there you go ... Stupidity.

You know, quite a lot of stupidity that we deal with today has to do with government in one way or another.  After all, it's government that tells us that with each new law or regulation, it can protect us from evil banks, greedy corporations, and predatory merchandisers; and we all know that that's just plain stupid.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not objecting if the government wants to check out the hot dog factory from time to time to make sure that it hasn't become a science experiment.  Nor am I upset that if they want to check to make sure that the teddy bear I just gave my grandchild isn't stuffed with material used to clean up hazardous or radioactive waste.  I'm even OK with a few rules for those in the stock market to make sure that they're not lining their pockets with my money while trading off of inside information.  It defies all logic and reason however, for government to think that we're stupid enough to believe that it can protect us from our own stupidity.  (OK, that issue may still be up for grabs...)

The truth of the matter is that if members of this and previous Congresses, along many of the recent occupants of the White House hadn't kept bailing individuals, corporations, and foreign countries from the results of their moronic actions, perhaps there would be less stupidity in the US, if not the world today.  At the very least, making them pay in full for the stupidity of their actions would have resulted in a 'thinning of the herd' that would probably have raised the average and collective IQ in this country considerably.

Of course maybe the real consideration here is that government simply doesn't like having competition.  It doesn't take an Einstein to look at the imbecilic nonsense committed in Washington DC on a daily basis and come to the conclusion that they would prefer a monopoly on stupidity; and that based on their fear of competition they will do all in their power (no matter how stupid it appears) to reduce the number of players in the game.  

The hard truth however, is that with or without government intervention we will remain the constant victims of our own stupidity.  (Are you paying attention Mayor Bloomberg?)  One could even make the case that continued efforts to protect us from our ill-advised behaviors will in fact increase them through a half-witted (though often astonishingly creative) push back against increasing government interference in the exercise of this fundamental Right.

One might even go so far as to say that a government consisting of professional politicians wishing to serve as our elected officials should be wary of tampering with the inalienable right to stupidity, and  should instead be celebrating it.  What other hope do they have in the never-ending quest for a return to their well-paid positions than to count on the stupidity of the American voter.

 
    

Tax, Regulate, and Subsidize

"The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:  If it moves, tax it.  If it keeps moving, regulate it.  And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

- Ronald Reagan

It certainly seems that this former President was at the top of his game in saying this, and that what was true over thirty years ago remains equally true today.

 
What brought these comparisons about was the recent revelation by JP Morgan Chase, that poor monitoring of a worse strategy of investment cost the bank some $2 billion of its own money in the last six weeks.  Now there was a day when $2 billion was real money, but those days are almost as far behind us as the Presidency of Ronald Reagan.  After all, JP Morgan Chase is a bank worth almost $2.3 trillion; which is a bit more formidable sum to consider, unless of course, you're a national government.

There are those now calling for the bank's CEO Jamie Dimion to resign from the Federal Reserve Board (if not from the bank), including a former Obama adviser and now Senatorial candidate in Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren.  Of course you all remember Ms. Warren's latest claim to fame, that of being 1/32 Cherokee Indian.  Now that claim has come into serious question, if not disrepute (in a distraction that radio personality Mark Steyn cleverly calls Fauxcahontas).  My math skills may be a little rusty, but Warren's potential error on her pedigree seems to be something on the order of 3% and JP Morgan's on the order of .01%.  But let's set that, along with her campaign pontifications aside.

We could take up instead those made by White House press secretary Jay Carney, using his pressroom podium as a bully pulpit to speak on why this situation is justification for the 'Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act', and to make the case that its perhaps additional federal regulations of the banking industry should be taken up at the federal level.  Of course Mr Carney fails to point out that the type of trading being done by the bank was not covered under Dodd-Frank and that it was the bank and not federal regulators that caught the problem, but it's seldom that the a political candidate's spokesperson will let the facts get in the way of a bit of campaign rhetoric. So maybe we should set aside the statements of Mr Carney as well in the spirit of fairness (to what I don't know).

Since some are setting the federal government up as a fiscal watchdog, let's look instead at the numbers of a couple instances of recent money loss under federal oversight.  In it's most recent quarter of operation (admittedly 12 weeks and not 6), the US Post Office lost $3.2 billion.  What's more, it lost $3.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2011, and $3.1 billion in the third quarter last year.  In fact, according to Business Insider, it has lost some $20 billion since 2007. Billions of dollars lost through the execution of a lousy strategy and poor monitoring that sound vaguely familiar, if considerably more egregious; and all of this oversight was performed by Congress.

