Big Government

The “Professionals”

by

Lots will be written about the Boston bombings in the coming months but what I have to say about it will be relatively short and sweet.

From my outpost here in rural Wisconsin, it appears that the people of Boston are a bunch of babies. They follow orders from “professionals” very well though, that I will admit.

There is zero chance that a “stay in your house” order would be obeyed out here in the sticks – I have talked to many of my farmer neighbors already on the subject. In fact, there is also zero chance that those murderers would survive long out here in the rural areas – they would have gotten shot between the eyes, plain and simple, by any of a number of citizens. On that subject, what is up with the lack of marksmanship with the “professionals”? Hundreds and hundreds of rounds volleyed, and one guy lives to tell the tale? Houses shot full of holes that weren’t even in the line of fire? Really? These guys get paid to do this?

There were thousands of cops on the scene in Boston, and the surviving jerk still somehow got outside of the cordon. I would think this to be embarrasing to the “professionals”. It was clear, at least from where I was sitting, that the “professionals” didn’t have a great grasp on the situation. I laughed when I saw the state troopers marching in formation or the swat guys parading through the neighborhood riding on the running boards of the Hummer. The show of force does not impress the terrorists, or basically anyone – besides perhaps the cowering citizens of Boston and the associated suburbs.

Can you imagine how bad this would have been if the bombers were actually smart?

Sorry to have to take this tack in the wake of these murders, but it really, really looks bad on tv from where I am sitting, at least.

People of Boston: get some guns, band together, and do something. When we had a horrible blizzard here a few months ago we had lives on the line but we all worked together, checked in on each other and helped where needed. You didn’t hear about it because we took care of it ourselves with no help from anyone including the “professionals”. People and livestock were in serious danger, but we worked hard and made things happen while the “professionals” told us to stay inside.

The “professionals” obviously didn’t bring their “a game” to this event, nor should be counted on to do so in the future. Always remember: you are the first responder. Take action.

Margaret Thatcher: Revolutionary, Leader

by

…[H]er longest-lasting impact has been neglected. Indeed, it is so long-lasting that it is yet to fully play out, even now.
 
Margaret Thatcher changed the Right from a reactionary movement into a revolutionary one … .

Mark Wallace

The Conservatives in Britain needed to become revolutionaries. American Conservatism was started by William F. Buckley, Jr. and was meant to be revolutionary, or at least counter-revolutionary, and many of its early thinkers were former Communists who thought of themselves as continuing a revolutionary struggle.

Mrs. Thatcher pointed out nicely against whom the revolution must be made: crony capitalism:

Too many people and industries preferred to rely on easy subsidies rather than apply the financial discipline necessary to cut their costs and become competitive. Others preferred the captive customers that a monopoly can command or the secure job in an overmanned industry, rather than the strenuous life of liberty and enterprise.

Margaret Thatcher: Rebuilding an Enterprise Society Through Privatisation.

Saying “the State” is the problem is only partly true. Millions benefit from the State as it currently operates, and most of them are not employees of the State. They are rationally self-interested in keeping things as they are.

Choosing “the strenuous life of liberty and enterprise” is a moral choice at least as much as it is a self-interested one.

“Greed is good” does not get you capitalism. Greed is more easily satisfied by turning state power to personal gain. Capitalism, or the better term, free enterprise, permits great personal gain, and improves the lives of many people over time. But it cannot rely on self-interest alone to keep it going. It is a way you have to decide to live, individually, and as a nation.

Once upon a time I read a book which showed me that the growth of the state and the slow extinguishing of freedom and enterprise were virtually inevitable. The beneficiaries of each incremental increase in state power, of each incremental loss of personal freedom, were acutely focused on gaining and keeping their advantages. The losers in this process were diffuse, unfocused, distracted by everything else in life.

The common good had no champion, as a practical matter. In terms of strictly material incentives, it never would.

Worse, in terms of non-material incentives, it is even worse. To go against the currently powerful, the currently well-connected and prestigious, will lead to scorn, insults and derision.

And I eventually came to understand that pushing back against this process is precisely what is meant by the word leadership, under current conditions.

