Howard's Political Commentary

TSA is even more out of control

2011-07-22T16:33:00.000-07:00

While trying to get to my airplane for a flight from Minneapolis back to Phoenix, I had an encounter with a TSA agent that proves what many of us thought about the TSA mentality. When I told her that conducting searches like they do is unconstitutional and that they are violating the 4th amendment to the constitution, she said that it was government policy, she is just following orders, and that we all report to the same boss. I reminded her that her bosses in the government are either elected or appointed government officials, so, unless citizens are actually subjects of the government, they are NOT my bosses. In fact, I am one of their bosses. She quickly back pedalled away from her "report to the same boss" remark, but it seems obvious that TSA officials regard Americans as subjects rather than citizens. This attitude undoubtedly flows downward from the top - Obama and Napolitano. In fact, Napolitano was once overheard saying how Americans should be grateful because no other government gives their citizens more rights than the United States. Apparently, she does not agree with the Declaration of Independence which clearly states that our rights come from our creator and that government is instituted to protect them. If the government gives us our rights, then it can take them away as Obama, Napolitano, and the TSA have been doing.

In a incident from last June, I started recording the goings on in a TSA line at O'Hare airport because a snotty female TSA agent was harrassing a woman traveller. She pointed out to another agent that I was recording, and that agent tried to intimidate me into stopping my recording. He got into my face and asked if I would "do him a favor" by stopping the recording. I asked him if he would to me a favor by letting me go through security without getting molested. He repeated his request. I then asked him if recording is illegal. He just walked away.

TSA agents are basically just bullies with no respect for American citizens. They cling to the illusion that they are protecting Americans, but it seems to me they are more interested in protecting their jobs and push people around. If Americans had a choice of selecting airlines that provided security that was less intrusive, more convenient, and lower priced compared to that provided by the TSA, it would be interesting to see how many people would switch away from the TSA affiliated airlines.

Now that we know terrorists would likely crash rather than just hijack an airplane, most of the security precautions are stupid and ineffective. Having reinforced cockpit doors and armed pilots will allow almost any plane to land safely if a hijacking attempt is made. In addition, hijackers will not quietly sit by when an aircraft hijacking is attempted. Even the underwear and shoe bombers were subdued by passengers - the TSA had nothing to do with stopping them.

The TSA should be dumped and airlines and airports should hire private security to protect their passengers, crews, and equipment.

TSA is Out of Control

2011-02-01T12:52:00.000-07:00

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is out of control. The pat down searches for most people who can't get through the metal detector and cannot or will not use the full body scanners are intrusive, humiliating, abusive, and ultimately useless. For others without medical devices implanted in their bodies, the full body scans "randomly" required are similarly "effective" and are a serious government intrusion on the rights of Americans against unreasonable search which our constitution is supposed to protect us against.

If the purpose of these enhanced searches is to provide us with additional security, then they are an abysmal failure. The scanners cannot detect explosives such as the "underwear" bomber used. While actually checking the underwear of airline passengers could probably detect that explosive, it is probably possible to use a different chemical formulation that would not be detected by the same test. Also, the explosive could be embedded in other fabrics that are carried on or worn, but are not searched.

On the other hand, if the searches are meant to desensitize us to violations of our constitutional rights and increase the erosion of them, then they have been successful. Twits who say things like "I don't mind being searched because I want to be safe" and "If everyone is subject to the same rules [even if they are unreasonable searches] then it's OK since only terrorists should be bothered by these rules" signify the danger to freedom our republic faces. Routine acceptance of these violations of our rights and intrusions into our privacy are eroding our freedom. Meekly accepting sexual molestation as a condition for riding a commercial aircraft makes citizens who are self-ruling into subjects of government bureaucrats. Consider that the specific regulations requiring this are administrative rules authorized by a law rather than a specific act of Congress.

In addition, the so-called "random" searches requiring a full body scan or pat down are done at the discretion of a TSA official with no truly random selection at all. When I was forced to submit to this kind of search, I was told the reason is that there was a line at the routine metal detector, so this would be faster (for the TSA apparently). When I pointed out that the TSA obviously had no problem with having people stand in lines waiting for everything else, and that I was willing to wait for the metal detector, I was told that since I had been told to go to the scanner, my only choices were to go through the scanner or get a pat down search. I opted out of the body scanner and was subject to the search. When I objected to having my testicles touched by a TSA agent, I was told that I would have to submit to the procedure or that I would not be allowed to fly. When I asked why I was being searched, I was told that the TSA randomly selects people for search. I told the supervisor that I was not randomly selected; I was selected because there was a line at the metal detector. The supervisor didn't care and didn't seem to actually understand what random selection actually means. Of course, even a random selection is an unreasonable search. Another supervisor and three Phoenix city police were then summoned to tell me that I had to submit to the search if I wanted to board my flight. They said they could get someone from the airline to explain the policy to me which I told them was ridiculous since this was a government policy that my airline has no control over. I was finally forced to submit to the search as a condition for flying a commercial airliner. I told the TSA employees and the Phoenix police officers that they should be ashamed of themselves for what they are doing to American citizens. One of the police officers "kindly" reminded me that Grayhound doesn't do these kind of searches if I want to avoid them. I suspect that is not because of a lack of desire by the TSA. I reminded him that the government - not the airlines - requires these searches. I told him that if airlines were allowed to implement their own security and passengers could choose airlines with more reasonable security, then what he said would make sense. That police officer officer said that he didn't like the policy, but that's the way it is. One of the TSA agents also said that their policy is just the way it is. My response is that the rising and setting of the sun is the way things are, but setting up instrusive, unreasonable searches is done by someone and implemented by others; they are not something that needs to be accepted as part of nature. Their behavior reflects a willingness to follow orders of "superiors" while suspending their own sense of judgment either because they are drones unworthy to live in or serve a free society or value job security and paychecks over their consciences which makes them little more than mercenaries. Justifying unacceptable behavior because of "just following orders" has had bad consequences in history. It is something Americans should consider an early warning of the free character of our citizens disappearing and should be a cause of great concern.