But let's face it people even $20 billion is chump change in the great scheme of things (pun intended).  After all, isn't Congress responsible for oversight of the national budget?  Now, of course the Senate hasn't seen fit to exercise its responsibility of passing a budget in over 1100 days (3 years for those of you not using the Mayan calendar).  Even though the Senate has a clear Democratic majority however, I'm sure that the fault must lie with the Republicans. The House, to its credit, has passed a couple of budgets since evil Republicans, with their nefarious ringleader Congressman Paul Ryan, started proposing draconian cuts; but nothing has seemingly come of these efforts as in a spirit of bi-partisan compromise that does little more than allow the madness to continue.

So in the first fiscal quarter of 2012, the national debt has gone up not $2 billion, $3 billion, or even $20 billion; but a staggering $320 billion (at least according to the Congressional Budget Office).  In fact, at the time that this was posted, the National Debt stood in excess of $15.7 trillion dollars.  So let me get this straight.  The government that loses millions in green energy projects, billions each quarter on the Post Office, and hundreds of billions each quarter in the deficit increase of the federal budget would like greater control on how private businesses spend or invest their own money and show no outrage (or interest for that matter) over their own apparent fiscal irresponsibility. 

OK, then.  Well it certainly seems (based on these facts) as though the government has made its case, and earned that right to impose further controls using Sec of State Hilary Clinton's 'suspension of disbelief' view of the world.  (Sorry, the sarcasm key got stuck and this just typed itself.)

We are after all, certainly taxing the profits made by banks like JP Morgan Chase already, and have increasingly sought to regulate them.  There are those in Congress and the White House who would like even more regulation on 'too big to fail' banks. You know, perhaps with enough government regulation, we might just be able to move beyond stage two of former President Reagan's quote and the bailouts that have already occurred and truly begin to permanently subsidize banks with taxpayer dollars.   


     

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.



.

Government Protection Racket

.
Everywhere we turn these days, we find constant reminders of the lousy economic numbers in this country; and while economists refuse to talk about a 'double-dip recession' that hasn't yet met their strict definition, we all know it's here.  Many of us know the culprit as well.  It's not evil corporations or the wealthy 1%.  It's not even really the bankers, though they certainly haven't gone out of their way to help the situation. In fact, it's those in government telling us that something must be done for our protection, when the only thing that they're really trying to protect are the cushy jobs that most of them will have to attempt to keep, some 12 months from now.  

Government is something that we created in this country over 200 years ago to do for ourselves together what we could not do alone.  It was not instituted to do things we have apparently now become too lazy to do for ourselves. Look at the Government's latest answer to fixing the economy if you'd like an example, as the Senate passes legislation seeking tariffs against the Chinese for flooding the US with 'cheap goods', and preventing our own from being competitive.  Really?

Isn't that the same government that's telling us that the biggest problem is that consumer demand for goods is down?  Do they think that demand will improve if the costs of those goods are increased through tariffs on produced in China or the sale of more expensive goods from elsewhere (even the US)?  What will happen to a cost of living calculation that's already little more than pointless fiction, since it doesn't include the costs of food and energy, if we add to it what will now be the higher costs of imported goods?  

Politicians complain that the Chinese are pumping money into their own economy to artificially prop it up (which seems rather disingenuous of those who passed two different Stimulus plans and would like to see a third passed).  But so what?  What's wrong with taking advantage of China spending their money to makes its goods cheaper to buy until they can no longer afford to do so?  Aren't we glad that China is using this money to prop up their exported goods, rather than using it to build fleets of ships, squadrons of airplanes, and silos full of missiles?  If they think that the best use of their national treasure is an attempt to sustain something that cannot be sustained forever, let them.  In fact, let's applaud and encourage them to continue to do so while enjoying the fruits of ignorance that allow us to buy more and cheaper stuff with our own money. 

Of course placing tariffs on goods coming out of China will likely spur retaliatory ones on US goods being shipped to China and lead to a trade war, but what's wrong with that?  Well for one thing and like so many other times, Washington will be fighting the last war and not the one one we're facing.  We are no longer in a position of strength to bully other nations on the world stage.  The economy is a house of cards and the windbags in Washington are doing little more than seeking to blow it down.  For another, these are the same policies that proved a dismal failure during the Great Depression when they signed in 1930 the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act into law.  Rather than helping the economy recover, this bit of odious political economic theory in fact extended the damage of the Depression far beyond what it should have.  Is repeating one of the poorer examples of legislative governance in this country's history the only way that we can prove its lunacy? 