There is always a “them” who are the current ruling group. They are the ones dealt into the existing game, its apologists and advocates. To take them on, to organize and lead an opposition movement, the leader must have extremely strong character. Such a leader must be self-assured, know how things really work, and have a very thick skin. The leader must have no regard for conventional wisdom and no respect for the often unstated limits of what can be done or, even more, what is “simply not done” or “simply not said.”

As a practical matter, such a leader must have the capacity to speak plainly and clearly to a majority of ordinary people who are quietly victimized in the existing game, to show them how certain changes will be good for them, and good generally. They do not lead by force or lies, they lead by telling hard truths and gaining assent to the hard path to better things.

Mrs. Thatcher was such a leader.

Mr. Reagan was such a leader.

We need more of them. But they are always scarce.

Fortunately, though scarce, there have always been a few of them.

And as things get worse, people turn to them, reluctantly, out of necessity.

May God grant us more such leaders in the troubled days ahead.

UPDATE

Michael Barone sent the following anecdote:

My one significant exchange of words with Mrs. Thatcher.
 
I asked, perhaps a bit obsequiously, whether it was a  weakness of her philosophy that its success depended on having a strong leader like her or Ronald Reagan.
 
She responded in her booming voice: “But isn’t that always true?”
 
After a pause: “Isn’t that ALWAYS true?”
 
Your point, exactly.

Mrs. Thatcher was correct on this point.

The system does not go of itself.

There has to be leadership.

There is no alternative.

UPDATE II

I have been schlepping around for 20 years a copy of The Anatomy of Thatcherism by the late Shirley Robin Letwin. It is very good after about 50 pages.

RERUN–Paying Higher Taxes Can be Very Profitable

by

(Originally posted in January 2010now an April perennial)

Chevy Chase, MD, is an affluent suburb of Washington DC. Median household income is over $200K, and a significant percentage of households have incomes that are much, much higher. Stores located in Chevy Chase include Tiffany & Co, Ralph Lauren, Christian Dior, Versace, Jimmy Choo, Nieman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Saks-Jandel.

PowerLine  observed that during the 2008 election season, yards in Chevy Chase were thick with Obama signsand wonders how these people are  now  feeling about the prospect of sharp tax increases for people in their income brackets.

The PowerLine guys are very astute, but I think they’re missing a key point on this one. There are substantial groups of people who stand to benefit financially from the policies of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate, and these benefits can greatly  outweigh  the costs of any additional taxes that these policies require them to pay. Many of the residents of Chevy Chasea very high percentage of whom get their income directly or indirectly from government activitiesfall into this category.

Consider, for starters, direct employment by the government. Most Americans still probably think of government work as low-paid, but this is much less true than it used to be. According to  this, 19% of civil servants now make $100K or more. A significant number of federal employees are now making more than $170,000. And, of course, the more the role of government is expanded, the more such jobs will be created, and the better will be the prospects for further pay increases.

If one member of a couple is a federal employee making $100K and the other is making $150K, that would be sufficient to allow them to live in Chevy Chase and occasionally partake of the shopping and restaurants. But to make the serious money required to  really  enjoy the Chevy Chase lifestyle, it’s best to look beyond direct government employment and pursue careers which indirectly but closely benefit from government activity…which are part of the “extended government,” to coin a phrase.

Read more

Dying Monopolies – The Post Office

by

In the River North neighborhood of Chicago there are many affluent customers packed into a small physical area. The vast majority of these individuals shop online and receive physical packages as a result.

And yet the post office building that sits right smack dab in the midst of all these package-receiving citizens is not a hub of activity; many times it seems empty and forlorn.  Why is that?  It is due to the fact that the US mail system, which provides service across the United States, is not viewed as either a reliable or competitive delivery mechanism for e-commerce goods delivery, and the flood of packages that arrives is generally delivered by either UPS or Fed Ex.

The post office dutifully delivers all the stuff I don’t want – junk mail, catalogs, bill reminders, an occasional holiday card for those that are sent via snail mail, and notices from governmental entities that haven’t joined the internet era (to their credit some of them have moved much of their operations to the internet).

