Tag Archives: government

An Example

Posted on by
Reply

…of why Progressives and private pocketbooks—or public pocketbooks—are a bad mix.  This is former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, in the San Francisco Chronicle, on why public works projects are—deliberately—under costed when they’re foisted off onto the public, us folks who must pay for these things.

News that the Transbay Terminal is something like $300 million over budget should not come as a shock to anyone.

We always knew the initial estimate was way under the real cost.  Just like we never had a real cost for the Central Subway or the Bay Bridge or any other massive construction project.  So get off it.

In the world of civic projects, the first budget is really just a down payment.  If people knew the real cost from the start, nothing would ever be approved.

The idea is to get going.  Start digging a hole and make it so big, there’s no alternative to coming up with the money to fill it in.

It just doesn’t get much more cynical than that.

 

h/t The Wall Street Journal

The IRS Sends a Letter

Posted on by
Reply

Thousands of small-business owners have received letters from the Internal Revenue Service questioning whether they are underreporting their business income….

Tax officials say the letters don’t constitute an audit and instead are simply a request for more information.

Sure.  Except that they’re not “requests.”

One typical letter to a small-business owner is headlined, “Notification of Possible Income Underreporting.”  It begins, “Your gross receipts may be underreported.”

The letter instructs the owner to complete a form “to explain why the portion of your gross receipts from non-card payments appears unusually low.”  It says the business owner must respond within 30 days.

No.  Tell me what crime you’re claiming I’m committing or at risk of committing.  Then we can talk about my business model, my decision to emphasize card transactions in my business.  And 30 days is a short deadline for small businesses to investigate their records of individual transactions over the year supposed to be in question.  While you’re about it, explain to me why I’m obligated to do cash transactions at a rate that suits your whim.  Cash imposes additional costs on me, including more accounting effort (card transactions automatically generate their own audit trail for my internal, business use) and greater security costs from having all that cash on hand.

And there’s this example of IRS disingenuousness:

Peter Fleming, a small-business accountant in Carnegie, PA, said a client with a gift and souvenir shop received a letter from the IRS in December saying the revenue she claimed in tax returns the previous year was lower than sales reported in merchant card and third-party payments data.  The retailer reported gross receipts of $243,462, versus $249,994 in the payment data, according to the IRS.  The letter told her to ensure she was “fully reporting receipts from all sources” and gave her 30 days to respond.  Mr Fleming said the discrepancy was because payments data included sales tax, which wasn’t included in revenue claimed in tax returns.  For small retailers, “Sales tax is a liability and is not reported as revenue,” Mr Fleming said.

Of course, the IRS knew a priori this discrepancy was sales tax; the IRS has lots of access to state and community sales tax rates and records.

And a final bit of IRS cynicism:

The IRS has told accountants that a principal aim of its program is to verify the quality of the card-transaction data the agency is getting.

Clearly not.  I if this were true, the IRS would have said so in its dunning letters to those 20,000 small businesses.

Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

Much has been made of President Barack Obama and his colleagues’ assault on free speech through his IRS and apparently through his FEC and SEC.  It’s important to understand that, reprehensible and dangerous to America as these assaults are today, Obama and his are simply channeling one of their Progressive forebears.

Here’s President Woodrow Wilson on the usefulness of government censorship, during another war in which the US was, at the time, participating only peripherally.  He wrote this letter to Congressman Edwin Webb in May 1917.

My dear Mr. Webb:

I have been very much surprised to find several of the public prints stating that the administration had abandoned the position which it so distinctly took, and still holds, that authority to exercise censorship over the Press to the extent that that censorship is embodied in the recent action of the House of Representatives is absolutely necessary to the public safety.  It, of course, has not been abandoned, because the reasons still exist why such authority is necessary for the protection of the nation.

I have every confidence that the great majority of the newspapers of the country will observe a patriotic reticence about everything whose publication could be of injury, but in every country there are some persons in a position to do mischief in this field who can not be relied upon and whose interests or desires will lead to actions on their part highly dangerous to the nation in the midst of a war.  I want to say again that it seems to me imperative that powers of this sort should be granted.

Cordially and sincerely yours,

WOODROW WILSON

The “recent action of the House” concerned a provision for explicit Federal government censorship of the press that Wilson had demanded be included in The Espionage Act of 1917, then under debate in both houses of Congress.  In the event, the Act was passed in June without the provision (the Senate having removed it by a one-vote margin) and signed into law by Wilson, even though he continued to protest the necessity of the “right” to commit censorship.

Authority to exercise censorship over the press is absolutely necessary to the public safety.

While Wilson didn’t get that power of censorship in the Espionage Act, he did get it in the Sedition Act of 1918:

Whoever…shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States…shall be punished….

The added invention of the Obama claque is that “some persons in a position to do mischief” are conservative persons who criticize the Obama administration.  Such criticisms are viewed by today’s Progressives as “disloyal” and “scurrilous.”  And plainly “abusive.”

Hmm….

