Month: October 2009

The Dangers of a Crisis Mentality

Post author By David
Post date October 30, 2009
16 Comments on The Dangers of a Crisis Mentality

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

photo credit: paparutzi

Soon after the election last year in the Wall Street Journal, Gerald Seib wrote about the opportunity presented by the financial crisis for Barack Obama. Perhaps he was simply reacting to Rahm Emanuel’s statement that, “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Seib summed up that perspective on crisis by saying that:

The thing about a crisis is that it creates a sense of urgency. Actions that once appeared optional suddenly seem essential.

That really captures the essence of a crisis mentality. Unfortunately it only looks at the silver lining while ignoring the cloud in front of it. The assumption is that we all can see the dangers of the crisis cloud. Unfortunately the only part of the crisis cloud that most people see is the front side – the possibility with any crisis that we will fail. The problem is that right in front of the silver lining he spoke of there is the hidden backside of the crisis cloud which we conveniently forget.

Because of the sense of urgency that tends to accompany a crisis we not only begin to view once optional courses of action as essential, in many cases we go beyond that and begin to view once forbidden courses of action as excusable.

Tags change congress, Elevated, government, health care, issues, liberty, Obama, unconstitutional, Wall Street Journal

General

Legislator as Analyst

Earlier this year at a town hall type breakfast meeting I had the chance to ask Senator Bennett what he considered to be the most important task of a Senator. I was not very impressed with his answer that the most important thing was to try to see the future clearly. I still argue that keeping their oath of office is what all the actions of an elected official should revolve around, but upon further reflection I think I have a better understanding of what he meant and it was closer to acceptable for me. His third item in the list of of most important jobs was that they should do their homework. I think that what he was trying to get at was that legislators need to study the information that is available to them and then make wise decisions about how to deal with whatever information is available. After all, that is the whole point of a representative form of government – voters are essentially selecting someone who will have access to more information than most of them with the expectation that the elected official will make a better than average decision with that more comprehensive information.

While that task of analyzing information to make decisions should be anchored to keeping the oath of office it is truly one of the most important tasks of a legislator. As an analyst, a legislator must always be seeking as much information as possible on the issues they are called to decide upon. They should seek that information from their constituents as well as all the official sources of information that are brought before them (such as task forces and committee reports). Their job is to take all that information to put together as accurate a picture as possible of the reality they are dealing with and then make as wise a decision as possible with that understanding.

Tags civic participation, ideal, legislature

General

A Question to Ponder

I really did not need to focus on any serious topics today (or yesterday for that matter – notice the lack of a post) so I have to thank my brother for providing a humorous but thought provoking question on Facebook last night. I thought that the question deserved to be freed from the walled garden of Facebook so I thought I’d share it here:

If China decided to call America’s debt today, which state would {President Obama} sell to make ends meet?

California received some votes as well as Texas, North Dakota, and non-states such as Guam. What do other people think (recognizing that this is entirely not realistic no matter which state anyone suggests)?

Tags California, China, funny, Guam, national debt, North Dakota, Obama, questions, Texas

National

Our National Emergency

I was surprised when I learned that Obama declared swine flu a national emergency late on Friday. My first thought was that I had not heard anything to suggest that things were any worse than they had been previously. Looking closer at the announcement the article states that “Swine flu is more widespread now than it’s ever been and has resulted in more than 1,000 U.S. deaths so far.”

While we don’t like the idea of 1000 deaths it’s important to put that into context by noting that the seasonal flu results in 36,000 U.S. deaths each year – that’s an average of 3,000 deaths per month year round. During the flu season that amounts to more than 1000 deaths per week. To really put that into context it should be noted that the seasonal flu produces that many deaths despite the fact that a vaccine is widely available while the swine flu vaccine is barely coming into circulation now.

That is enough information that there are many people who will shout that this is not an emergency – some will even say that this is a scare tactic or power grab by the administration. Going back to the actual declaration I have concluded that there really is a national problem.

The White House on Saturday said Obama signed a proclamation that would allow medical officials to bypass certain federal requirements.

The very real problem that this declaration of emergency addresses is a problem of over-regulation. The government should never regulate something to the point of interfering with the benefits of whatever they are regulating – as they have done with the medical system. (I would call this an emergency except that “emergency” suggests serious immediate consequences if we do not take immediate action whereas a lack of immediate action does not have particularly immediate consequences.)

Tags Deseret News, media, Obama, reactions

culture National State

Senator Jim DeMint on Term Limits

Post author By David
Post date October 23, 2009
7 Comments on Senator Jim DeMint on Term Limits

I started a discussion on term limits a couple of years ago on this site and between what I said then and what I have said on other sites I think my position on term limits is fairly clear – I believe that term limits generally produce benefits that far outweigh the drawbacks that opponents will cite. I think solid evidence of that is that not one state (out of 15) that has enacted a term limit law and had it start limiting terms has ever repealed their term limit law. (Six states did enact laws and then repeal them before they took effect – including Utah.) Coming from that position, I was happy to hear the announcement from Senator Jim DeMint that he plans to introduce a term limits amendment soon.

