Tag Archives: culture

Political Corruption, Big Government, and Generational Struggle

Posted on by
Reply

Government, by its nature, is vulnerable to a broad reach of failure, and that becomes increasingly difficult to correct as government’s size grows and corruption, or even mere arrogance, increases.  Ultimately, government becomes large enough that it deems itself no longer responsible to the people who created it, and it engages in activities for its own benefit instead of ours.  Finally, these activities become centered simply on preserving and expanding its own power—which fosters corruption, which fosters further self-preservation and growth, which….

Here are some recent and current examples:

  • The Community Reinvestment Act and refusals to reform it, which created the conditions for the housing bubble and subsequent collapse.
  • Fast and Furious, DoJ’s gunwalking scam.
  • The method by which Obamacare was enacted, and its enactment against the loudly expressed wishes of the American people.
  • DoJ’s selective prosecution of crime, refusing for instance to prosecute voter intimidation crimes unless the alleged victim was from a government-favored group and the alleged perpetrator(s) from a government-disfavored group.
  • DoJ’s use of disparate impact analysis to manufacture racial discrimination where none exists and solely to satisfy a government’s politically motivated goal.
  • The process surrounding the stifling of the Keystone XL pipeline by the White House.
  • DoJ’s secret seizure of press telephone records (the AP, for instance) in New York, Washington, Hartford, and the main office for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery.
  • The cover-up of the government’s preparation for and response to the terrorist attack on our Consulate in Benghazi.
  • The politicization of the IRS, and its use to persecute government-disfavored groups and men.
  • Labor Department’s selective enforcement of laws regarding the killing of members of protected bird species, including the refusal to prosecute wind energy farms that kill over 80,000 hunting birds per year.

And so on.  This kind of thing isn’t unique to big government, of course; any time men are placed in power over men—a necessity even of consensual governments—the potential for arrogance or corruption abounds.  However, small consensual governments, inherently limited in power—formally by a constitution, and practically by a vigilant and involved population—are easier to control, and the growth of corruption and arrogance much more hindered.

It’ll be a long, cross-generational struggle to restore our government and to repair the damage done these last 80 years.  It’s a struggle that must be engaged, however.

An Honest Citizen

Posted on by
Reply

…and a Government Citizen.

The Federal government is required to certify whether an act of terrorism has occurred so businesses can determine related loss recovery.  One outcome of this is that if a business did not specifically buy terrorism coverage, a formal designation of terrorism could make it harder to recoup a loss.

Now consider the Boston Marathon attack.  Lots of small businesses that were impacted by that disaster did not buy terrorism coverage.

Enter, stage left, the Government Citizen:

Boston Mayor Tom Menino told reporters at a press conference Saturday that he has confidence Obama will not sign anything that would hurt businesses impacted by the bombings[.]

Enter, stage right, the Honest Citizen:

David Sapers, owner of candy store Sugar Heaven, said he took a risk by not purchasing terrorism coverage.

“This is a terrorism act, and we’re not [going to] change the rules because people want to recoup money from the insurance companies[.]

Hmm….

All Immigrants Look Alike

Posted on by
1

That’s what Republicans say when they attempt to block immigration reform on the basis that all those new immigrants—whether newly arrived or newly legalized—will vote Democratic and change the dynamic of American politics, if not the fabric of American society.

These Republicans, apparently, also so much lack confidence in the Conservative message that they won’t get off their dead a*es and go talk to the new immigrants about the wonders of conservatism.  But, then, they won’t even leave their Congressional offices to go talk to present Americans about the strengths of Conservative values, preferring instead to hold the odd press conference on the Hill, or to toss a speech over the podium at some high-minded Center for This or Library of That, or to summon the plebes to an audience at a “Town Hall” meeting.  At which they blather on in vague glittering generalities.

You know, it’s just barely possible that the folks who run the high stakes risks for the high stakes payoffs just to get here, and then pick our crops or clean our houses or work in our factories (such as they are) or start their businesses from scratch are the sort of folks we actually want in our country: conservative, hardworking, self-reliant, responsible future citizens.

Maybe Republicans should get out of their way, and welcome them.  Yes, there are deadbeats and criminals who come in on the flood.  That’s what border security and visa controls are for.  However, a filter only works when it lets stuff (and people) through, and it’s only practically useful when it lets the flow run (generally) freely.  So Democrats and unions need also to get out of the way of these future citizens, and let visa caps be eliminated and serious border security be implemented.  (Or are they afraid of the Conservative message, too?)

The primary problem, though, is those Republicans who insist, as they did of the monolithic nature of Communism during the last century’s Cold War, on the monolithic Democrat nature of immigrants.  And fear them for that.  The competition of ideas is not a thing a Conservative fears.  Neither should Republicans.

Our Founders insisted on treating people as the individuals they are.  Our modern Republicans should do the same.

IRS and Politics

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that in the last election season, the Internal Revenue Service demanded of a number of nonprofit organizations information about the nature of their politics, who their contributors were, even asking about family members.  The IRS intended to use this information to challenge the organizations’ nonprofit status.  That this was a biased request is demonstrated by the fact that only conservative nonprofits were targeted, and they were targeted on the basis of the presence of terms like “patriot” and “tea party” in their organizational names.