Big Brother Behavior Mod

Posted on by
Reply

You’ve seen in some of the news media reports on a new Federal government team designed to facilitate the government’s ability to persuade us to do various things it thinks appropriate for us.  The team being formed to spearhead this effort is colloquially called a “Nudge Team” because it’s ostensibly intended only to suggest to us better, more efficient ways to achieve goals.

As you might expect, I have some thoughts on this.

The formative document is called, interestingly enough, “Strengthening Federal Capacity for Behavioral Insights,” and it has this illuminating statement in the opening paragraph:

In 2010, UK Prime Minister David Cameron commissioned the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), which through a process of rapid, iterative experimentation (“Test, Learn, Adapt”), has successfully identified and tested interventions that will further advance priorities of the British government….

Notice that: advance government priorities, not those of a Sovereign citizen.  The next paragraph fleshes this out:

The federal government is currently creating a new team that will help…scale behavioral interventions that have been rigorously evaluated, using, where possible, randomized controlled trials.

The government intends to engage in “behavioral interventions” to “persuade” us to their (more efficiently achieved) goals.

But wait—isn’t that just ordinary advertising, something every business man, from a one-man home office business to the GEs and Bank of Americas, does to get us to buy their products?

Investor’s Business Daily talks about the government not having a clear idea of what is “good for us” (never minding the primacy of the government’s goals for us), that the government can’t be trusted to stop at any particular point—the slippery slope concern—and the (subtle at first) loss of our individual liberties as the government gets this sort of program rolling along.

IBD is right on all counts, but it’s that last that’s most important of the three.  And that leads me to my concerns.

There’s nothing wrong with advertising when businesses or individuals do this.  It is, after all, limited to more or less friendly persuasion.  We’re also free to walk away from it at any time, whether by changing the channel, hitting the mute button, turning the page in our magazine or newspaper, or closing the door on the salesman.

Not so much when it’s the government doing the “advertising.”  Government has too many ways to suggest that we heed its blandishments, from the way it “guides” potential contractors in its project notices, or “encourages” folks to get onto its food stamp program, all the way up to, and including, enemies lists and open assaults by Federal agencies on organizations that disagree with the government.

Along with that is a concept that’s being lost in modern America (and which loss facilitates government dominance of our activities): not everything done in the private sector is appropriate for the government to do also.  More strongly than that, most things done in the private sector are wholly inappropriate for government to do.  When the government does engage in what is for the private sector, freedom is put in peril.

One source of the risk is that government tends, in the end, not to do alongside private individuals or enterprises the things that we do, but to do those things instead.  This isn’t because government can do these things more efficiently.  Rather, it’s because government can do them more cheaply than the private sector: government can—must—do this with OPM, with taxpayer money.  From the beginnings of this crowding out, government winds up saying to us, “No need for you to do these things; we’ve got this.”  From there it’s a short step to, “Butt out.  This is government business.”  It’s a (subtle, but the more insidious for that) threat to our liberty.

Nudge team “persuasion” is on that latter list; it’s wholly inappropriate for our government to involve itself in such a thing.  Especially given the avowed behavior modification aspect of it.

The government’s central…Nudge Team…document can be seen here and here.

Pollution and China

Posted on by
1

Estimates from state-affiliated researchers say that anywhere between 8% and 20% of China’s arable land, some 25 to 60 million acres, may now be contaminated with heavy metals.  A loss of even 5% could be disastrous, taking China below the “red line” of 296 million acres of arable land that are currently needed, according to the government, to feed the country’s 1.35 billion people.

And

Mr. Zhuang [Guotai, head of the Ecological Department at the Environment Ministry], of the environment ministry, said at his recent news conference that only 35% of the fertilizer used in China was being properly absorbed by crops.  The remaining 65%, he said, was being discharged as pollution that was seriously tainting China’s farmland.  Runoff of nitrogen fertilizer, among the most widely-used varieties in China, can contaminate water sources and lead to soil acidification, soil erosion and lower crop yields.

And

China has long sought to industrialize its countryside, dating to Mao’s disastrous Great Leap Forward beginning in 1958, when he sought rapid industrialization by urging peasants to set up backyard steel furnaces at the expense of agricultural output.  The cumulative impact of decades of building up rural industry is now taking an environmental toll, particularly as industrial growth surges forward in China’s breadbasket.

Because some things are more important than others, and Government Knows Better what those things are:

effort to keep urbanites comfortable and well-fed has also led to the poisoning of parts of the food chain, and some of the pollution is traveling back to the cities in a different—and for many, more frightening—guise.

Cadmium, arsenic, lead, chemical waste from chemical factories, and waste runoff from excessive use of chemical fertilizers—these are all now in the PRC’s food chain, from the soil up.

Unfortunately, the old are much more vulnerable to the privation of inadequate food supply than are the younger and healthier.  The coming starvation from this food debacle might alleviate the coming demographic implosion of the PRC’s aging population, but it’s the wrong way for demographics to be adjusted, even where that’s not the intent.  At least as bad, the children and babies also are extremely vulnerable to the ravages of privation.  Their coming starvation will leave little or no capacity in the population for recovery on the far side of the disaster.

This is an inevitable outcome, if not in detail, of a Know Better government that dictates rather than protects individual capacities.