Tag Archives: government

A Misapprehension

Posted on by
1

The headline suggests it.

How Science Lost America’s Trust and Surrendered Health Policy to Skeptics

Science hasn’t lost our trust, not by a long shot. What—who, really—has lost our trust is government bureaucrats who happen to have science degrees. The misapprehensions begin early in the article.

The rise of Robert F Kennedy, Jr, from fringe figure to the prospective head of US health policy was fueled by skepticism and distrust of the medical establishment—views that went viral in the Covid-19 pandemic.

No, it wasn’t. It was fueled by distrust of the government’s bureaucrats who held medical degrees.

People once dismissed for their disbelief in conventional medicine are now celebrating a new champion in Washington. Scientists, meanwhile, are trying to figure how they could have managed the pandemic without setting off a populist movement they say threatens longstanding public-health measures.

Some did have a disbelief in conventional medicine. However, what most of us began to disbelieve was not conventional medicine but the non-conventional positions of those medical degree-holding bureaucrats in our medicine-centered agencies and their naked power grabs via their diktats of how us average Americans must during—and after—the Wuhan Virus situation, with their credibility further damaged by their manufactured hysteria about the severity of a virus whose lethality was a small fraction of one percent except for the slice of our population already afflicted with severe comorbidities or who were very old.

Those bureaucrats’ contemptuous dismissal of us and their equally contemptuous dismissal of a range of paliatives and alternative cures—many of which actually did, and do, work, and many more of which, if not effective, also did no harm. We insisted on following actual science, while those bureaucrats pursued their personal power, and in some cases, their pocketbooks.

Those bureaucrats also too often dismissed research that supported those alternative treatments and with equal disdain research that called into question the risks of the Wuhan Virus vaccines on offer. Many (most?) of those researches were, in fact, highly questionable. Some were quite sound, though, and the bureaucrats’ shotgun dismissal of all of them—generally without explanation, holding us average Americans as too grindingly stupid or ignorant to understand—further damaged their credibility.

Nor did those degreed bureaucrats care a farthing about our children—the portion of our population uniquely immune to the virus. Lock them out of school these Know Betters demanded, then required, isolate them from their peers, friends, adults other than their parents—even from their grandparents, uncles, and aunts. We’re seeing now the damaging outcomes of that isolation in lost education and especially in their inability to get along with each other.

No, we trust science. We insist that government bureaucrats trust science, as well, and until they demonstrate that they do, those bureaucrats are demonstrating that they cannot be trusted by us.

Audit Failure and a Target for Reduction in Force

Posted on by
Reply

The Pentagon has failed, again, the audit of its finances. This makes seven in a row, and it calls into question how hard the relevant officers and civilians are trying, along with their level of competence.

A total of 1,700 auditors worked on the 2024 audit, which cost about $178 million.
A breakdown of the audit found that 15 of the 28 standalone financial audits received a failing grade….

Pentagon Comptroller Michael McCord:

…the Department has turned a corner in its understanding of the depth and breadth of its challenges[.]

After seven years.

As Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy look around the Federal government for places to cut, and as SecDef nominee Pete Hegseth (assuming he’s confirmed, even as the Left and their Progressive-Democrats ramp up their smear campaigns) looks into the Pentagon establishment he’d be overseeing, here is a lucrative, target-rich environment to enter.

A RIF is a Reduction in Force, a move whereby the military branches occasionally winnow down their ranks of officers and enlisted that each branch deems excess to its needs. The financial types—both military and civilian—in the Pentagon’s budgeting and acquisition sections, from supervisors on down, have by their successive and apparently determined failure to perform have self-selected for RIF. Start with McCord and his disingenuosity.

The RIF shouldn’t be limited to these folks, though. To the extent they’re getting bad, or merely slow, data with which to work, Pentagon training staff (and training is at the center of the Pentagon’s mission), branch Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff, and their financial staffs should be similarly targeted, over and above the Secretaries and Chiefs themselves being fireable by the incoming President for reasons suitable to the President.

Nor should it stop there. The Combatant Commands and the supporting commands—supply, transport, personnel, and so on—need to be closely scrutinized with a view to assessing the quality and timeliness of the data they’re sending to the Pentagon. Those personnel, again both military and civilian and again regardless of rank or position in the hierarchy, need to be RIFed also.

No doubt, this will lead, if carried out with sufficient breadth and depth, to a large reduction in the personnel complement of the Pentagon and of those additional establishments.

That opens up a twofer. Many of the critics of Hegseth’s nomination stew openly about his lack of experience in leading so large an organization as Defense. One approach for dealing with that is to shrink Defense. These RIFs would go a long way in that direction.

