I received an e-mail from my Congressman telling me how he was on top of the situation in the Gulf:

“I am a member  of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which is at the forefront of an aggressive (sic) Congressional response to BP’s oil spill.  Last week, I voted in Committee to approve a comprehensive legislative response to environmental and economic liability issues raised by the spill.”

As I had written about previously (The Regulators are Dead, Long Live the Regulators), this was just one more case of government failing us but then rushing out more legislation and control so it won’t happen again.  If government was doing its job, it shouldn’t have happened in the first place.  So I wrote back to the Congressman.

 Dear Congressman Bishop,

I read with interest your e-mail to me about the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which you say is at the forefront of an aggressive Congressional response to BP’s oil spill.  Excuse my skepticism but this sounds like one more “we’re really gonna fix it this time,” response to the failure of government to do what they are already empowered to do.

You say the Oil Spill Accountability and Environmental Protection Act of 2010 “will ensure that responsible parties will be responsible for 100% of the oil pollution cleanup costs.”  If I am not mistaken it was the Congress that passed a law limiting the damages from an oil spill to $75 million, which created a moral hazard that perhaps encouraged BP to cut corners.  But wasn’t it BP who voluntarily waived the $75 million limit and has promised from the start that they would pay the full costs, thereby helping Congress remove the egg from their collective faces for including the limit in the first place?  Don’t get me wrong, BP has a lot to answer for but at the same time BP applied to the government regulators for several waivers of safety tests and requirements that the government granted.  If government had been doing their job, perhaps this would never have happened in the first place.

Aside from closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, I see no mention in your e-mail about holding Congressional hearings to ask the Obama Administration why they have not yet suspended the Jones Act and accepted the offer of help from twelve countries in the cleanup effort. When asked, Thad Allen and Carol Browner offered the weak excuse that no one asked them for a waiver.  Why did the administration stand in the way of Louisiana building sand berms to stop the oil from reaching the coast because of environmental reasons?  From an environmental disaster standpoint, doesn’t the oil gushing in the Gulf trump other concerns?  We seem to have multiple agencies operating in the Gulf and each one is getting in the way of each other and no one in the administration is taking the lead to clear the red tape.  Why is that Congressman?

Instead of talking about preventing avoidable disasters in the future, why don’t you find out why this avoidable disaster was not prevented by the regulations we have on the books and by the agencies in charge of doing so?  For once, perhaps you can wait until those facts are known before you rush out to craft more legislation to fix a problem like you did with the financial services industries when it will be months before the Angelides Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has finished its investigation. 

Government that works is more important than signing ceremonies for ill considered legislation that is rushed and voted upon but unread by our representatives.

Sincerely yours,

William R. O’Connell

 I am sure there will be a signing ceremony and tough talk about how we’re really putting an end to this wild unfettered market, but if you trace it back this disaster had government leading the way.  It forced the oil companies to drill in deeper water; it created a moral hazard by capping their liability for any spills to $75 million (which BP waived and accepted responsibility for the full costs); the regulatory agency in charge both collects royalty payments from the oil companies and assesses penalties for failure to comply with regulations; and that same agency granted BP several waivers to take shortcuts before the well failed.  But don’t worry Congress is really going to get tough now.

Well the cat’s finally out of the bag and it’s been loosed by none other than President Obama himself.  Once again out on the stump where he is most comfortable and away from the Oval Office where decision making is required, the president is now taking a new tack, or it is an old one?  He is now saying how much worse things could have been if not for his stimulus program.  This is the standard progressive/statist line that we didn’t do enough… if only we spent more money our program would have worked.

But here’s the problem.  To get the $787 billion stimulus package passed the president said that if we did nothing, unemployment would rise to 9%, but if we passed his stimulus package it would go no higher than 8%.  Where is the unemployment rate?  It is at 9.7%.  So if things could have been worse if they did nothing, his economic team is totally clueless because they were the ones who put forth the 8% vs. 9% argument.  Now Obama is trying to tell us that if we did nothing, the unemployment rate could have been in the double digits.  Who says so?  Is this his own projection or is his economic team back at the Ouija board?  Is anyone from the economic team being fired?