Interestingly, at one of the terminals at Ft. Lauderdale airport, those full body scanners were nowhere in evidence which raises obvious doubts about how necessary they are for airport security. Why in Phoenix and not in Ft. Lauderdale? Actually, why are they needed anywhere? Finding bad people rather than bad items is what is really necessary, and the Department of Homeland Security has done this poorly. A sharp pencil in the hands of a terrorist is more of a danger than a Swiss Army Knife (much less nail clippers) in my pocket.

This has been going on for some time, but there is nothing like pesonally suffering through it yourself to get you riled at the unreasonableness of the government and its employees. It was such a disturbing experience that I could understand how authority figures with badges (such as the TSA agents and Phoenix Police who participated in molesting me as a matter of government policy) could be thought of as "pigs" which I had previously thought was a wholely unjustified reaction by 1960's radicals. Since I am a basically law abiding citizen, this bothered me because thinking of the police and government as enemies and oppressors rather than as public servants made me realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with how our country is functioning.

To counter the excesses of the TSA, many airports have requested that they be able to replace TSA personnel with their own private security. Some of these requests were granted, but, when it became obvious that the TSA would be deluged with these requests, the TSA director refused a request and said he saw no reason why any request would be approved in the future. The TSA employee labor union unsurpisingly supports this position. This is another arbitrary act by the Federal government to keep citizens and private and local government bodies that operate commercial airports under a Federal thumb when this is not required by law. Refusing these requests also maintains the TSA's bureaucratic empire.

The House of Representatives should refuse to appropriate money for the TSA unless applications for airports to use private security are routinely approved. There should also be consideration given to not funding the TSA unless it adopts more reasonable procedures that do not require submission to sexual molestation as a condition for flying on commercial aircraft.

People should tell their representatives in Congress to rein in the TSA, and people going through unreasonable searches by the TSA should tell individual agents subjecting them to these searches that they should be ashamed of themselves for engaging in this behavior and violating the Constitution they swore to uphold.

America Losing Freedom: Warning Shots Across Our Bow

2010-12-26T12:17:00.000-07:00

Free societies do not become tyrannies overnight. Would be dictators take small steps toward tyranny until they are stopped or they enslave their citizens.

The entire airport security fiasco which, in fact, provides very little actual security is being used to bully Americans into accepting government rule over our lives. In the name of security, the government is trampling on our civil rights and is treating us as subjects rather than free citizens. Even worse, these same virtually useless draconian measures will be expanded to every place the Department of Homeland Security will not be forbidden from putting them including public transportation - all in the name of protecting us.

There are two recent news stories illustrate that the Department of Homeland Security is out of control and is a direct threat to our freedom.

An airline pilot made a video showing the foolishness of TSA airport security when there are many more vulnerabilities due to ground crews who don't go through the same security that flight crews and passengers go through. Ground crews service the aircraft, load baggage, and replenish food and beverages among their other responsibilities. Are passenger nude x-rays and intimate pat-down searches providing additional security even close to the loss of dignity they impose when ground crews with even greater access to the aircraft are subject to less inspection? His house was raided by 6 armed government thugs masquerading as law enforcement officials. Here is the news story.

At the airport in Austin, TX, a woman asserting her constitutional right to not be subject to an unreasonable search was brutally arrested and publicly humiliated when she failed to submit to a pat-down search. The woman has an implanted medical device that sets off the metal detectors at security. The nude x-ray machines were not functioning at that time due to a technical problem. The woman was forced to submit to a pat down search. By the way, the woman had been raped and did not want her body touched by strangers. She asked to be wanded, but that was refused. She said she would consent to be patted down, but did not want her breasts touched. That was refused. Police threw her on the ground, hand cuffed her, and dragged her about 25 feet in the airport in front of other passengers. What is even more galling than all this, is that two other women passengers were interviewed and said they were sorry for the woman, but these things are necessary to keep us safe. Those two women are not worthy of their American citizenship! People like that make it easy for power hungry tyrants to impose tyranny on the rest of us. Read the news account here.

These are clearly acts of intimidation meant to pressure citizens to quietly accept tyranny at the hands of government officials. If our members of Congress do not take action quickly, we will continue the descent to despotism. Congress must abolish, or at least de-fund if abolition cannot immediately be accomplished , the Department of Homeland Security. This department was unwisely created by the Bush administration, is being abused by the Obama administration, and needs to be eliminated. Its very existence is a threat to citizens exercising their rights. Apparently, it is also NOT much of threat to the people it is supposed to be protecting us against. It is both a dangerous and useless organization for an America that wants to stay free.

China's Berserker: North Korea

2010-12-14T06:08:00.000-07:00

North Korea is threatening nuclear war against South Korea. North Korea has been supplying dangerous regimes like Iran with equipment for building nuclear weapons and missile systems to deliver them. North Korea is an economic basket case sustained largely by whatever it can extort from free countries and commerce with China (North Korean labor is even cheaper than Chinese labor). With governments of free countries finally cutting back on extortion payments, China wields the biggest influence over North Korea of any government because of the financial support it provides and the military protection it extends. It is unlikely that anything of international consequence is done by North Korea without at least tacit Chinese approval.

The recent artillery attacks by North Korea are just the latest provocation to test the will of South Korea and the United States. The US and South Korea have conducted joint military exercises in response, but they did not include a punishing reprisal of any kind. If the penalty for aggression is just being forced to watch enemy ships sailing in the vicinity of your country and enemy aircraft flying near your country, then you are not being forced to pay a significant price for aggressive, murderous acts. Unless some North Korean Navy submarines were secretly sunk or some other significant military action has been successfully carried out in secret, the US and South Korea failed the test. Such failure only enhances China's influence in the region and weakens US influence. China lets loose its berserker, the crazy, belligerent North Korean military, to test, and ultimately weaken, the United States.

