Monthly Archives: July 2014

YGTBSM

Posted on by
Reply

Wasting taxpayer money edition. This one is from Watchdog.org.

Take careful steps.

When possible, stay in your seat and, by all means, grab hold of that railing.

Simple advice, apparently from much simpler times.

Today, Hawaii seems compelled to pay someone—rather handsomely—to offer such ubiquitous and common-sense advice.

Of course, common sense and government oftentimes are mutually exclusive.

Hawaii taxpayers will spend $81,000 in 2015 on a new government position—fall prevention coordinator, who will teach Hawaii’s senior citizens, well, how not to fall.

Governor Neil Abercrombie (D) signed House Bill 2053 into law this week, which creates the new fall prevention and early detection coordinator position within the Department of Health’s Emergency Medical Services and Injury Prevention branch.

Because the good folks in Hawaii don’t have their own uses for that money, but Hawaii’s Big Brother does.

Some Thoughts the Relationship among Individual Liberty and Duty, Spirituality, and Government

Posted on by
Reply

President Calvin Coolidge had a couple, on the day after the 150th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence. He delivered these thoughts and others in a speech in Philadelphia on July 5, 1926, 88 years ago today, now 238 years on.

First, he said this:

Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government.

He pressed the matter with this (keep in mind that this was an era during which Herb Croly, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson among many others had been, and were, pushing Progressivism):

It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.

He closed it out with this:

[The Declaration of Independence] is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like minded as the fathers who created it.

What he said.

Independence Day

Posted on by
Reply

I posted this in 2012; it bears repeating.

On this day 236 years ago, a group of Americans got together and, pledging their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor to each other while relying on the protection of divine Providence, took our country free from tyranny and set us on a new, wholly experimental course.

These men openly acknowledged both our right and our duty to throw off any government that too badly violates its moral obligations to us sovereign citizens, that for too long abuses our liberties and our individual responsibilities. At the same time, though, they acknowledged that routinely rebelling at every small offense was equally wrong: Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. Yet those light and transient offenses want correction along with those abuses and moral failures.

And so, while fighting (and some dying) for our newly born nation and during the immediately ensuing years of a troubled peace, these men, with others from the newly independent and united States joining them, in a second phase of our experiment invented a wholly new form of government. They created a government that would recognize the essential sovereignty of the members of a voluntarily formed social compact over our compact’s government, and they gave that government a structure and a strictly limited set of authorities designed to maximize our control of government and our ability to maintain that control.

They also invented a wholly new mechanism for throwing off an abusive government and replacing it with one more suited to our needs and to our control: a set of elections that would let us turn all the rascals out of one house of our legislative body every two years, that would let us depose the whole of the other house of our legislative body in sequential one-third increments every two years, and that would let us fire the chief executive of this government every four years— any and all whom we found wanting during their time in office. This invention was accompanied by another invention of these men: a judiciary that sat, neither above nor below our executive and legislative, but equal to and separate from them—a third powerful check that granted stability to the whole.

We are here today arguing amongst ourselves, usually with great passion, over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, climate change, and a host of other things, too, both momentous and trivial. And we could not be without the genius and the sacrifice of those men those 236 years ago.

As you sit around by your barbecue, or at the beach, or wherever you may be, hamburgers and hotdogs in hand, beer nearby, children screaming and yelling in their own happinesses, take a moment to think about that.

Contradictions of the Export-Import Bank

Posted on by
Reply

The Export-Import Bank is a hoary, old financial institution with the purpose of facilitating American exports by providing financing or guaranteeing loans for cross-border transactions in which the private sector declines to participate.

There’s a hint there.

It may be that such government involvement might have done some good in the bad, old days before widespread free trade agreements. It may be, too, that tariffs were a good idea a long time ago. Or maybe not.

Free trade agreements signed since those days have facilitated lower prices, more freely moving “factors”—economist-speak for the goods that companies take in and process into goods that they then sell—and more freely moving labor.

Free trade agreements, in this way, have resulted in a broader range of goods for American consumers and American companies and have produced them at lower prices than heretofore.

The hint is this: if no one in the private sector wants a part of a deal, it’s likely to be a waste of taxpayer money for the Ex-Im Bank to get involved.

Some supporters of the function of an Ex-Im, if not of the bank itself, mention as William Galston did in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed that

Ex-Im supported the exports of more than 3,400 small businesses that probably could not have obtained commercial financing, for reasons unrelated to the creditworthiness of the prospective borrowers or to the quality of their proposed transactions.

There is, however, nothing stopping those small businesses from forming their own private-enterprise association to support each other with such needed financing.

Galston cited other supporters who see the aircraft industry as an industry desperately needing the Ex-Im Bank [emphasis added].

[T]he manufacture and sale of commercial aircraft is far from a free market. Boeing’s major competitor—Airbus—receives massive export subsidies from a European consortium. In the best case, Europe and the US would negotiate the mutual elimination of subsidies. But until that happens, say Ex-Im’s supporters, it would be self-destructive for the US to stand down unilaterally.

These supporters, apparently, think this is another area where the US should lead from behind.

No, let the Ex-Im’s authorization expire, say I.

The Uselessness of Obamacare

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another example of the ineffectiveness of the Obama administration—of government generally—as a business manager. HHS’ Office of the Inspector General conducted a review of ObamaMart’s performance last fall and early winter—from October through the end of December—although it didn’t include four ObamaMart centers that chose not to comply with the IG’s request for information.

As of the first quarter of 2014, the Federal marketplace [ObamaMart] was unable to resolve about 2.6 million of 2.9 million inconsistencies because the CMS eligibility system was not fully operational. It was unable to resolve inconsistencies even if applicants submitted appropriate documentation.

Moreover,

These inconsistencies pertained to citizenship, national status, and lawful presence; income; and employer-sponsored minimum essential coverage.

These are things that determine whether a citizen must buy a government-approved health plan, and if so whether that citizen is eligible for taxpayer subsidy for the premiums.

And there’s this [emphasis added]:

[ObamaMart] was capable of resolving more than 330,000 inconsistencies with Social Security number, non-employer minimum essential coverage, incarceration status, and whether the applicant is an Indian. However, during the same reporting period, the Federal marketplace reported that it had actually resolved only about 10,000 such inconsistencies, or less than 1 percent of the total.

The thing isn’t even capable of collecting quality control data.

[ObamaMart] could not determine the number of applicants who had at least one inconsistency. Rather, the Federal marketplace reported unique inconsistencies, and it could not determine the corresponding number of applicants because one applicant could have more than one inconsistency. As a result, it was not possible at the time of our evaluation to determine the extent to which inconsistencies are distributed across applicants in the Federal marketplace.

Marketplaces also reported that data on inconsistencies may be overstated. Some marketplaces reported that failures with eligibility systems allowed applicants to submit multiple applications. In these instances, each application could be processed and cause the same inconsistencies to occur and be counted.

There were a number of examples; I only excerpted the one.

Just wait until tax time next April when these failures will come home to roost. Who’s got the government-approved plan? Who’s (still) eligible for taxpayer subsidy? Who owes the government a refund because he wasn’t eligible for that taxpayer subsidy, or wasn’t eligible for so much? Not even the Shadow knows.

But the ones who’ll be hurt the most will be the little guy, barely making ends meet and forced to buy a plan he neither needed nor wanted, and the little guy who must pay back the subsidy for which he wasn’t actually eligible.