Here is an alternate theory.  If the stimulus plan was not implemented and the president cut taxes by $787 billion instead and promised not to introduce any new government programs for two years, that the unemployment rate would be much lower.  How can I make such an outrageous claim?  Let’s look to history.  In 1920-1921 there was a steep recession where the unemployment rate hit 11.7%.  Back then, government didn’t saddle businesses with regulations and businesses were free to cut wages and make other adjustments without government meddling.  Within one year the unemployment rate fell to 6.7% and the following year it was down to 2.4%  Contrast that to the Great Depression where we had massive government intervention and massive government spending and the unemployment rate never fell below 14.7%.

Bringing Jobs Back to America

Another brilliant example of your government killing the economy comes from the company Bucyrus Erie.  They were bidding on a job in India to provide heavy equipment to help them mine coal for a power plant the Indians were building.  Bucyrus Erie went to the Export/Import bank, a government agency, to try to get a loan guarantee to finance the deal.  Because a coal plant would increase the carbon footprint of India, the Ex/Im bank turned down the request.  This didn’t stop the plant being built, it just meant that the heavy equipment was going to be provided by China or Russia instead of the USA.  There would be no effect on the carbon footprint, a big effect on jobs in the US.  At the same time, President Obama is on the stump talking about how hard he is working to bring jobs back to the US.  Really?  They must have read his speech over at the Ex/Im bank, because they are reconsidering Bucyrus Erie’s request.

More government is killing our economy.  Our economy is very tough and it is extremely hard to bring down, but the current administration is trying its best to do so.

President Obama has demonstrated, as much as he would like to deny it, a strong anti-business sentiment.  He has acted in ways that remind one of a Castro or Chavez in that he is doing it in the name of the people against the greedy profiteers.

General Motors and Chrysler were bled dry by union contracts.  Management is culpable for agreeing to those contracts so they don’t get a pass in my view.  But government also piled on with CAFÉ mileage requirements that forced the auto companies to build cars at a loss (because of the union contracts) to meet this standard.  In the midst of the financial crisis the auto companies were running out of cash.  The Obama administration, rather than let them go into bankruptcy, muscles in and turns over major ownership stakes in GM and Chrysler to the unions who are loyal supporters of the Democrat Party, rather than pay bondholders who were entitled to be paid first.

The housing bubble was driven by government policies going back years.  The stated goals of the Clinton administration was to increase home ownership to as many people as possible.  When the bubble burst, the Obama administration forced TARP money on healthy banks who neither needed it nor wanted it.  The reason was to avoid showing who the real basket case banks were.  But these banks were forced by their government to take the money and then the Obama administration created a pay czar to make sure any company that took TARP money, voluntarily or not, could not pay their executives more than Team Obama said they could.

Lax regulation on the Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico permitted BP to take short cuts that led to disaster.  President Obama is put in an embarrassing position, so he cranks up the Public Relations machine to throw maximum ire upon BP.  He then tries to be a hero by shaking down BP for $20 billion.  BP has never said they would not pay.  BP waived the limit on damages that was set by, you guessed it, the government and has steadfastly said they would make things right.  But President Obama wanted to look like he was actually doing something and by taking $20 billion and putting it under his control it might look like he was.  I agree with many that President Obama did not cause the leak in the Gulf any more than Bush created Hurricane Katrina, but if, as Obama likes to say, the buck stops here, then he is responsible for the lax enforcement by his administration that could have prevented it.

To create jobs this administration created a $787 billion bailout package that did next to nothing to create real jobs.  It was pork to be paid to union members such as teachers, contractors, and not to grow the economy and create sustainable jobs.

If a business that is solidly behind the Obama agenda, like General Electric who owns the NBC and MSNBC cheerleaders, and wants to be a key player in the cap and trade exchanges, this President will treat them kindly.  But if you are an independent business trying to grow, you will be taxed to your eye sockets.