It’s Not So Much That

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal is puzzled by President-elect Donald Trump’s (R) move to persuade the Republican-majority Senate to go into recess so he can install his several Executive Branch nominees as recess-appointments.

…it was strange the other day when President-elect Trump issued a pre-emptive demand that his own party let him make recess appointments, “without which we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner.”

The editors go so far as to try to lay Trump’s move off on trying to ram through his nominee for AG, Matt Gaetz (R), the ex-Congressman from Florida. There is much about Gaetz over which to be dismayed by his nomination, but getting the Senate to blanket allow a plethora of recess appointments to mask this appointment really isn’t the reason for the recess appointment push. Or certainly not the only one.

Going through the confirmation process is interminably slow even in the best of times. It can take months to work through the list of nominees, years even, with a determined and skillful opposition. For a variety of reasons, most of them entirely sound, the Committee vetting process takes days—for each nominee—a time frame that can be dragged into weeks when the minority party wants to. It was the Progressive-Democratic Party Senators’ practice throughout Trump’s first term to hem and haw and delay and stall each of then-President Trump’s nominee confirmations.

Then, once out of committee, Senate rules mandate a minimum 30 hours per nominee of floor debate, absent unanimous consent.

Party already is gearing up to block as much of Trump’s announced agenda as it can; blocking as many of his nominees as it can will be an extension of that.

It’s not at all surprising that Trump would ask Republicans to go along this time.

A Question

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section asked a question regarding Matthew Hennesey’s Electoral College editorial.

48 states are winner-take-all when it comes to electoral votes. With this, it is possible to secure enough electoral votes with only 23% of the national popular vote. Though unlikely, what would the founders say?

Our Founders would say, “So what?” The Electoral College was created explicitly to separate President and Vice President elections from popular votes and to put those elections up to States acting in their own names. One citizen, one vote for nearly all elected offices, but for these two offices, which exist to speak for our nation as a whole, the States united into our nation get the vote: one State, one vote. If there’s to be a change to how Electors in the College are selected, it should be to change that small minority of States who allocate Electors in rough proportion to their citizens’ votes—by House District among other means—to a winner-take-all selection.

Ending Racial Disparities in Education

Posted on by
Reply

President-elect Donald Trump (R) has big plans for America’s education system, including expanding school choice opportunities and eliminating the Department of Education.

Good riddance to the DoEd, I say; it has fatally poisoned itself in two ways, either of which alone is fatal. One is with its emphasis on DEI claptrap at the expense of actual education. The other is with its moves to end due process regarding student sex offense allegations, insisting instead that the girl should be believed on the face of her allegations, attempting to deny the boy legal representation in what at bottom is an accusation of a crime, attempting to deny the boy the opportunity to bring his own witnesses and to cross examine the girl’s witnesses and the girl.

I strongly urge, should the effort to abolish DoEd succeed, that all DoEd personnel (that’s 100% of them for those following along at home) be returned to the private sector rather than reassigned elsewhere in the Federal government. Yes, yes, one proposal being considered is simply to consolidate DoEd with the Department of the Interior. This is unnecessary, and as a sidelight, would continue the bloat in the Federal Civil Service ranks. If it’s reasonable that Interior can do DoEd’s erstwhile job, it has plenty of otherwise excess personnel who can be repurposed to the function. There is no need to import from DoEd.

That’s at the top of our education system. The real progress, the real improvements, will come from addressing racial disparities from the bottom up—pre-school on up through the 12th grade. Those disparities range from excusing misbehaving minority students because students who happen to be white or Asian heritage misbehave at lower rates to grading minority students more leniently than their counterparts on the basis of “culture.”

Throwing money at teachers union-run public schools while maintaining their monopoly in some jurisdictions and near-monopoly in others has been an utter failure. It’s those schools that have the greatest racial disparity in education outcomes. Public schools do not provide the same quality education across the spread of the variety of majority and minority students; the economically poorer students are consigned to the poorer schools.

School choice programs, generally centered on committing public moneys to students rather than to the schools they attend, and getting bureaucracy out of the way of putting charter and voucher schools into operation, would allow those economically poorer students (who are primarily but not exclusively minority students) to be able to afford to leave the public school system in favor of one of those alternatives or to home schooling milieus. Each of these three have shown themselves to be, on the whole, superior in educational outcome to the public schools in their districts. That competition, too, has improved the outcomes at the public schools; although so far, that outcome improvement is only just measurable, it’s not as great as the improvements provided by those alternatives.

Too, discipline is stronger in the alternatives, and that discipline contributes to the improvements in student education: the misbehaving students either stop misbehaving and so do better academically or they are more easily suspended or expelled. Beyond that, the misbehavers don’t disrupt the other students’ learning opportunities and so their performance also improves.