The then-IRS commissioner, of course, denied this.  Douglas Shulman told Congress in March 2012,

There’s absolutely no targeting.  This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people….

Turns out he was lying.  Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, said,

That [demand] was wrong.  That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive, and it was inappropriate.  That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review[.]

Then she said,

The IRS would like to apologize for that[.]

Well, Madam, when will the IRS apologize for that, instead of just talk about wanting to?  And what assurances are you or Steven Miller, the acting IRS Commissioner, going to provide that guarantee this politicization of the IRS’ function has been erased and will not recur?  When will we see IRS action on these assurances?

This…behavior…makes me wonder if David Axelrod has gone to work for the IRS.  Or whether Janet Napolitano, DHS Secretary, is directing the IRS’ oversight function.

A Grant of Dominion

Posted on by
Reply

…of one group of Americans over another, courtesy of President Barack Obama, congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV), and their Obamacare.

Dr Ezekial Emanual, ex-health-care adviser to Obama and presently senior fellow at the Center for American Progress strongly recommended this grant in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.

In touting Obamacare’s health “insurance” exchanges, he recommended government add overt pressure on our young to buy health “insurance,” in addition to the existing Individual Mandate requirement, because their participation is a necessary subsidy for others’ purchase.

Emanual began his push for this strengthening of the grant of a claim on one person’s private property to another with this…error:

Government exchanges on a national scale have never been tried before.

This is clearly untrue.  Canada, which is moving away from its national health “care” travesty, and Great Britain, which still is maintaining its National Health Service disaster, have already done this creation of health “insurance” on a national scale.  We know the failure that is pending.

Emanual had this in support of his push for extending that grant of dominion:

Here is the specific problem: insurance companies worry that young people, especially young men, already think they are invincible, and they are bewildered about the health-care reform in general and exchanges in particular.  They may tune out, forego purchasing health insurance and opt to pay a penalty instead when their taxes come due.
…
The consequence would be a disproportionate number of older and sicker people purchasing insurance, which will raise insurance premiums and, in turn, discourage more people from enrolling.  This reluctance to enroll would damage a key aspect of reform.

There are a number of things wrong with this.  In the first place, young people aren’t invincible and generally don’t think they are—this is just a cynically dragged red herring.  Young people, though, generally are healthy enough that both health “insurance,” especially the expensive, overwrought versions being pedaled by government, and health welfare, which is what the government’s product really is, are bad bets.

Insurance companies—when they’re allowed to sell true insurance policies—make their money by correctly assessing the likelihood of payout and adjusting the premiums they charge in advance of the expected payout accordingly.  The likelihood of payout for a young person (the odds of his getting sick) is quite low over any reasonable time frame.  The healthy young are wise to take that risk on themselves.

Secondly, young people aren’t as bewildered as Emanual makes them out to be.  They understand the risks they’re assuming, and they’re quite clear on the wisdom of the assumption.  They just don’t have the same assessment that Emanual—who apparently Knows Better—does.

Third, the penalty of the Individual Mandate itself is nothing more than a sinister enforcing mechanism of government’s grant of dominion over one man to another.

Fourth, the consequence of not following Emanual’s “recommendation” is simply the consequence of government’s demand for health welfare rather than allowing free market, competitively sold health insurance.  That consequence has nothing to do with the choices the young might freely make.

Emanual added further defense:

[W]e need to make clear as a society that buying insurance is part of individual responsibility.  If you don’t have insurance and you need to go to the emergency room or unexpectedly get diagnosed with cancer, you are free-riding on others.  …  The social norm of individual responsibility must be equated with purchasing health insurance.

Stipulating, arguendo (and only for that), that this is an accurate characterization, this justifies being forced to let others free-ride on me how, exactly?

Moreover, when I get sick and I’m uninsured, I don’t go to the ER and freeload—I pay for my infirm out of my own resources.  Just as my wife and I did when we were uninsured and paid for her biopsy and bilateral mastectomy out of our own resources.

Additionally—and this is a critical point that Progressives in general either can’t understand or simply ignore—helping those less well off is a matter of individual responsibility, not a government one.  Paying into government-provided welfare is legitimate, but only when government involvement is the last resort, not the default one.

Buying insurance or not, though—real insurance, not the present health welfare—has nothing at all to do with individual responsibility or with welfare.  That’s purely a personal economic and risk assessment choice.  Demanding that this man buy insurance so as to hold down that man’s cost for insurance is just, again, a grant of dominion to that other over the one: it’s government’s grant to another man of a claim superior to the one’s on his own property.

That’s tyranny, at best.

Emanual gave his game away here:

The president connects with young people, too, so he needs to use that bond and get out there to convince them to sign up for health insurance to help this central part of his legacy.

How cynical.  They should spend money on a thing they don’t need because Obama says that’s cool.  And to preserve a political legacy for Emanual’s hero.

Nor another man nor government has dominion over us.  Especially, government has no dominion over us; government, contrary to Emanual’s apparent understanding, is our employee.