We pride ourselves on being a nation of laws not a nation of men, but since this President has taken office he has a view that he is above the law and can do whatever he feels he needs to do.  It was somewhat surreal to have Congressman Joe Barton, apologize to BP for the shakedown.  No one owes BP an apology but I understand Congressman Barton’s distaste for the administrations boorish behavior.  No one has the right to demand another’s property without due process of law, and that’s what happened.  Perhaps Tony Heywood should be fired for going along with it.

Let’s keep this in mind.  We need BP to continue to be a viable profitable company, so that every last claim can be paid.  If this administration succeeds in driving BP into the ground, guess who will be next in line to pick up the tab?  That’s right, gentle readers, you and me;  the American taxpayers.

As President Obama used his first Oval Office address to push for another massive government takeover of our economy in the energy sector, it is time to debunk the myth regarding regulation versus free markets.  The Statists like to claim that the financial crisis, the lack of health care, and the disaster in the Gulf are all proof that free markets are evil and we need the benevolent care of our federal government to keep us safe and warm.

 Regulation

 Let’s focus on the current crisis, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  Here is the government’s role in this mess:

• Government has banned drilling on land (ANWR) and in shallow water of the coasts of California, Florida, the East Coast, while not only forcing oil companies to go into deeper water, but providing incentives to do so.
• The same agency of the federal government (MMS) is charged with both collecting royalties from the oil companies and for levying fines on them for violations of regulations.
• While drilling the Deepwater Horizon well, BP asked the government for several waivers of regulations, and the waivers were granted.
• After the spill started, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana wanted to build sand berms to block the oil from reaching the cost, but the federal government wanted to study the problem and would not allow him to proceed.
• Foreign nations such as Norway, Holland, Belgium and Japan offered to provide ships to help clean up the oil in the Gulf, but U.S. law, the Jones Act of 1920, does not allow them to operate in U.S. waters.  When asked why the government didn’t just suspend the Jones Act for this emergency, the government’s lead agent on the ground, Thad Allen, said, “Nobody’s come to me to ask for a waiver.”  When Carol Browner, Obama’s energy advisor was asked why the administration did not lift the Jones Act said, “Nobody has asked us for a waiver.”  Who are they waiting for to ask them?
• The government placed a cap on the amount of damages that a company would be responsible to pay at $75 million, which creates a moral hazard.  That is, if I can make billions extracting oil and my out of pocket cost if I screw it up is $75 million, I’ll take shortcuts all the way.
• BP has said they are responsible for the oil spill, they will pay to clean it up, they will pay all legitimate claims resulting from it, even waiving the $75 million cap that the law allows.  So why do our leaders use language like, keeping their boot on the neck of BP and knowing whose ass to kick?  This is starting to cause a backlash in the U.K. which has resulted in comments such as, “The rest of the world is fed up with the parasitic attitude of the U.S.”
• The government starts making statements that they want BP not to pay a dividend to its shareholders or to put $20 billion into an escrow fund that the government will oversee and spend as they see fit and even to the point of putting BP into receivership.  Who is our President, Hugo Chavez?

 Free Markets

 Let’s look at what would happen in a truly free market:

• Anyone wishing to drill for oil would be able to reap the profits from the well, but would also have full responsibility for the costs of any and all damages or cleanup.  This may lead to less drilling if the venture is too risky, but that’s how markets work; it is a balance of risk and return.
• To help offset some of the risk, insurance companies could make a market in providing insurance for a disaster, but rest assured the insurance company would have their personnel inspecting the rigs to make sure all necessary risks were minimized and if not, jacking up the premiums or cancelling the insurance.
• Government regulation would be simpler in terms of setting standards of what quality of materials could be used, what redundancy must be in place to provide for any failures of primary systems, what levels of emergency equipment must be in place and what contingency plans must be prepared and tested to make sure they work.  If an oil company doesn’t not have adequate insurance, drilling must stop until they do.  If the oil company is out of compliance with a major safety issue, drilling must stop until it is corrected.
• When going into new areas such as deep water, the technologies to be used should be tested and independently verified to make sure they work as designed under the new conditions, and the insurance industry would be very much interested in participating in such testing, to minimize their risk.
• In the event of an accident, the government should lend all possible assistance to the oil company to stop the leak and clear the red tape for a cleanup effort and discuss responsibilities after the disaster is under control.