While the post office is crippled by liabilities, benefits, civil service protections for workers, and a mandate to serve every US address for first class mail, they would be in a much better situation if somehow they had been able to capture a significant share of the package delivery market that flourished right beneath their noses.  This article from Slate describes the situation as it exists today.

The loss of the package delivery opportunity is only the most obvious squandered one; think of what the post office COULD have done tied vai the internet (guaranteed, reliable domain names linked to addresses for bill paying or as a pre-cursor to social media) or with sales of goods since they have access throughout the entire USA.  However, given that they were set up as a monopoly to do one thing well (deliver first class mail), they didn’t have much pressure to innovate.

In the end the post office is mostly a machine to employ government workers, spread throughout the US and in every congressional district.  Per wikipedia (which has a solid write-up here) the US post office employs 574,000 workers, with government perks, pensions and benefits that most of you will never receive, in order to deliver that first class mail that you mostly throw into the recycling bin.  The proposals that they are floating show how tied their hands are; they want to cut Saturday mail delivery which will make them even less competitive vs. UPS and Fed Ex – they aren’t really talking about ways of outsourcing services and cutting expensive staff en mass which would be needed to move even close to breaking even.

The post office is probably just betting that their employees (through lobbying) and government protectors (the politicians) will be enough to stop significant cuts while their service (first class mail deliveries) becomes ever less essential.  Since we bailed out the banks and print enormous amounts of money to fund the US deficits, who will ever even notice tens of billions of dollars in losses on first class mail service to boot.

The sad part is, they are probably right.

Cross posted at LITGM.

Illinois Leads The Way – “Factoring” our State’s Receivables

by

While many states in the midwest are tackling their structural problems head on, Illinois is contentedly doing things the old-school Dem way. Michigan (of ALL states!) recently enacted a right to work law and is taking over Detroit, in an attempt to finally deal with their unending fiscal decline. Wisconsin is famously taking on their state unions (with the usual assortment of hacks picketing the state capitol to boot) as well as implementing a right-to-carry law. Indiana has made fiscal prudence, right-to-carry, and right to work laws a centerpiece for many years, with commensurate success. Yet while these midwestern states attempt to reform, Illinois (mostly) stands pat.

Illinois’ litany of woe is so long that I won’t bother summarizing problems that you can find for yourselves on the internet. We recently bucked trends in the region with a giant tax increase, designed to fix our immediate fiscal hole. The immediate problem is that we are not even paying vendors in a reasonable time frame, much less fixing our structural debt issues.

However, even with this giant tax increase, the state is far behind in paying vendors for services. A WSJ article titled “Startup See Profit in State’s Financial Woes” summarizes the situation:

A Chicago startup is aiming to mine a silver lining in the fiscal misery hanging over Illinois.

The nation’s fifth-largest state is running an estimated $7 billion behind on bills for everything from Medicaid reimbursements to doctors to plates purchased for prison mess halls, forcing some vendors to wait six months or more to get paid.

That is where Vendor Assistance Program LLC is stepping in. The closely held company says it can profit by advancing the money to pay the vendors, then keeping late fees the state owes them. Vendors forego the penalty payments but get their money faster than they would otherwise.

Thus the state of Illinois, which is paying 1% / month on balances over 90 days, is essentially funding this start up. In an era of record low interest rates, our fiscal ineptitude has us paying out these high penalty fees because we cannot get our act together and fund and pay bills on a 90 day cycle.

Given that the state of Illinois funds these programs and creates a budget and just raised taxes enormously, WHY can’t they figure out a plan that pays vendors in 90 days? This should be a scandal, but like everything else in Illinois, you just get inured to ineptitude, and this is just another story among a sea of stories of criminal behavior enmeshed with old-school Dem political hacks.

To be fair, one guy that deserves some credit in Illinois is Rahm Emanuel, who is attempting to close 61 schools in the City of Chicago, and is supporting the growth of charter schools which chip away at the education monopoly and cause competition so that some neighborhood schools and selected high schools are actually up to the type of standards that would cause parents’ to consider sending their kids locally.

Cross posted at LITGM