North Korea, if left to its own devices, would economically implode and starve itself to death. No military action would be necessary to neutralize it except to contain it as it considered military action as a last desperate option to gain some wealth from South Korea and stave off imminent collapse. However, China provides enough for North Korea to subsist on as long as it proves useful as a source of cheap labor and, more importantly, a painful thorn in the side of the United States.

I hate to say I told you so, but I did.

North Korea - Asian Bully

2010-06-09T21:43:00.002-07:00

After confirming that North Korea made an unprovoked attack on a South Korean naval vessel and killed many of the crew, I think it is obvious that South Korea and the United States are being tested. It looks like this act of war will be unanswered which lowers the status of the United States in the eyes of most of the world.

Over 7 years ago, I suggested how North Korea should be dealt with. Because the situation has deteriorated since then, more drastic action would probably be required to avert continued aggression by North Korea.

Reflections on Honduras

2009-07-05T15:24:00.000-07:00

As more news comes out about the "coup" in Honduras, I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the current government that removed former President Zelaya from power.

Nobody disputes that Zelaya was trying to run an illegal referendum to allow himself to get re-elected President. The Honduran constitution does not allow a president to serve more than one term. As I understand it, that particular item in the constitution is not amendable in order to prevent the creation of a "President for Life" which is as big a problem in Latin American countries as military dictators.

Apparently, the Honduran courts and legislators decided that a president breaking the laws and trying to subvert their constitution and rule of law is someone no longer fit to hold office. They directed the military to arrest Zelaya and escort him out of the country. Perhaps, they should have just put him on trial, convicted him, and sent him to prison inside Honduras. The legislature elected an interim president to serve until after elections are held in November. This sounds more like a slightly disorderly removal from office for cause, and is definitely better than allowing Zelaya to establish a virtual dictatorship in order to maintain a facade of a legal, orderly process.

The day after our own Independence Day, we should respect the Honduran spirit of freedom that prompted members of their government to resist the tyrannical ambitions of their president and remove him from office. The world would be a better place if this happened more often.

Judging by the friends Zelaya keeps such as Ortega from Nicaragua, Castro from Cuba, and Chavez from Venezuela, we should not be seeking to return him to power. The last thing the United States needs is another Marxist dictator in our hemisphere.

As for the Organization of American States (OAS) putting pressure on Honduras, that is ridiculous for two reasons. First, the OAS does nothing when leftist dictators restrict civil rights, imprison people for political activity, and seize private property. This has become an issue for the OAS only because a leftist has been harmed. Second, the only country that has a major military and economic impact in the OAS is the United States, so US policy - or lack thereof - is a major driver of OAS policy.

It is obvious that Barak Obama has more support for anti-American dictators than for pro-American elected leaders. This has been made evident in the Middle East. Cuba, still under a dictatorship, is being admitted to the OAS. Chavez is greeted warmly by Obama. Also, the corrupt election and generally evil government in Iran has drawn only the mildest rebuke from Obama for rigging an election and gunning down protesters in the streets. The OAS would not be pressuring Honduras without support from the Obama administration, and Obama has not come out and said that a President of a republic trying to exceed his authority is not entitled to keep his office.

Apparently, Obama does not think that allowing left wing presidents who exceed their constitutional authority to be removed from office is a good precedent to set.

North Korea Revisited

2009-06-08T19:37:00.002-07:00

In view of continued North Korean nuclear weapons development, missile testing, and the recent arrest and conviction (kidnapping) of two American women journalists, I think my proposal made over 5 years ago bears some review.

If the United States does not demonstrate that it is serious about countering North Korean nuclear weaponry including long range missiles, we will have to face the consequences of other nations not being able to count on us for protection. This opens up the prospect of Japan and possibly other Far Eastern countries acquiring nuclear weapons for their own self defence. The only worse prospect would be currently pro-western countries in the Far East falling into either China's sphere of influence or paying tribute to North Korea to avoid being attacked.

In essence, by supplying food, oil, and money to North Korea in exchange for saying they will limit development of nuclear weapons and long range rockets, the United States has been paying tribute to North Korea already. This is a shameful state of affairs.

Now that the North Koreans have kidnapped two Americans, they will demand more tribute from the United States. The proper response is to pay nothing and take military action such as a blockade until they agree to our requirements. If needed, we should launch military attacks to destroy their nuclear capabilities and missile launch facilities.

North Korea will only respect raw power. Being friendly is just considered a sign of weakness.

The lessons of North Korea also apply to a great extent to Iran. We have already seen that failure to control North Korea has led Iran to have only contempt for US and allied attempts to control Iran's nuclear ambitions and military activity through surrogates in the Middle East. If the United States does not act firmly in a short period of time, much of the world, including the United States eventually, will fall under the control of evil people or we will fight a war of greater breadth and ferocity than World War 2 with widespread destruction and death.

History is not kind to decent people who fail to keep evil people weak and under control.

Freedom is Endangered

2009-05-13T07:57:00.002-07:00

Of the two major political parties, the Republican Party is the one closest to advocating for freedom from government control. Democrats consistently support higher taxes and more regulations to permit government officials to control our lives. They support political (group) decision making over empowering individuals to make their own decisions. We have come to expect Democrats to support increasing the power of government at the expense of individual freedom.

It is sad and dangerous, though, when Republicans support government power over individual freedom. If the Republican Party is not strong in its stand for freedom and individual rights against the power of government, then our Republic is in danger of deteriorating into a (we hope benevolent) despotism because people distrust or forbid individuals to run their own lives make their own decisions.

Over the past few years, I have encountered Republicans who believe these things:

The food school children eat should be controlled by government to avoid obesity on the grounds that taxpayers will have to pay for health care issues caused by obesity and poor nutrition.
Parents are less qualified than government officials to determine how their children should be educated and which schools they should attend.
Freedom of the press should be restricted for businesses printing a message considered offensive.
Private businesses should be forced to allow their employees to not perform assigned tasks if they morally object to them without any financial consequence to the employee or compensation to the employer.

