Paying for Parties

Quick! How many of you are aware that the two old parties’ quadrennial conventions are subsidized by taxpayers? For you more conservative followers of the GOP are you now all-a-tingle knowing that your (borrowed) taxes were used, in part, for John McCain’s grand RINO march across the stage in St. Paul while fiscally responsible and possibly lamenting Democrats all pooled tax dollars for Barrack Obama’s triumphant grand eloquence before the pillars in Denver? How do you feel now…knowing you helped pay for both huge events? How can it be in a country that is so broke and nearly bankrupt, we subsidize the two political parties who have controlled the electoral and governing apparatus for 150 years? This travesty is compounded by the fact that that one third of the voters identify themselves as Republicans, one third as Democrats and the final third is split between minor parties and independents. So, why subsidize a grand march and booze-ridden blowout for a party or any entity that represents a mere third of the voters? Also, the presidential nominees for both parties have usually been chosen via the primary and caucus process prior to the convention’s opening. The gripping national interest in the convention outcome is nonexistent….so, again, why should the taxpayers pay?

As a Libertarian, I am double-minded about this fiasco. If Big Brother is going to throw worthless cash around to benefit the national political system, some of those dollars should flow into the convention coffers of those of us who actually believe in the Constitution. But…my Libertarian principles prevent me from crying “for my fair share” because I truly desire Constitutional government, equity in government services and fiscal responsibility. This isn’t just about my political preferences, however, because so many voters self-categorize themselves as “independent.”  Independents have no convention, no nominating process and no structure for snookering the American people. Why can’t they have a huge party with the funny hats, rivers of lobbyist-provided booze and legions of hospitality suites… all provided by the taxpayers hard-earned money? You may not share my alarm and disgust that the two-party oligarchy dips into the public trough for their every four-year party parties, but the practice is not small “d” democrat nor small “r” republican. One party despotic states use the government’s resources to maintain power and crush opposition. The difference here in the United States is merely one of tone…not of practice. The two old parties and their buddy-buddy system have corrupted our government to the point that they believe they are entitled to do the Watsui, drink the Dom Perignon, and munch on broiled salmon at your expense.

Each of the fossilized controlling parties received $18 million dollars for their 4-day bashes. In the grand scheme of government waste 18 million is but mist in a bucket, but the principle of forcing United States taxpayers to underwrite a partisan convention, smacks of Soviet-style rule wherein one could not participate in the electoral process unless one belonged to “THE” party. In our case all taxpayers are required under penalty of law to shell out the fruit of their labor for ideologies, personalities and policies with which they may diametrically disagree. This is a free country, right?

This practice might not be so egregious if some semblance of equity were involved for those voters who object to the ruling duopoly. Just the opposite is true in many cases. For example the two old party career politicians have erected barriers and hurdles that make it nearly impossible for other representative parties to have ballot access. They claim these parties do not have much support ergo they haven’t earned a reasonable standard for ballot qualification. Clearly, our exalted careerist rulers are masters of circular reasoning: Minor parties cannot gain traction without appearing on the ballot, and they must have traction to meet the excessively restrictive criteria established by the duopolistic goons. The 156 years that the two ruling elites have held absolute power is not enough time. They need more time…just like Obama says does. The century and a half of deal-making, compromising and collusion have given us an ungovernable monstrosity in the halls of power.

If defunding sweetheart deals for the two tyrannical parties and allowing dissenters access to the process has an impact, what would it be? For one, some small savings would be achieved, and second, perhaps the career ruling elites may be forced to be more accountable because of their third-party challengers. Historically republicans run to the right in primaries then backtrack to the “mushy middle” for the general election. Democrats do the opposite, but the compromisers meet in the middle without very little distinction between them. Third-party candidates from the left and the right would encourage the two old party careerists to be more honest about their positions for fear of losing votes to a minor party. It’s time for the oligarchic duopoly to remove the pacifiers from their mouths, the tax-funded benefits from their party coffers, and the deal-making abuse of the people and our liberty. We have anti-trust laws, but they have exempted themselves. It’s standard operating procedure….sadly.

Comment:    cearlwriting@hotmail.com       or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Outsourcing Government

There is some discussion these days about the concept of privatizing government services. Government at all levels has grown too large. While never recognized as efficient, the bloated public sector has taken ineffective inefficiency to new heights of incompetency. Added to the many failures to perform are the spiraling costs associated with the government’s involvement in so many aspects of our lives. Privatization, therefore, has emerged from the closets and cloakrooms of power and is now considered a potential option for governments and taxpayers under siege. Hold your horses! Privatization as envisioned by some governmental entities is not the perfect answer. As a disciple of free market capitalism, I tremble as I make this assertion.