 The end result would be more cautious companies because they could be wiped out if they cut corners.  Insurance companies would have a second set of eyes making sure that things were done properly, because they make money when nothing goes wrong and are indifferent to whether any oil is recovered or not as long as the premiums are paid.  The government would be out of the business of micromanaging the industry; providing incentives and penalties under the same agency; having key personal asking “mother, may I” before taking any steps, and we wouldn’t need a dozen agencies with overlapping responsibility trying to take control.

Free markets have incentives that do work.  What is often complained about is the myth of a free market where the government has placed perverse incentives on companies and then act surprised when said companies follow the incentives.  Their response is always more regulation with more perverse incentives and the cycle repeats.  More government is not the answer, it is the problem.

Not surprisingly, we hear the administration telling us how they have been in charge since day one regarding the BP oil gusher.  But as I have often said before, if there is a major problem in America look for government to be right in the thick of it and this is no exception.

Statists like to blame the free market for such problems and that more government is the answer.  You will also hear them mistakenly say that conservatives don’t want any government involvement in the marketplace.  Conservatives believe in government, albeit limited government, but we also expect that the government that is in place do its job.  There was plenty of regulation in the BP case, perhaps too much government in that there was no one clear responsible agency but an overlapping mess.  When it comes to regulation I like to use the sports analogy of a baseball umpire.  Congress writes the rulebook and the executive branch is the umpire that makes sure the rules are followed.  If the umpire is looking at an attractive girl in the stands instead of the play on the field, he is apt to blow the call.  Blown calls seemed to be a way of life in the BP case. 

Deepwater exploration progressed faster than the regulations could keep up with the technology, and government was providing incentives to accelerate that exploration.  So there we have our first example of the government acting in a push-me, pull-you fashion, that is, incentives to explore but lacking regulations to make sure it is done safely and orderly.  Rather than looking at deep water drilling where the physics are different as a different animal needing a comprehensive review of the regulations, the regulations were piecemeal approvals of shallow water regulations. 

When BP first looked at drilling in this area they requested from the federal regulators an exemption from a rigorous environmental review.  That exemption was granted.  They also used riskier equipment that deviated from their own company safety policies.  Regulators also approved testing the blowout preventer at a pressure that was lower than federally required.  When BP wanted to delay mandatory testing of the blowout preventer when they lost “well control” in the weeks before the rig exploded, again the regulators granted the delay.

One federal agency, the Minerals Management Service, is in the dual role of both promoting drilling and regulating it.  They both collect royalty payments and issue fines for violations.  Do you think there may be a conflict here?  Is this the most effective form of government?  Here is a core beef of mine and of other conservatives.  The free market should provide the incentives for off shore drilling.  Either it is worth doing from a business standpoint or it is not.  The government’s role should be in the regulation.  When government wades into the middle trying to work both sides, it is doomed to fail.

There are multiple agencies that all have responsibility for regulation in this area in addition to the Minerals Management Service including, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Coast Guard, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.  Where there are gaps in regulation, whose responsibility is it to plug the gap?  When there is overlap, whose regulations controls? 

The Minerals Management Service approved BP’s drilling plan that projected a “worst case” blowout as producing 250,000 barrels per day of escaping oil.  However, the agency did not require BP to develop a contingency plan on how they would deal with such an occurrence.  The agency also did not require companies to have a backup systems to trigger in the event a blowout preventer failed.

There were early indications of problems with the well but federal regulators approved proceeding with the drilling rather than order it be halted until the issues were addressed.

So once this disaster spun out of control how did our government respond?  Based on laws written after the Exxon Valdez spill the government and BP were supposed to cooperate.  How did the administration show their cooperation?  They said they were going to keep their “boot on the neck of BP.”  Do you feel inspired to cooperate with someone who tells the world they will keep their boot on your neck, or do you start looking for ways to protect yourself?  Instead of concentrating on giving BP whatever assistance it needs to cap the well and focusing on containing the spread of oil, the administration sends in lawyers to start a criminal investigation.  Can’t that wait until the well is capped?  Why divert attention from the problem and have BP start losing focus on the well and more on assembling a legal team?

When governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana wanted to build a sand barrier to stop the oil from reaching the wetlands in his state, he was told to wait while our federal government dithered for three weeks haggling among the White House, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency over the best approach.  If this administration, as they have claimed, has been in charge since day one and all of these agencies fall under the administration, why couldn’t this be hashed out in a day or two?  They finally approved one barrier rather than the 23 that were requested but eventually allowed more.  For an in depth story see New York Times

For the last year and a half we have been told we don’t have enough government running our lives and telling us what to do.  Yet here is a classic case of government regulator piled on top of regulator, and regulators trying to promote and control businesses at the same time.  We have regulators granting waiver after waiver of regulations that ultimately led to disaster and our administration instead of stepping up and taking responsibility is trying to look like they are in charge while at the same time blaming everyone else, yes even Bush, for what happened.  The head of the Materials Management Service resigned and President Obama says he learned about it afterwards.  Interior Secretary Salazar said she resigned on her own volition and that she wasn’t fired.  Why not?  For all the exemptions and waivers that were granted by the government that could have prevented the worst environmental disaster in history, this administration doesn’t think anyone other than BP should be responsible.

So we are supposed to let this administration grow government and control more of our lives when they can’t take responsibility for what is already under their control.  But don’t look for a serious investigation of government’s responsibility unless a large number of incumbents are flushed out of Congress and replaced by new members who actually represent the people.

You hear a lot of talk these days about the Senate being broken because nothing can get passed with a majority vote.  Everything has to get sixty votes to pass and that’s just un-American.  Is it? 

The House of Representatives

The Founding Fathers were brilliant in designing the government that has survived longer than any other, and it wasn’t an accident.  The House of Representatives was designed to be the branch of government closest to the people.  The members come from districts that are sized based on population.  It is also in the House of Representatives that all revenue bills (i.e., tax increases) must originate.  The Senate cannot create legislation to raise taxes. 

The Senate

 The Senate was designed with a different purpose in mind.  In the form of federalism that they created, the Senate was supposed to represent the individual states.  Originally Senators were appointed by the state legislatures and this continued until the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, which provided for the direct election of Senators by the people.  The Senate was designed to be a check on the tyranny of the majority.  In the House, populous states like New York, California, Texas and Florida, have a lot of representation.  To prevent a handful of states from pushing around everyone else, representation in the Senate is the same for Rhode Island as it is for California, two each.  In the House, California trumps Rhode Island.  In the Senate they do not.  Are you picking up the theme?

 The Dreaded Filibuster

Being able to filibuster in the Senate is another way of allowing cooler heads to prevail.  If legislation before the Senate cannot win over some reasonable number of Senators, then it’s probably not a very good idea for the country.

 As proof that things are more partisan today, pundits point to how the number of filibusters has greatly increased over time. 

 In the entire 19th century, including the struggle against slavery, fewer than two dozen filibusters were mounted. 

 It is reported that things really took off during the Clinton administration.  Hmm, what else was going on then… Hillary Care?  We have also seen the out of control growth of the federal government’s involvement in almost every aspect of our lives, such as, how much we can be paid, how much a bushel of wheat should cost, how schools are funded; none of which is in the Constitution as powers the federal government should have.  Those are all things that, according to the 10^th Amendment, are the purview of the states or the people.

 The Filibuster Fix

So if you don’t like the way the Senate is bogged down, instead of taking the brakes off the car, how about dumping the junk in the trunk?  The less minutia the federal government gets involved in (let’s start with health care), the less reason, reasonable Senators will have to filibuster.

A recent article in the New York Times, “Once Stigmatized, Food Stamps Find Acceptance,” talks about how Food Stamps are now, thankfully, accepted and people can get the help they deserve. 