This is why those beliefs threaten freedom:

This implies that the government owns people as chattel instead of people being free. The solution to this problem is to eliminate taxpayer funded health care and allow individuals to take care of themselves and encourage private charities to take care of those who can't. Government should be a health care provider of last resort. Republicans (especially legislators) who don't get that are buying into a Socialist agenda instead of trying to combat Socialism and restore freedom.
Opposition to school vouchers, for example, on the grounds that government officials are better able to decide how a child should be educated than the parents means that we don't trust private citizens to be free. First, it does not make sense that parents would not be able to better determine what is best for their children more effectively than government officials who probably won't even know or love the child even a fraction as much as the parents. More importantly, though, if parents are not competent enough to decide how their children should be educated, how will they be deemed intelligent enough to select the government officials in charge of their children's education? This contempt for individual decision making and respect for government decision making is a long term prescription for despotism.
Promoting laws against speech or writing against a group supported by Republicans undermines the entire moral principle used to object to "hate speech" rules and other provisions used to restrict freedom of expression against those supported by liberals. Freedom means people are free to say stupid and offensive things. It also means we are free to ignore those people and not support them either morally or financially. Republicans passing laws to prohibit expression instead of exercising their rights to either ignore or counter that expression accepts the despotic notion pushed by liberals that there is "acceptable" and "unacceptable" speech and that government, rather than individuals exercising their own judgment independently, should make those decisions.
Supporting special rights for a special class of people Republicans like accepts that the liberal notion that government should interfere in the private sector to regulate the employer/employee relationship instead of allowing employers and employees to negotiate mutually acceptable arrangements. Accepting the idea that employees are powerless against employers and cannot find another job more suited to their lifestyle and personal preferences is to accept the notion that employees are not free, independent, self determining people. When liberals do this, conservatives generally object. If conservatives do it, then they lose the moral justification for objecting when liberals do it. This puts employees and employers in a role of being vassals with special privileges and limitations granted by the state instead of independent, free agents who can make their own decisions about how to earn a living or run a business. As when liberals do these things, conservatives erode freedom, which is important to generally protecting all of our rights, when they push a particular agenda that restricts freedom for a "good" cause.

We know that Democrats do not accept the notion of individual freedom. They accept that favored classes should be free to use the resources of less favored classes without freely given consent. That is, they accept freedom for themselves at the expense of others who do not agree with them. The only other major political party is the Republican Party.

If the Republican Party and Republican elected officials will not firmly stand for freedom, then the existence of the United States as a free society is in serious danger.

Arizonans are Taxed Enough

2009-04-28T07:23:00.004-07:00

This is a response to this opinion piece in the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix.

In his opinion piece, “Taxes Far More Than Necessary Evil,” Rabbi Strauss demonstrates why he should stick to his “day job” as a synagogue spiritual leader. His writing on both Halacha and tax issues is filled with misinformation and erroneous reasoning. Rabbi Strauss cites the tax to support the Mishkan as proof that taxes have been a legitimate part of Jewish life since we left Egypt. Of course, that was a poll tax that was imposed on every adult male regardless of income or wealth. He goes on to immediately say that Jewish sources tell us that there is an obligation to provide universal education and health care for the poor – using taxes to finance it. His Jewish sources must be liberal Jewish editorial writers since the Torah requires only supporting Torah education rather than general education – and only in cases where the family is unable to afford it. According to our tradition, parents have the the primary responsibility for educating their children and teaching them a trade. Does anyone remember the story of Hillel peeking into a Torah study session from outside and getting sick from exposure to the elements because he could not afford the admission fee to the session? He was then admitted for free, but the “tradition” was that people should pay for even their own Torah education except in cases of financial need. Even Hillel did not demand admission to the lecture as an entitlement. In fact, the amount our tradition says should be allocated to support the poor is 10% of income, and the sages recommended limiting contributions to 20% of income to avoid having the donor become impoverished. If there were additional “needs,” they would not be funded. There is no open ended requirement to support limitless needs of others.

Further, regarding the issues of education funding and taxation, there are other inaccuracies. Arizona has two funds for education: Capital and Operating. When comparing spending to other states to get a rank of 48 in spending, the Capital spending is excluded. When that is added back in, Arizona is ranked 24. Also, student enrollment has increased about 10.7% over the past 4 years. In the same period, state funding for education increased 40%, the number of school administrators increased 17.9%, managers increased 27.6%, total superintendent salaries increased 49%, number of teachers increased 13.7%, and average teacher salaries increased 16.5% to $49,331. In addition, during that time, school districts, while complaining about a shortage of money, have, since 2003, been increasing their cash reserves by $1 billion to $2.3 billion as of June 2008. This information is from Arizona Department of Education reports. Arizona taxpayers do not need to be further burdened with taxes to support bureaucratic empires built within the state's school districts. Arizona's students need the money to be spent wisely on educating students rather than supporting bureaucrats and building up their slush funds.

Regarding the tuition scholarship tax credit, those credits actually save the state money by shifting students from public schools where the cost per pupil to government is at least $8500 per year to private schools at a cost to taxpayers far less than that.

More taxation is not the answer. Higher taxes drive away productive people and businesses that support our communities. We need more freedom and less government to improve education and to foster economic growth that will make everyone better off.

Gaza Garbage

2009-01-07T22:25:00.004-07:00

The conflict in the Gaza Strip between Hamas and Israel is being covered as if Israel is callously killing civilians while Hamas is just trying to protect its population against ruthless Israeli invaders. This is a horrible distortion of the truth and is just the opposite of what is really going on.

For months, Israelis have been subject to Hamas artillery attacks that have threatened the southern third of Israel. Hamas has been trying to kill civilians - it deliberately targets them. In contrast, Israel has targeted Hamas leaders and soldiers to protect itself from attack. Civilians have been killed as a consequence of these counter-attacks, but that is largely because Hamas conducts its "military" operations from civilian areas in order to use civilians as human shields.

Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Even after Israel conceded territory to the Palestinians and gave Gaza autonomy, they used this opportunity to increase attacks on Israel instead of build their economy and establish peace with Israel.