Perhaps what we need to be asking ourselves more often is whether much of the very protection that the government is attempting to provide is what's stifling the economic recovery that it claims to be seeking.  Cheap energy is a necessary component to fueling a recovery for example, but the govt refuses to issue permits for drilling on land and sea in this country.  When Canada offers to ship us less expensive oil that it's choosing to recover from its own lands, we refuse to allow them permission to build a pipeline across the US for processing.  Such thinking not only ignores the necessity of obtaining such energy from a friendly source, but the large number of good paying jobs that will result from looking for it, getting it out of the ground, and building the pipeline across this country to move it to refineries.  What kind of protection is that?

The president demonizes the TEA party movement seeking a return to a limited government as defined by the Constitution that it was created under.  He finds sympathy however, for an Occupy movement that seeks not equality of opportunity but equality of result.  Doesn't this kind of equality stifle the very spark of potential genius this country was built on under a pile of stinking egalitarian mediocrity?  In the rush to seek some imagined progressive government utopia of uniform opportunity, are we instead getting a conformity mandated by the force of law?  In the seemingly constant incremental surrender of individual freedom, could we be dooming ourselves to stagnation instead?  Have we exchanged a true diversity of ideas for little more than a divergent set of paths to failure?  While decrying a lack of competitive edge in this country, has government itself instilled a placidity whose only goals are illusionary props to self-esteem?

This protection by legislation and regulation is not only doomed to failure by the faulty thinking it comes from, but by the imperfect assumptions it's based on and the defective methods involved in writing it.  What makes all of it even worse however, are the inevitable strong-arm tactics that will be used to enforce what are little more that crooked, flawed, and unsound policies for no other reason than that those in power believe that they know what's best for you.  Growing up in Chicago around the stories of mob influence during the days of another flawed government mandate, Prohibition, we knew what to call this kind of protection.  Used very effectively by criminal enterprises that often seemed far more organized that our government (then or now), we called them Protection Rackets.    


.

Our Govt Takes Us For Granted Far Too Often

 
I was disturbed, though not surprised, to read a piece in today's Kansas City Star:  "We take our government for granted far too often".  In it Richard Sumpter, an employee of the Environment Protection Agency and adjunct professor at Baker University, takes another reader (and all of the rest of us by extension) to task for not properly appreciating what our government does for us.  The reader in question (correctly) maintained that government erodes self-reliance.  Mr Sumpter quickly decides that at least in his case, self-reliance is an illusion.   Really! 

Conceding for the sake of argument, that the National Bureau of Standards, the EPA, the USDA, and the FCC have some value to citizens (something that I do in the case of the FCC only grudgingly); it does not naturally or necessarily follow that government agencies need to exist as they are today, or that their increasing encroachment on personal freedom is an inherent good.  Neither does it abrogate citizens from their burden of personal responsibility and self-reliance.

If the National Bureau of Standards didn't exist to establish and standardize time zones, would not some private sector organization spring up as it did in the case of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN); which performs a similar function for domain names and numbers for websites?  While the EPA (Mr Sumpter's employer) does provide us some protection from dangerous substances, does it not often overstep its bounds in attempting to regulate naturally produced substances like carbon dioxide and methane?  Did USDA regulations protect us from the recent salmonella outbreak from ground turkey; and did Cargill recall the potentially tainted meat under threat from the Dept of Agriculture and the USDA, or from the impending threat of litigation if it didn't?  Does the FCC's continuing efforts at regulation and control of the Internet, radio talk shows (The Fairness Doctrine) or broadcast standards which allow almost limitless violence on television while imposing fines on accidental nudity (Janet Jackson @ the Super Bowl) constitute protection or arbitrary standards.  Most importantly, what does any of this have to do with self-reliance?

Mr Sumpter fails to address the areas of government that in fact have some impact on the fundamental issue on self-reliance that he establishes.  But perhaps he simply finds it inconvenient to discuss how the 'safety net' of Social Security has now become a national pension plan for those not planning for their own future.  Maybe the annoying fact that Medicare and Medicaid have all but destroyed free-market principles in medical care, driving costs up and forcing many to rely on them has escaped his subservient vision.  It's possible that he finds the taxation that fund Welfare, Food Stamps, Subsidized Housing, Utility Bill Support, and Free Cell Phones are not troubling programs creating a dependent class in this country.  We'll never know however, since none of the government attacks on the self-reliance he claims is an illusion are addressed in the sonnet he pens to his employers in Washington.     

Interestingly enough, in a column in the same edition of the Star, E. Thomas McClanahan recognizes the potential issue of government redistribution becoming dependency bordering on addiction by pointing out that, "The U.S. government has become a giant check writing machine, with two-thirds of the federal budget given over to to payments to individuals - "  He goes on to say that, "Last year, government payments made up more than 18 percent of American's personal income, a record."  