I remember the first time I encountered food stamps.  I was in line at the grocery store behind a woman with a cart piled high and among its contents were soda, potato chips, and other tasty luxuries.  When the bill was tallied, she took out her book of food stamps and handed them to the cashier.  I related this story to a friend who told me that you can’t use food stamps on junk food so it must have been applied against the other items in the cart.  Even so, I thought back to when I grew up.  We weren’t poor but we were no where near rich.  Things like soda and potato chips were a rarity reserved only for those times when relatives were coming from a distance for a visit.  Otherwise it was home brewed ice tea and supermarket generic cookies.  But even those treats weren’t purchased through a subsidy of our food staples.

New York is now actively recruiting new food stamp recipients in all languages imaginable.  It seems that it is not enough to provide the service but you have to make sure that everyone who can get food stamps is taking advantage of them.  Let’s see, government employees paid by taxpayers going all out to make sure that a taxpayer funded program is using as much taxpayer money as possible including a program on Rikers Island (the city jail) to enroll inmates as the leave.  The article describes one woman who was actively recruited to join the program:

A big woman with a broad smile, Ms. Bostick-Thomas swept into the group’s office a few days later, talking up her daughters’ college degrees and bemoaning the cost of oxtail meat.

“I’m not saying I go hungry,” Ms. Bostick-Thomas said. “But I can’t always eat what I want.”

Okay, I’m going to go out on a limb here.  By a “big woman” can we take that observation to mean she is not lacking in caloric intake?  She says she doesn’t go hungry.  She talks about her daughter’s college degrees.  So why are taxpayers tasked with helping her eat what she wants?  And what is that anyway?  Steak? Lobster?  Twinkies?  Ice cream?  Why aren’t the daughters with their college degrees helping their mother?  Maybe they could invite her over once a week and feed her the foods she favors?  And if they are not local, why not ship her a box of Omaha Steaks?  Why does some other taxpayer have to pick up the tab for her after they worked hard to feed their own family?

The Other Side of the Coin

On the other side of the coin, from the budget of the same Department of Agriculture, we pay farmers not to grow food in the form of farm subsidies.  Why?  Well, if we didn’t, the prices of farm products, aka food, would become too cheap for the farmers to make a decent living.  In my simple economic model of supply and demand that would seem to indicate that maybe we have more farmers than we need.  But you see farming is a way of life as much as it is an occupation, and taxpayers must be sensitive to preserving that way of life whether or not it is economically justified.  I am sure there are several million unemployed people in this country who would like to have their jobs subsidized.  Unemployment compensation is when the government gives you a check (actually its funded by your employer) when you lose your job.  Farm subsidies are when the government (no employer funding here) pays farmers to keep working at their job.

Add to that another government program to pay farmers to produce corn to make ethanol, another uneconomic subsidy.  Ethanol is pitched as a substitute for gasoline, but it takes a lot of energy to make it, it cannot be transported via pipeline like petroleum products, and when the corn is diverted to produce ethanol, the cost of almost all food goes up.  Corn is used for feed for cattle, as seed to produce corn, for corn syrup as a sweeter.  So on top of regular farm subsidies, we have ethanol subsidies to further drive up food prices.  In the case of corn syrup, sugar could be a substitute, but our government places a very high tariff on imported sugar, to protect our domestic sugar producers.

Coming Full Circle

So, on the one hand we have several government programs, funded by taxpayers, that drive up the price of food.  Then we have another program, taxpayer funded, to help people buy food because food is too expensive.  And then we have government workers and programs, taxpayer funded, that are actively marketing the food stamp program to overweight people, who never go hungry, have college educated children who could help them but don’t seem to, so that the recipient can eat the things she wants to.  But if you see a problem with this, don’t worry.  Michele Obama is about to use more taxpayer dollars to launch a program to fight childhood obesity.  Can we get off this Merry-Go-Round?

How about we shut down the Department of Agriculture?  It’s function is not in the Constitution and so it should not exist at the federal level.  End farm subsidies.  If that means we have a few less farmers, so be it.  The American people do not owe anyone other than themselves a way of life.  To the farmer who can make it, you have my complete admiration.  End ethanol subsidies.  If ethanol is a viable fuel, it should be able succeed on its own, not because Archer Daniels Midland spends millions on agricultural lobbyists. Negotiate free trade agreements so that our successful farmers, instead of being paid not to produce, produce and sell their goods around the world.  Likewise end high tariffs that protect our farm products.  These steps should lower the cost of food.