No country can be expected to accept constant deadly military attacks and just let the aggressors get a pass. When the United States was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, we fought until the Japanese unconditionally surrendered. During this war, the United States killed many civilians as part of its military operations against Japan. Cities were attacked to destroy industrial capacity and to demoralize the Japanese population. Those in our country who condemn Israel for doing much less against civilians are either hypocrites, ignorant, or both.

For those unfortunate Palestinians in Gaza, they have difficult, stark choices. They can allow themselves to be used as human shields by Hamas, they can actively support Hamas, they can move out (maybe), or they can help Israel defeat Hamas. Choosing either of the first two alternatives makes them legitimate targets either as collateral damage by accepting Hamas or as primary targets for supporting Hamas. The latter two alternatives are the only ones that justify Israel actively trying to not attack them.

War is horrible. Getting it over with as quickly as possible with the defeat of evil national leaders such as Hamas is the most important thing to do to minimize overall casualties - particularly over the long run.

Israel should press for unconditional surrender by Hamas and keep killing those in Hamas or supporting Hamas until that occurs. Military action should be ferocious and without mercy. Showing mercy to Hamas now is NOT merciful to those subject to Hamas' artillery attacks or to the human shields they continually surround themselves with. The longer it takes to subdue Hamas, the more human shields they will be using.

Israel will probably not press for victory over Hamas like it should, but aggeressively pursing victory would be the right course of action for Israel and the rest of the civilized world.

Bailout Blues

2008-12-31T23:35:00.002-07:00

The government bailouts of various companies is pushing us toward socialism. The federal government has purchased equity stakes in many financial companies and is "investing" in GM and Chrysler as well.

Given the notable financial successes of the federal government such as Social Security, Medicare, and the Federal Budget, I think that Congress and the President are the least well suited institutions to decide how to invest capital even if we accept that it is a proper function of government. There is only one government institution well suited to and experienced with handling financially distressed companies and individuals: Bankruptcy Court. Through bankruptcy, the financially failing companies and individuals can either restructure their debt or liquidate assets and discharge debt in order to get a fresh start. This would allow assets to be properly valued quickly and would allow the economy to improve again based on realistic valuations of assets. The bailouts simply postpone the day of reckoning and maintain uncertainty about the true value of assets in financially failing companies' portfolios.

The massive government intervention in the economy is threatening us with further economic deterioration and loss of individual liberty. The current bailouts assume that the Congress and Treasury Department are better at managing and restructuring bankrupt companies than Bankruptcy Courts and are better judges of how to invest taxpayer money than individual taxpayers. Neither of these assumptions is reasonable. That means the bailouts will bring more government control since investments will need political approval as well as investor approval (government will dictate rules as a condition for financial support just as is done to states with road construction funds) and that we taxpayers will be forced to participate in the US Bailout Mutual Fund instead of choosing our own investments.

These bailouts need to stop. The existing bailouts should be reversed as quickly as possible.

2007-05-14T13:01:00.000-07:00

Education Priorities: Can Legislators Decide Better than Parents?

This article from the East Valley Tribune, http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/89390, headlined Bills aim to cut tech school aid published in the May 10, 2007 issue of the paper perfectly illustrates why Arizona needs school vouchers. The issue is education funding for vocational education in certain high schools. Some state legislators are looking to cut some vocational education funding in order to achieve budget objectives. The legislators are doing this as they prioritize various education and other spending proposals.

I have no objection to legislators cutting government spending, but this seems more a matter of deciding which programs to spend on rather than reducing overall spending. I have no particular knowledge of the value provided by the vocational education programs compared to other government education spending. However, I would suggest that this is the case with most legislators and for many taxpayers. In fact, for an individual student, the people probably best qualified to make this determination are his/her parents.

The notion that education priorities are better set in the state legislature or the state education department rather than by parents individually making decisions based on the needs of their children is obviously ridiculous. If you substitute food, health care, or clothing for education in the previous sentence, this point becomes even clearer. With voucher programs, the decisions about how to prioritize education spending on various programs would be directly made by parents of the students. Who can seriously assert that children are better off by having their parents delegate to the state legislature (or even a local school board) how education money for their children is spent rather than personally controlling the expenditures and/or hiring schools that they think best for their children?

If there are concerns about cost control in vocational schools, a voucher system will allow parents to shop for schools that will provide the best value for their children. This will encourage appropriate cost control while avoiding false economies that cause less money to be saved than the educational value lost. Private markets would establish reasonable cost/quality combinations that would provide the best value to students. The appropriate mix of education programs - college prep, vocational, or other options - would be provided based on what students and their parents preferred. This would not require any special involvement by the state government to establish funding priorities. Government decisions would be confined to just the overall spending level rather than funding particular programs.

When issues come up at the state legislature, the first instinct is often to decide what the best answer to the question at hand is. Unfortunately, this means that people have already accepted the assumption that government should be making the decision. If we really want what is best, though, we need to train ourselves to step back from the particular issues.

The first instinct of free citizens in a free society should be to ask why an issue should be decided by the state legislature in the first place instead of by voluntary, individual decisions by citizens.

CPS Reform Proposal

2007-05-07T14:34:00.001-07:00

CPS Reform Proposal

Purpose:

Improvement in accountability and cost effectiveness of CPS for the benefit of the public is the primary goal of this proposal. It seeks to allow this by privatizing the management of the CPS functions and allowing direct voter input for selecting the amount of services that will be provided by each contracting organization. By requiring voters to vote for percentages of business to go to each contractor, better contractor performance will result in more state business going to the superior contractors. By requiring each voter to vote for at least two contractors, we still ensure that other contractors will be in place to provide cost and quality competition.

Time Frames:

CPS will contract all routine case management work to 3-5 qualified independent organizations on a bi-annual basis corresponding to the election cycle for state legislators. Investigation work will also be contracted out to 3-5 qualified independent organizations on a bi-annual basis. Investigation and routine case management will be handled separately.