No Mr Sumpter, the paved streets and traffic cops you applaud are bought and paid for through taxes, not provided at the largess of the government you want us to give up self-reliance to. So too for clean water and sewers, something for which you, like many others across the country, will be paying increasingly more for in the days ahead.  

Even those of us who continue to 'rage against the machine' recognize the necessity for some government; a strictly limited one based on the protections afforded in the Constitution.  What we vociferously object to however, is the expansion of 'nanny state' policies and agencies full of unelected bureaucrats that continue to attack the basic freedoms and even more basic responsibilities that this country was founded on.  The personal responsibility and self-reliance you say are an illusion are in fact a necessity in any nation that hopes to remain free; far more important that the government-provided conveniences that you believe we take for granted and would like us to applaud.  

I will not suggest ulterior motives to Mr Sumpter's effort, which seems to have been done in good faith.  I will say however that pointing out in the spirit of full disclosure at the end of the piece who his employer is does not negate the potential conflict of interest of a government employee trying to celebrate that institution; and in so doing, protect his own rice bowl.  We can applaud his loyalty without commending his willingness to bow to the increasing theft of personal responsibility by his ultimate employer.  Neither do we need to agree in any way with his invalidation of the self-reliance on which this country was founded.  No Mr Sumpter, your basic premise is not only flawed, it's just plain wrong.  It is our government who takes us for granted far too often.

TSA: Total Senseless Absudity

Three items in the news recently caught my attention and simply begged to be connected for your reading entertainment. The first occurred a little over a month ago with the release of a YouTube video of a six year-old girl being given an enhanced pat down by agents of the Transportation Security Administration at the New Orleans airport. I found a copy of it on this USA Today piece posted on April 13th. I think that the story speaks for itself. 


The second occurred here in Kansas City and I found the actual photograph posted just yesterday. In KC's case, the story linked here came from the local TV Fox station; and the picture shown was of an eight month old baby being given an enhanced pat down by a different group of TSA Agents. If you didn't find the concept of a six year-old being used as a weapon of mass destruction rather idiotic, perhaps the concept of a 'poop bomb' in the diaper of a young baby might help the process along. 


The third image and story (from an AP bit on the MSNBC website) tells of an actual incident on a airplane occurring when a Yemen native became a little unruly on American Airlines flight 1561 bound for San Francisco. It seems, at least according to prosecutors, that Rageh Al-Murisi should be considered "dangerous and erratic" simply for screaming "God is great" in Arabic and attempting to break into the cockpit. The interesting thing to me about these three travelogues is that while two small children (one unable to walk on its own) were detained for careful scrutiny and 'special attention' from TSA agents; apparently this man carrying, according to the story, "several valid and expired forms of identification from New York and California" was not waylaid on his journey by the dedicated (and soon to be unionized) bastions of airline safety. To the no doubt immense gratitude of his fellow passengers, he was able to make his flight. 


The justification for what should probably be considered little more than three failures on the part of our 'mall cops of the air' is of course that in all of these cases, TSA agents were strictly following the guidelines laid out by the Department of Homeland Security for our travel safety. (I know after reading these stories, I certainly feel safer flying.) 


I don't want to go off on the TSA however, as in this case they are simply too easy a target. I will however use this opportunity to point out that once again, the federal government's attempt at 'one size fits all rules' are a dismal failure, an annoying nuisance, and an expensive boondoggle. I would also like to point out that these guidelines and the minons of the TSA did nothing to keep what was either disturbed or disturbing individual from attempting to interfere with the guys flying the plane. In the end, it was not through state-of-the-art imaging technology, highly trained security personnel, or draconian procedures that make the crossing at 'Checkpoint Charlie' seem simple by comparison that foiled the only actual incident that all of this nonsense is supposed to protect us from. No, once again, the 'gentleman' in question was subdued instead by crew and passengers on the plane. (By the way, where were the 'Sky Marshalls' that have proved equally invisible and unheard of recently.) 


It seems for all of the rules and procedures that our caring government has put in place to secure a safety that they tell us only they are capable of providing, the only true safety and the best protection available to us comes from a flying public that will no longer tolerate this kind of behavior and will rise to the occasion when called for to defend themselves. This is something that the enemies of this country (including those who appear to be serving in government) might wish to take note of. 


There is a point beyond which the citizens of the United States cannot be pushed, and they will rise up to defend their peace, their honor, and their freedom when required ... against any and all threats. All might wish to take note as well, that the actions of the passengers on Flight 1561 have done what no Congressional Committee or government review has been able to do, render the appropriate judgment on TSA; a Total Senseless Absurdity.