The "Stuck on Stupid" Dictionary #39

In what may in fact be the real first sign of Spring, the lazy lexicographers of the SOS Dictionary have apparently come out of their hole, failed to see their collective shadows (which would have been difficult at best, considering the bloodshot conditions of their eyes), and decided to stay out in the fresh air for a bit.  (This had nothing to do with locking the door behind them after their 'temporary exit' I'm sure.)  Their efforts are at best sporadic and at worst all but nonexistent recently, and Senior Staff felt obligated to try something new.  Having given up on the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) for assistance, we have instead contacted Lindsay Lohan's people to recommend potential detox facilities.

Having all but reconciled ourselves to a level of production consistent with the output of common sense from the federal government is a bit disappointing, but not entirely unexpected.  Their chemically-induced maunderings however still manage to pass Senior Staff editorial muster; so we print 'em when we get 'em.

Such inconsistent production however, means that there may actually be those of you reading this who have somehow managed to miss previous postings on this subject (shame on you, now go back and search all of the postings under the label of  'Dictionary').  For those of you thus unfamiliar, the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appears to mean something entirely different when looked at through the jaded eyes and rose colored glasses of the SOS dictionary staff.


Democrat

1.  A Member of a political party whose opinions (sometimes also called feelings) on a given issue can run from fiercely Conservative to wildly Liberal.
2.  A Member of a political Fraternity House that is indoctrinated with the concept that loyalty to their fraternity brothers and sisters is of far greater importance than that to the constituents who elected them
3.  A Member of a self-appointed aristocracy who consider themselves through such party participation to be a representative of a political elite (which they falsely like to believe is a meritocracy) that makes them far better, smarter, and prettier than the rest of those outside their group; and therefore entitled to special privileges as a consequence.
4.  A Member of political team whose largest ambition is to score more points than their opponents, regardless of consequences to fans in the stands or the condition that the field will be in when the contest is concluded.
5.  A member of a political party that is in turn part of a larger rule-making body (you know, kind of like NASCAR, the NHL, the NFL, the NBA, MLB, or the NCAA) who rule by fiat; and with the clear understanding that none of the rules they create can apply to them. 
(See Republican)

 
Republican

1.  A Member of a political party whose opinions (sometimes also called feelings) on a given issue can run from fiercely Conservative to wildly Liberal.
2.  A Member of a political Fraternity House that is indoctrinated with the concept that loyalty to their fraternity brothers and sisters is of far greater importance than that to the constituents who elected them
3.  A Member of a self-appointed aristocracy who consider themselves through such party participation to be a representative of a political elite (which they falsely like to believe is a meritocracy) that makes them far better, smarter, and prettier than the rest of those outside their group; and therefore entitled to special privileges as a consequence.
4.  A Member of political team whose largest ambition is to score more points than their opponents, regardless of consequences to fans in the stands or the condition that the field will be in when the contest is concluded.
5.  A member of a political party that is in turn part of a larger rule-making body (you know, kind of like NASCAR, the NHL, the NFL, the NBA, MLB, or the NCAA) who rule by fiat; and with the clear understanding that none of the rules they create can apply to them.
(See Democrat)

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.



.

Days of Bread, Circuses, and the Budget Supercommittee

 .
For those of you who didn't pay attention in ancient history class, let me be the first (OK then, the second) to let you know that the Roman Empire was not in fact brought down by the barbarian hordes  (or even the World of Warcraft Horde for that matter).  In fact the Roman Empire had already brought itself down, its moral and intellectual foundation having so crumbled that the first strong wind would bring it down.  It was there waiting for a tipping point, when a group of people who had once been in the service of the Empire, had the vitality and the drive that Romans once had, and were willing to earn what they needed to keep from starving (by fighting if necessary), reached the center of this empire to pick at the remains of the carcass that was once the greatness of Rome.

That greatness began to fade when the politicians (in this case the Emperor and Senate), continued to try to maintain power by giving the citizens what later became known as 'bread & circuses'.  It was Government at that point, that provided food made from the grain confiscated (taxed) from subjugated lands and peoples, and entertainment to keep them distracted from how bad things had actually become and unaware of the storm growing around them. 

Like many throughout history, the Romans soon enough discovered that the strength required to maintain an empire exacted far more than gaining it. They also learned the tragic lesson of empire that eventually the producers begin to resent those living off their labor, a resentment which will sooner or later boil over.  Unfortunately for most empires, by the time they realize these facts, they also realize that once you give citizens something that they have not earned for themselves, it's ever more difficult to withdraw it and stay in power.   Like every government before and since, they failed to learn the lesson of history that 'there's no such thing as a free lunch'; and that eventually all things must be paid for. (Of course this is a much simplified version of ancient history, but one with no factual errors that should stand up to fairly close scrutiny.)

Step forward some 15-18 centuries (depending on where you wish to begin the fall of Rome), and view now the 'empire' of the United States. (Anyone who says it's not an empire is kidding themselves. But look at a map of the location of these united 'States', and the 'territorial possessions' of this country and make your best case.)  We too are seeing our 'bread and circuses' in the form of entitlement programs handed out by a ruling elite to a common man.  (I make no comment here about the desirability of such entitlement programs, but many will be able to draw the comparisons.)

Now we see a nation just passed the $15,000,000,000,000 mark in national debt (and yes, that's 15 trillion and those are 12 zeroes).  The nation is functionally bankrupt, except for its ability to print money and functionally reduce the 'value' of the debt owed.  The upper house of Congress, the Senate, controlled by Democrats since 2007, has failed to pass a budget (good, bad, or indifferent) since April of 2009.  The House of Representatives (or lower house) , controlled by Democrats from 2007-2011 and by Republicans from early 2011 to the present, has recently passed budgets, but ones which they knew would never pass in the Senate.

In the most recent 'kick the can down the road' confrontation, the two parties once again managed to accomplish next to nothing.  No agreement to cut spending (or even significantly reduce the automatic annual increases in spending was achieved). Neither was any realistic look to increasing revenues as an offset made by closing some of the gaping loopholes in the tax code that they themselves had previously created under pressure from lobbyists and well-to-do contributing constituents.  Instead they managed to defer the jobs for which they were hired and sent to Washington for (regardless of party) to a 'Super Committee' which would, because of its smaller numbers, supposedly be able to do the heavy lifting that this larger and politically fractious group of apparent Statesmen could not.  

Not surprisingly, since most of those appointed by both parties were firmly entrenched in the political posturing of their masters, this so-called 'Super Committee also failed in its task; a failure which supposedly will lead to drastic and unsupportable cuts in the government across the board, to the tune of $1.5 trillion over 10 years.  Setting aside the trivial number involved, considering the size of the government budget and that of the debt, we find that most of these cuts are a twisted form of "Wimpy Economics" at best, where cuts are made tomorrow for tax increases imposed today.  Any actual cutting however, is usually pushed out far enough that by the time it's must be done, no one remembers it's there; making it easy for those in power to conveniently forget about it and never make the cuts.

But this is OK, according to those in power, because it allows the politicians to enter the 2012 election year with clean hands and not being directly responsible for either the raising of taxes on those contributing to campaigns (or many of those voting).  Neither are they responsible for any cutting part of the unsustainable entitlement funding that many of those not paying much in the way of taxes (also a significant voting bloc) have come to count on as part of their fair share.

Congress and the Super Committee have once again provided us a valuable lesson in ancient history, and as we see them continue to provide the modern form of 'bread and circuses' we cannot help but wonder if it will turn out better for us than it did for the Romans.  I doubt it ....