While I have some questions about some of the specifics of what he plans to propose like how he decided that three terms would be the appropriate limit for members of the House or how flexible he would be on the particular limits he is proposing, I found one statement that he made very insightful about the last time that term limits were seriously pursued by the political class.

Fifteen years ago, Republicans – who had been out of power in Congress for forty years – made term limits a centerpiece of their “Contract with America” agenda.

The term limits constitutional amendment ultimately failed, in part because so many new reform-minded congressmen imposed term limits on themselves. After six or eight years, these members voluntarily went home, leaving behind those Republicans and Democrats who fully intended to make a career inside the beltway.

The fact is, party doesn’t matter when it comes to reform. If you want to change the policies, you have to change the process.

He’s absolutely right that no significant reform will come in how Washington operates until we make structural changes that force it to operate differently. His comment that many of those who wanted to enact term limits voluntarily term-limited themselves – thus crippling the attempt by leaving it in the hands of those who had no interested in being term limited was insightful. I realized that anyone who wants to make such a change would have to take the attitude and make a pledge to stay in Washington as long as possible until they either got term limits enacted or else until they no longer believed that term limits were worth pursuing. Those who will impose their own limits independent of everybody else will limit their own comparative effectiveness by granting more power to those who do not believe in their ideals (specifically the ideal of having term limits).

Tags amendments, campaign promises, change congress, Constitution, ideals, issues, Jim DeMint, term limits, Utah

General

In Search of Banzai Republicans

Post author By David
Post date October 22, 2009
18 Comments on In Search of Banzai Republicans

photo credit: jpellgen

Holly has a great post/discussion about why Unity at all costs is the wrong message for the GOP today. Within her post was one small statement that I had been thinking about for weeks:

Too many are not willing to lose . . .

I thought of calling such leaders Kamikaze Republicans but there is an important difference. Kamikaze attacks could not have the attacker survive and have the attack be successful. Banzai attacks had a low probability of success, but the attacker could still hope to both live and be successful. Kamikaze attackers intend to destroy themselves in hopes of breaking their opponents while banzai attackers are willing to stand for their principles even if it means they lose in the effort.

Show me the republican leader who is willing to end their political life in order to maintain a principle in which they should not compromise. For that matter, define for me the principles of the Republican Party for which the party should take an uncompromising stand.

Tags debates, Democrat, Elevated, parties, principles, Republican

General

We Should Make That Illegal

Post author By David
Post date October 21, 2009
13 Comments on We Should Make That Illegal

I heard a report of a store robbery this morning and the description of the perpetrator sounded very familiar – dark clothing, dark beanie hat, you know the drill. As I heard it I discarded the remote possibility that there is one man or a small group that use that outfit as their signature in committing these felonies. This led me to a new conclusion (I’m amazed nobody has thought of this before) – the availability of dark clothing, especially dark t-shirts and dark beanie hats, induces people to commit robberies.

We should make the production and sale of those clothing items illegal and remove the temptation to commit these robberies.

Tags funny, reactions, thoughts

National

Half-Truths from the White House

Post author By David
Post date October 20, 2009
26 Comments on Half-Truths from the White House

I am not naive enough to expect more than a half truth from a political leader anymore but I am still naive enough to do what little I can to expose the half of what they say that is false. The White House blog sets out to expose the Republican Leaders’ Plan to “Delay, Define, and Derail” health care legislation. Their closing statement is the classic half truth:

. . . while we remain committed to working with those in both parties who have good-faith proposals about how to strengthen the final reform bill, we will not stand idly by in the face of false accusations aimed to score political points or maintain the status quo at all costs.

They toss around the “false accusations” claim within eye-shot of publishing some false accusations of their own. For example, in that very statement they imply that Republicans have offered no good-faith proposals. That’s not the first time they make that claim in their post. Earlier they said:

Republican leaders will resort to the time-honored tactic of attempting to stall reform to death – raising arbitrary and disingenuous hurdles under the guise of wanting further debate, when in reality they have no intention of offering constructive proposals.

Every time they make the claim that Republican’s have offered no constructive proposals voters need to recognize that only two types of administrations could make that claim right now. Either the administration is lying through their teeth (the more likely of the two) or else they are genuinely unaware of the good faith proposals that Republicans have offered such as HR 3400, which Democrats in control of Congress are not even willing to debate. Either kind of administration (dishonest or ignorant) is extremely dangerous to our nation. If they are dishonest they must be stopped. If they are ignorant they must become informed. I’m willing to work on both routes until I can prove which kind of administration we have.

Another half truth offered by the White House in that post is to reassert the claim (by using the CBO) that their bill will lower the deficit.