Contract administration:

Separate sets of contracts will be awarded for Investigation and Routine Case Management. There will be separate processes for awarding those contracts. Investigation and Case Management are fundamentally different businesses, so their contracting will be done separately. Also, separating Investigations from Case Management will reduce incentives to cause investigations to result in a need for routine follow-up management.

Organizations will have to be certified by DES as qualified. This will include posting a bond to sufficiently cover costs due to breach of contract and liability incurred during performance of the contract. No organization will be qualified if any of the owners, directors, or officers were an owner, director, or officer in an organization dismissed from CPS contracting in the past 4 years. In addition, there will be other qualifications such as passing criminal background checks, no previous felony convictions, etc. appropriate to ensure that contracting organizations will be run by people of good character. Further, an organization must be able to handle up to 30% of the estimated case load through the use of employees and subcontractors.

All contracting activities including bids and voting will be done separately for each county. This has some advantages over state-wide contracting. This will improve accountability because citizens in the county being served will have a better idea of how the companies are performing in their county than in the rest of the state. Competition will be improved because smaller firms can compete in individual counties without having to be able to work in the entire state. If more firms are eligible to bid, then the overall level of competition will increase. Also the different costs structures of operating in different counties will become apparent and provide opportunities to identify additional ways to reduce costs. Since the provision of CPS services probably has no economies of scale beyond the county level of operation (and probably has diseconomies), more decentralized execution of policy could produce additional savings through more efficient administration.

All qualified contractors, including faith based organizations, can submit a bid for handling each randomly assigned case. The contractors submitting the 5 lowest bids will be selected for contracting. The bid may include a limit to a percentage of caseload greater than or equal to the minimum caseload in 10% increments. The 2 lowest bidders will have their pay rates set to the rate of the third lowest bidder. This is done to encourage low cost operators to bid as low as possible while allowing them some profit. Higher bidders will be paid the rates they bid in order to ensure they do not lose money by providing services at a lower price than they offered. The contractors will have to be specified before the primary election for legislators and will be placed on a ballot at the same general election state legislators are voted on.

Elections with proportional voting will help keep contractors accountable to the public. Each contractor will have a ballot item for each 10% of caseload the contractor is willing to take up to 80%. Each voter will be required to cast exactly 10 votes in this election to determine the percentage of funding that will go to each contractor. Any under or over votes will not be counted. Overall funding to each contractor will be based on their percentage of total counted votes received. If either of the two lowest vote-getting contractors gets less than 5% of the votes, that contractor will be excluded and their votes will be discarded; the percentages will then be recalculated based on remaining votes. Because the percentage will apply to funding rather than caseload, lower cost providers will actually get slightly more cases than their vote percentage because their fee per case is lower.

Investigator and Case Management contractors will be selected on separate ballots.

Cases in the following 2 calendar years will be allocated randomly to ensure that each contractor gets funding proportional to their vote percentage.

The role of CPS will be to administer the case allocation and monitor performance of the contractors. CPS will also do a routine follow-up of all cases investigated when no case management is deemed necessary to ensure there is no change in status over a 6 month period. Any status change requiring an investigation will be referred to an investigation contractor different from the contractor doing the prior investigation.

One way that costs will be reduced is that companies will have an incentive to save money to increase profits rather than waste the money at the end of the fiscal year with a use it or lose it mentality. High profits will send a powerful message to other companies that they should try entering the market in the next contract cycle. This will drive down prices while maintaining quality acceptable to voters. In effect, the profits from successful operations will translate into savings in future contract cycles because bids will be lower.

Responsible Voter Experiments

2003-05-15T23:44:00.001-07:00

Responsible Voter Experiments
by Howard Levine
May 15, 2003

One factor more than any that encourages irresponsible government is letting people vote without having to do anything to prove that they are responsible citizens who have a stake in the future of the community. The only significant requirement for a citizen to vote is being at least 18 years old. People who have not demonstrated any sense of responsibility in their lives are not likely to make the best civic minded voters with a long-term view.

There are some constitutional issues regarding restricting voting rights. States cannot restrict voting based on age (if 18 or older), race, sex, or payment of taxes. The only restrictions that are constitutionally legitimate without any affect on a state's seats in the House of Representatives is preventing felons from voting. Any other restrictions may be constitutional, but would result in the state having its population reduced by the number of voters who were made ineligible to vote for purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives.

Of course, states with only 3 electoral votes have nothing to lose! They are fertile ground for experiments with restricting voting to people who demonstrate their responsibility and/or ability for being concerned with the long-term health of their community.

Here are some interesting ideas that could be tried without violating the US Constitution.

Only allow owners of real estate to vote. People who own property in a community clearly have a long-term interest in the health of that community. Their wealth is tied to the health of the community because they cannot move real estate to another location. People who do not own real estate (renters and dependents), would not be allowed to vote because they do not have their wealth tied to where they live.

Perhaps only allowing people who have successfully served 2 years of active military service or 6 years actively participating in the Military Reserve or National Guard to vote would be interesting. All of these people have demonstrated that they are willing to put their lives on the line in defense of the country. Even though most will not face any serious risks during their military service, they have no way of knowing that in advance. By volunteering and serving successfully, they have demonstated a solid commitment to their country. People who have not served in the military may be very decent people, but they will not have proven their commitment as military veterans will have.

Requiring voters to pass a test on the US Constitution and their state constitution would ensure that voters actually understand how the government is supposed to work. This test would not have to be terribly difficult; it could be administered like the written portion of drivers license exams. The purpose would be to ensure a basic working knowledge of government just as driver tests only ensure basic knowledge of traffic laws. If you are either unwilling or unable to grasp the very basics of how the government is supposed to work, why should you be voting for people to run that government?