With lower food costs we shouldn’t need a food stamp program.  End it at the federal level along with the Department of Agriculture. If there continues to be a need it will probably be a much smaller one and let each state decide if it wants to start its own program.  Also, with everyone saving on food there is a greater likelihood for people to contribute to food banks to help the truly needy.  But to have one government program create a problem and another government program to try to solve it is lunacy.

With our economy hurtling toward a cliff with out of control spending, we don’t need to be on both sides of a problem.

The Incumbent Protection Act, aka McCain-Feingold, took a big hit yesterday from the Supreme Court.  It is particularly timely with so many incumbents nervously eying the exits.  The McCain-Feingold bill prohibited corporations and unions from “electioneering communications” within in 30 days of a primary, or 60 days of a general election.  Those time limits probably match pretty nicely with when most people start paying close attention to elections.  So if this kind of communication is cut off, who is left with the power of name recognition?  That’s right, the incumbent and that is probably why 90% of incumbents are re-elected.

Outrage on the Left

President Obama immediately came out swinging saying it was a victory for “big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, and other special interests.”  He somehow overlooked the SEIU union whose president topped the list of visitors to the White House.  Unions will have unfettered communications as well.  Chuck Schumer promises hearings and the Naderite Public Citizen group is proposing a constitutional amendment banning free speech for “for-profit” corporations.  I’ll give you a moment to ponder that; a constitutional amendment to eviscerate the First Amendment.

The Momentum is Building

On April 15 it will be the first anniversary of the Tea Parties that were held across the country.  Let’s raise a cup of tea, that the Ship of Liberty that was foundering on the rocks may at last be turning it’s guns on the enemy and turning the tide of battle.  Virginia, New Jersey, a close loss in NY23, Massachusetts, the First Amendment, the momentum is building.  But let’s not forget the words of Churchill:

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. — Winston Churchill

Don’t let up until we have our country back.

If I asked you a simple question, what government organization works well, what would you say?  Let’s take a look at two government organizations and compare their effectiveness and motivation.

The Military

Whether you support our troops on the battlefield or want them to always stay home in their barracks, most Americans will say the military does a pretty good job.  Why? That is, why are they effective, not just why do people think so?  Well, they put a lot of investment in training and technology.  They seem to have solved the problem of integration, being based on merit rather than racial prejudice.  These are all important things, but I don’ t they get to the core of the issue.  The key question is, what happens if they don’t do their job?  They die…they die, the guy beside them dies, their buddies die, and depending on the size of the conflict, their families and country may eventually die.  With that kind of motivation, race is not even secondary.  If the guy next to me has got my back and I have his, I don’t care what color he or she is.  We do it right, we live;  we don’t, we die.

The K-12 Teacher

K-12 education comes under fire in this country, and rightly so, for failing to produce an educated workforce.  In New York, for example we spend over $14,000 per student, per year on education, far above the national average of around $9,000.  Are students in New York 50% smarter than the country in general?  Hardly.  Is the nation as a whole turning out well educated students?  Sadly, no.

Our K-12 public schools are a government run monopoly.  So what happens to a K-12 teacher if they fail to do their job?  If they have been in the job long enough to get tenure, nothing.  They will get a raise like everyone else.  So what motivates them to turn out outstanding students?  I’ll wait.

Let me be clear that I don’t want to lump all teachers together.  They are many teachers who, by having what  I suppose is a strong moral streak,  do a great job because they want to teach.  Okay, so let’s look at the teaching profession where there is a group that does their best because they get satisfaction from doing a good job.  Now, some studies come out that say the way to improve results is smaller classroom size.  The teachers’ unions get behind it and eventually push it through.  So what does that mean?  If you cut the size of the class in half, you double the number of classes.  If you double the number of classes, you have to double the number of teachers and thus have to go deeper into the labor pool to find them.  Before you took this step, we can probably assume that all the self-motivated teachers were already on the job.  So the additional teachers are motivated by what?