Republican leaders intend to repeat their claims that reform “will raise insurance premiums on individuals and families, while failing to lower the overall amount of money that the U.S. spends on health care… even though the nonpartisan CBO predicted the [Senate Finance Committee] bill would reduce the deficit and lower the cost curve, even as it extends coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.”

It has already been shown by history that the CBO estimate is based on the shakiest footing imaginable because it depends on Congress doing what it has never done before – cutting medicare spending. Until democratic leaders can show how they will actually fulfill the mythical fiscal promises in the bill that make that CBO estimate possible there’s no reasons to believe them over the Republicans. No matter who is proposing a bill there is no reason to pass it so long as there are significant unanswered questions about how it will actually work.

The Democrats are proposing bills that will not take effect for years and which depend on premises that are not dependable and then they wonder why people are hopping off their “Hope and Change” train.

Tags health care, legislation, Obama, parties

National State

Two Good Ideas in One Bad Bill

Post author By David
Post date October 19, 2009
No Comments on Two Good Ideas in One Bad Bill

It’s back – the bill that just won’t die. Let’s first explain why this is such a bad bill that I never pass up an opportunity to oppose it. First, it’s unconstitutional and both sides are compromising the integrity of their ideals in order to produce this bad bill. Second, this is an example of governing by exception which is a long-term recipe for disaster. Having only states be represented in Congress is good, except that we want to treat D.C. more like a state. The current census apportionment process is good, except that Utah felt bad about not getting an extra seat on a technical sliver. Long-term the only people who come out ahead when governing by exception are the exploiters who prefer to live in loopholes rather than being ensnared by the system that they are taking advantage of. These are the same people who rarely if ever actually contribute anything to the society in return for playing the leeches role.

There are two very good ideas in this bill which should be pursued without compromise. The first is giving D.C. a voting representative in the House. Any citizen who is subject to the same federal tax laws as the citizens of the states should have a voting representative in Congress – as far as I know that is only D.C. but that rule would apply to any citizen who did not live in a state whether we started taxing American Samoa or Puerto Rico the same as we do for the 50 states. The privilege of representation in the House should be based on the responsibility to pay taxes because taxation is the primary responsibility of the House. Representation in the Senate should be a privilege limited to full statehood.

The second good idea in the bill is the expansion of the House. This should be much more than two seats. In fact what we need is a bill (probably an amendment) that defines the size of the House as a function of population by setting the maximum number of citizens that a Representative in the House may represent. While I would argue that the size of the house should be multiples of its current size even setting such a ration to such an unmanageable number as 500,000 citizens per representative would be an improvement over this static “435 seats in the House” that we have currently. (That would add somewhere near 100 new representatives – as opposed to the paltry 2 being proposed in this bill.)

While I am not a fan of legislative manipulation tactics (such as the NRA killing the bill previously by attaching an amendment that would curtail the gun laws in D.C.) I have to say that it is better to prevent a law from passing using such tactics than it is to enact a law using such tactics (such as slipping the bill into a “must pass” defense appropriations bill as they are talking about trying now).

The fact that the people pushing this bill have not even proposed an amendment to give D.C. the voting representative they deserve demonstrates that they are more interested int he power grab than they are in actually helping the people of D.C. If they were serious about the issue they would at least be making that kind of proposal even if they also pursued this unconstitutional path.

Tags Deseret News, fourth seat, issues, legislation, unconstitutional, voting

culture National

An Island in the Midst of an Ocean

Post author By David
Post date October 16, 2009
2 Comments on An Island in the Midst of an Ocean

When I complained about the tone of the Sean Hannity show a couple of weeks ago Frank Staheli pointed me towards the Neal Boortz show broadcast on Freedom 570. Over the last couple of weeks I have been listening to the station. I have heard many of the shows as I have listened at various times and found that I was really enjoying the tone of the shows being broadcast – it was an essentially civil island in the midst of the ocean of conservative talk radio. Neal Boortz is not my favorite of their shows, but his tone was so much nicer than Hannity.

Today I discovered a mud puddle in the midst of the Freedom 570 lineup. I drove home earlier than usual today and heard the Todd Schnitt show for the first time which had more of a Hannity tone. While it may not be fully representative of the show I was disappointed to hear Schnitt’s coverage of the apparent uproar over a picture of Meghan McCain that got posted on the internet (by Meghan apparently). Schnitt had to take the time to rave about Meghan’s physique and insist that the picture get a more prominent place on his website.

I have not seen the picture, but I have enough information from what I head from Schnitt before turning the show off to comment on the situation. Schnitt has demonstrated his immaturity and lack of class by the types of comments he felt compelled to make. Meghan has shown her naivety by even posting the image and acting as if the uproar was not predictable. Apparently some have called her a slut – without even going to see the picture I think it’s safe to say that she was just plain foolish. The only good that came out of it is that I now know to pass on opportunities to listen to Schnitt.

Tags media, reactions, Sean Hannity