The last idea is to allow only married couples who have a child that they either conceived or adopted together to vote. After the last of their children have lived as their children for 18 years (this covers adopted children so we avoid a cottage industry of 17 year olds being "adopted" just to qualify the adopting parents to vote a year later), they retain their right to vote for the rest of their lives as long as they stay married. If the marriage ends because of death, the widow or widower will retain voting rights as if the marriage continued. This gives people with the most important stake in the future, their children, the right to vote. In addition, the couple must prove their loyalty, worthiness, and good judgment by staying married. These voters will, on average, be very responsible compared to the general population because they are having at least one child in a responsible way and are demonstrating a commitment to family values that are likely to produce a reasonably well raised next generation.

Of course, some combination of these qualifications could be used.

It would be interesting to see how states with 3 electoral votes would change if they adopted any of these rules. Perhaps states with more than 3 electoral votes would find the benefits high enough to adopt some of these rules even at the cost of House of Representative seats.

Unemployment Self-Insurance

2003-01-14T23:12:00.001-07:00

Unemployment Self-Insurance
By Howard Levine
January 9, 2003

President Bush has made an interesting proposal for unemployment insurance funds that would give unemployed workers $3000 to spend for expenses related to finding a new job. In order to encourage a faster, more economical job search, any funds remaining would be available to the unemployed person in cash after he found a job and held it for a minimum period. I think the objective of giving people incentives to find a job and get off unemployment benefits is good, but I think this could be accomplished more efficiently with less tax money while still helping people handle economy related job transitions (AKA layoffs).

The current unemployment insurance (UI) program is employer based rather than employee based. Experience rating with unemployment insurance claims is used to determine UI tax rates for employers based on the company claims rate. Ultimately, however, the worker, by choice of jobs, work habits, training, and ability has more control over his employability than the company he works for. There are also incentive issues that might encourage low wage employees who want paid time off to try to get laid off without getting fired for a cause that would make them ineligible for UI benefits. Plus, if a worker is laid off, there is more incentive to delay accepting a job because UI benefits are available at no cost to the individual unemployed worker. This is a problem the $3000 UI account is designed to help solve.

There is a much simpler solution to the UI benefit problem that preserves individual choice and keeps costs down for taxpayers. UI taxes currently paid by employers on behalf of their employees could be directly funded by employees with the money from each employee going into his individual UI account. Since the UI tax is actually paid by workers indirectly because employers take UI taxes into account when setting wages and salaries, this will not hurt employees. Employees will simply pay directly rather than indirectly. Benefits would be financed through self insurance supplemented with government loans up to a specified limit, say $5000, available to people who overdraw their accounts. Interest of 1% over the short term rate for government bonds and notes could be charged to provide some incentive for keeping the debt low and paying it off as fast as possible. Positive balances could earn interest in money market accounts backed by government or high rated corporate bonds and notes.

Workers would pay a 10% “tax” on their earnings. This “tax” would be used to make contributions to their UI accounts and pay off any loans associated with their UI accounts. If a worker has accumulated a sufficient balance, say $25000, in his UI account, he would be able to withdraw excess money to use for other purposes. Upon retirement, the worker could withdraw all of the funds for personal use. Of course, any debts would have to be collected from Social Security and other retirement benefits in order to avoid giving people with UI debt an incentive to take a taxpayer funded “vacation” before retiring.

With this approach, people would not have to apply for UI benefits. They would simply have to show some evidence of unemployment such as reduced contributions to their account. The stringency of the documentation would depend upon the balance in the worker’s UI account. For accounts having a balance over $10000, little documentation would be necessary. A balance less than $10000 would require more stringent checking. Having to borrow money would require the most stringent documentation. Of course, some administrative rules would have to be put in place to keep people from draining their accounts when they are employed full time. Also, there could be limits on the amount of money withdrawn each week or month as well as a check to see if money is coming into the account through payroll deductions. However, the rules should not be too much of a problem if people know they will get their money back as they pass the $25000 level in their UI accounts and when they retire. Since workers will be self insuring themselves, they will have appropriate incentives to find a new job as quickly as possible, keep costs down, and use their money wisely.

There would be some costs for monitoring the accounts, but they could be administered by private companies much like IRAs and 401K plans are today. There would also be some costs for loan defaults, but that should be much less than the cost of supplemental UI benefits paid out currently.

A system like this would provide the right incentives for everyone, encourage productivity, keep costs down, and reduce government spending. It provides a safety net that is consistent with freedom and respect for private property.

What to do with North Korea

2003-01-14T23:08:00.002-07:00

What to do with North Korea
By Howard Levine
January 1, 2003

The decision by the North Korean government, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) to dispense with UN inspections of its nuclear facilities and apparently attempt to acquire more material for nuclear weapons is a direct affront to the world community and a genuine risk to the safety of pro-Western nations.

First, the DPRK violated an agreement with the United States (US) in which the DPRK was to stop its nuclear weapons program in exchange for substantial amount of fuel oil and food from the US. The DPRK ignored its obligations and accepted the aid from the US. This, of course, is a good reason not to make further agreements with the DPRK as a way of preventing them from having nuclear weapons. The DPRK does not honor its agreements unless they are enforced by the armed forces of its enemies. Any negotiations not based on actual use of force will not be effective.

Second, with its recent missile tests, the DPRK has shown that it is able to hit targets in South Korea, Japan, and, soon, parts of the United States with nuclear weapons. Of course, any area of the world is vulnerable to nuclear attack if the DPRK provides its weapons to terrorists, sends commandos equipped with nuclear weapons from a submarine, or simply ships some bombs in a freighter. The DPRK has demonstrated an ability to infiltrate commandos onto foreign soil before – especially in South Korea and Japan. It is clear that DPRK nuclear weapons are a threat to all Western countries including the US. Since the US has military forces facing DPRK forces across the Demilitarized Zone in Korea, the US may be at greater risk than most other Western nations except Japan and South Korea.