Co -conspirators

That brings us back to the teachers’ unions.  When government’s come under pressure to cut educational expenses, the airwaves are soon flooded with the heart wrenching commercials pleading to restore the funding “for the children’s sake.”  What you don’t hear is the trailer that says, “This commercial paid for by the PTA,” or “This commercial paid for by the Association of Concerned Parents.”  No, what you typically hear is, “This commercial paid for by the X Teacher’s union, Joe Blow, President.”

Who do the unions really represent…really? The students? or the teachers?  They want the funds restored so that their membership is not hurt and their dues are not curtailed.  If their true concern was for the students, why not support school vouchers and charter schools?  They fight the former with a vengeance and the latter, if it is not union organized.

Let’s Not Pick on K-12 Education

Let’s look at other government areas.  Government is the only area where union membership is growing.  How many people relish going to their Department of Motor Vehicles?  How efficient is the Post Office?  Amtrak?  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a bonus compensation plan, which is a step in the right direction unless it leads to cooking the books and making extremely risky loans that lead to the near collapse of our economy.  How can we get this under control?

Controlling the Uncontrollable

Our government is trying to install a massive health care program that will cost a trillion dollars.  At the same time, tens of billions of dollars are stolen from Medicare every year and they can’t stop it.  Early this year, the Obama Administration passed a $787 billion stimulus package, spent $18 million to build a website to track it, and put Joe Biden in the role of watch dog.  How is that working out?  A recent report from ABC News, of all places, found that credit for creating jobs was given on the web site to Congressional Districts that do not exist.  A $1,000 grant was purported to have created 50 jobs.  The New York Times investigated and found that the $1,000 went to purchase a lawn mower.  It took from the time of the founding of the Republic until about the mid 1990s to accumulate $6 trillion in debt.  It has doubled since then, and it is projected to go from $12 trillion to $14 trillion by next year!

It cannot be controlled.  It is impossible to control.  The only solution is to cut the federal government down to size.  Take out the Constitution and read what the true functions of government are supposed to be.  The military, absolutely;  the Post Office, yes it’s in there; coin money; establish patents and copyrights; establish the courts; control the District of Columbia; regulate interstate commerce; make treaties; give the State of the Union address.  That pretty much sums it up and everything else should be left to the states and local government or the people.

We should jettison all the rest and cut this government down to size and get out of debt.  Department of Labor–gone;  Department of Health and Human Services–gone; Department ment of Housing and Urban Development–gone; Department of Transportation–gone; Department of Energy–gone; Depatrment of Education–gone; Department of Veterans Affairs–gone, rolled into the Department of Defense;  Department of Homeland Security–gone, rolled into the Department of Defense; Department of the Interior–gone; Department of Agriculture–gone.

The amount of money saved would be enormous.  Selling all the real estate and buildings would bring in more money.  We could then cut taxes to jump start the economy and run a surplus to cut the debt.  The next step would be to make it illegal for unions to organize government workers without a referendum approved by all the voters.  Side benefits would be less campaign money because there would be less government to influence.  Government would be more accountable to the people because it would be closer to the people, that is, at the state level or local level.  We can do this proactively, or wait until the government is bankrupt and we have to sell off the parts to the Chinese.

President Obama is in Japan today and plans to issue a joint statement on nuclear disarmament.  It’s not yet clear how far he will go towards apologizing for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but one can never tell with his worldwide apology tour.

Let’s Ban All Nuclear Weapons

With the same idiocy that is used in gun control here in America where criminals with illegal guns are given a government issued guarantee that their prey will be defenseless, the Obama Administration wants to extend this to the world of nuclear weapons.

Can’t you just see the grinning Ahmadinejad, with a secret stash of nuclear weapons, as President Obama ceremoniously destroys our last nuclear weapon?  Or how about Kim Jung Il?  Do you think he will feel a little taller that day?  Can’t Obama just do something innocuous like Gerry Ford and hand out WIN buttons?  Does each of his programs have to do damage to our country on such a massive scale?

When democracies having nuclear weapons are demonized, only demons will have nuclear weapons.  God help us all.