Third, President Bush has (rightly) declared the DPRK to be part of the Axis of Evil. Given this high level policy statement, the reputation of the US is at stake. To ignore this DPRK action would be an admission by the US that its policies against international terrorists and their state sponsors will not be effectively implemented. For example, if, in 1941, the US had decided to only fight Japan and just use tough talk and ineffective negotiations against the Germans and Italians, Japan would probably have been defeated, but Europe (including the USSR), North Africa, and the Middle East would probably have been under Nazi control. The US would probably have had to fight an even bigger war against the Nazis when they started directly attacking the US than the very substantial effort required during WWII. During WWII, it was not in the US interest to fight only one part of an evil axis and let the other parts strengthen themselves and become more difficult adversaries later. At this time in history, the same is true. Action against Iraq appears imminent and is long over-due. This does not mean that action should not be taken against other parts of the Axis of Evil – Iran and the DPRK. In fact, the lessons of history teach us that effective action should be taken as swiftly as possible.

The only realistic options open to the US for dealing with a developing nuclear threat from the DPRK are to try some form of containment policy or engage in military operations to neutralize the nuclear threat. Containment depends upon our ability to persuade other nations to participate in containment and economic isolation of the DPRK. More importantly, it depends on the leadership of the DPRK being rational enough to avoid using nuclear weapons. Given the aggressiveness of the DPRK and that it is a dictatorship, assuming rationality is not safe or realistic. The DPRK is a rogue nation.

Military operations raise the threat of a major war on the Korean peninsula. If such a war broke out, casualties would probably be very high; hundreds of thousands or even millions would probably be killed. However, the US and South Korea would ultimately be able to push the DPRK forces back across the Demilitarized Zone and maybe even farther if no other countries intervened. The cost in both human suffering and infrastructure would be tremendous on both sides. Therefore, major military operations are not what one would expect from a rational DPRK.

Targeted US military attacks against DPRK nuclear sites including any sites used to create fissile materials, assemble nuclear weapons, or develop delivery systems for nuclear weapons will probably be the most effective solution to the problem of a DPRK nuclear threat. Although there are substantial risks with this course of action, they are not as great as may be commonly supposed. If the nuclear weapons capabilities of the DPRK are eliminated, then a serious nuclear threat to the safety and peace of the world will have been eliminated. If the DPRK is rational, it will not launch a major attack against South Korea or any other country because it will suffer devastation even if it is not completely destroyed or even if it even makes some territorial gains against South Korea. If the DPRK is not rational, then it might launch an attack against South Korea which would be horrible, but would probably result in a US/South Korean victory. However, an irrational DPRK with nuclear weapons would probably use its nuclear weapons at some point in order to achieve a political objective. In this case, there would be horrible casualties and there would also be a war fought against a DPRK with a much larger nuclear arsenal than it currently has. Essentially, a targeted attack designed to destroy DPRK nuclear weapon capabilities may trigger a major war immediately. If such a war broke out, it would be horrendous, but not nearly as horrible as a war that would be likely to occur in the near future. If war did not break out, then the world will be a bit safer at a relatively low price.

Therefore, there is no real net disadvantage to a targeted attack against DPRK nuclear weapons facilities, but there is the potential benefit of denying nuclear weapons to a rogue state. If necessary, the US could fight two wars simultaneously though the military would be stretched to its limits while engaged in both conflicts. The time to strike is sooner rather than later. Time is not on our side!

Draft Bad – Military Service Good

2003-01-13T15:01:00.001-07:00

Draft Bad – Military Service Good
By Howard Levine
December 28,2002

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) called for a universal draft as a way of making sure that people from all socio-economic backgrounds serve the country equally. He feels that this would make Americans less hawkish because the children of the rich and powerful - not just the poor - would be at risk in a war. This is a typical Democratic diversion tactic! He is trying to oppose war on Iraq based on the composition of our armed forces rather than on the fundamental issues of the situation. His draft proposal, though not relevant concerning war against Iraq, does bring up some interesting issues.

It is telling that a Democrat would be in favor of universal conscription rather than a voluntary solution based on civic rewards for service rather than criminalization of people who do not wish to serve in the military or other parts of the government that would use conscripts. Conscription is the ultimate form of taxation; Democrats have already been trying to conscript all productive people by taxing and regulating them. A draft is simply an extension of Democrat policy to control the lives of Americans and have them do what Democrats think is right regardless of what the individuals think. Charles Rangel says he wants to “… give everyone the opportunity to serve the country and protect liberty …” when he is actually talking about forcing everyone to serve the country in a way that he, in conjunction with the rest of Congress, specifies.

If the real issue is making sure that politicians and policy makers have an understanding of the risks of military operations for the people who will be fighting the wars, there are other approaches that can be taken. For example, we could have a constitutional amendment restricting the right to vote and hold public office to people honorably discharged after at least 2 years of active duty or 6 years of reserve or National Guard military service. This restriction could also apply to appointed positions including any positions requiring confirmation by the Senate. We would then have voters and government officials who would understand military risks and would be able to empathize with the military personnel currently engaged in the defense of the country. They would understand the risks of both action and inaction. This would solve the problem raised by Rep. Rangel concerning any possible disconnect between voters, civilian government leadership, and the military.

This solution allows voluntary participation. For those who don’t participate or qualify, they will simply not be able to play a role in the government either as a voter or public official. There is something to be said for having the government run by people who have made and fulfilled a serious commitment to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. It is one thing to take an oath; it is more important to prove that you are both willing and able to fulfill it. Since high school graduation and minimum performance on standardized tests is required for military enlistment, we would have the added advantage of voters meeting some minimum education requirements which might make elections revolve more around issues than slogans and prejudices. For any who think that this is unfair to minorities, it is important to point out that minorities are over-represented in the military with these standards currently in place. This is not an issue of race or national origin; it is an issue of having competent, responsible people who have demonstrated their commitment to the Constitution running the country.

There is justice and equity in this approach. After all, why should people who are able and willing to put their lives on the line to defend the country not have more say in how the country is run than those who can’t or won’t take on those obligations? This is real sweat equity investment in the political process.

Requiring voluntary military service in order to vote or hold public office is about as likely to become law as Rep. Rangel’s idea of universal conscription. However, a comparison of the two approaches does reveal the difference between those who truly value freedom as opposed to those who believe freedom means telling other people how they must live their lives.