Do you have cable television service? Are you generally pleased with it, or are there times when you would rather go back to the forty-foot antenna with limited channels? Your cable provider usually is a private company, but they have a monopoly to provide the service within the jurisdiction of the entity who issues the contract. In other words, cable may be available from a private enterprise, but its monopolistic nature causes it to resemble a government agency in many respects. Some localities have similar arrangements for a number of other services such as water and sewer. Some states and local governments have contracted with private sector companies for the operation of jails or prisons. While personally I find these arrangements are better for the taxpayer than totally-run government agencies, they do not provide the greater level of savings that a truly competitive situation might.

Your cable company may be more responsive to your concerns than a wholly-owned government enterprise because they may be fearful about losing the contract, but their responsiveness may be merely incrementally better. If there were a private competitor who could assure you that they would provide quicker service and more channels at a similar cost, then you might change providers immediately. You would not be forced to wait until city council became dramatically disgruntled or sought a more lucrative kick-back package. Your choices, your desires are limited by the governmental unit’s deciding what is best for you and your neighbors…or for the politicians who make the decisions. So, I would argue that a private government endorsed monopoly may be marginally better than a government-run service, but falls short of the cost savings and benefits of a fully competitive environment. In addition there is the added factor of the Nanny city, the Nanny township, the Nanny county, the Nanny state, or BIG NANNY arbitrarily limiting your choices. True competition is an economic issue, but it is more fundamentally an issue of freedom.

Every act that permits government intrusion into our lives generates a further erosion of our liberty. Yes, it is important that we encourage and enable the private sector in areas that have been monopolized by government, but the true issue is liberty. If we turn over services and functions merely to save money or enhance service, we have some short-term gain to celebrate. If, however, we recapture our ability to choose for ourselves the service provider to use, then we have solidified our quest for freedom. Tiny steps, I know, but little victories can pave the way for larger accomplishments. Freedom can be regained by working from the “bottom up.” It is much easier to marshal support at the local level than it is to generate a broad-based statewide or national movement.

When you began to read this column, you probably had no inkling that cable television services and liberty would be linked without using the term “net neutrality.” My purpose was to illustrate that our freedoms have been usurped at every level of government. We should remember, however, that our Constitution specifically limits federal involvement in our daily affairs, and state and local oversights are to be decided by the citizens. The federal overreach has far exceeded its constitutional mandate, and state and local interventions have limited our liberty dramatically. It is time to return government to its designated role. It is time for the people to stand up, stand tall and stand firm for freedom.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com   or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

Hey, Buster!

Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt was characterized as a “trust buster.” The Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, and T.R. used the legislation to break up what he believed to be monopolistic enterprises. His social agenda drove him to attack businesses that in his view were exploiting workers and consumers because of their unfettered control of their respective market niches. Teddy’s progressive tendencies led him to ferret out industries and companies whom he suspected of unfair practices in the realms of labor and market practices. Some might argue that the decline of American economic power began in 1902 when Roosevelt initiated his trust busting. This column will not debate that issue, but will seek to extend the reasoning used by Roosevelt and his cohorts forward to the present time.

It has been advanced by some good government groups and ordinary citizens that Congress and other public officials should be subjected to the same laws as the rest of us. I submit, therefore, that antitrust legislation be included among the laws that should apply equally to the government and to the governed. The monopolistic tendencies of many government activities tend to encourage inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Just as in the private sector, the aggrieved parties are those who rely on the government service, and also, must pay for it through confiscatory taxation. When one is forced to underwrite an entity that is grossly incompetent without having the opportunity to seek a viable alternative, then one is, in essence, a captive of the under-performing monopoly. A consumer should possess the option of seeking another source or of having her/his funds returned for inadequate service.

What type of marketplace would we have if one commercial enterprise were allowed to dominate the market and write the rules? That, in essence, is what we are facing when a government monopoly exercises control over a market sector. It seems to me that it would be prudent to limit government dominance to those duties specifically described in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. There may be a case for defining the difference between government obligations and government monopoly. But for the sake of abbreviated argument, let’s restrict government monopolistic practices to the enumerated powers…duties, obligations. It follows, therefore, that every other monopolistic practice of the government exceeds its mandate and should be subject to antitrust remedies. We must caution here that government regulatory and rulemaking practices can, in effect, undermine competitors, so the antitrust prohibitions anticipated for government should also include legislative and regulatory restraints. As an aside, let me add that even in areas where government doesn’t compete with the private sector, certain commercial entities are given great latitude in the design of rules, legislation and regulation. This practice, in effect, creates a government endorsed monopoly which provides the appearance of an unfettered private sector but actually represents an unholy alliance between Big Brother and favored corporations.

While the effort to require political leaders to adhere to the same workplace rules as their constituency is laudable, it merely affects the perception of the politician as public servant. If we insist that the political class be bound by the same healthcare and pension plans as the rest of us, then certainly the field will be leveled somewhat…..but it’s a small field. The larger key for holding the government responsible for its excesses is to require that every law, rule and regulation outside the purview of the enumerated powers should apply equally to the government and the private sector. Maybe, just maybe, the insidious government monopoly in public education (aka: indoctrination) can be weakened, and we can hope to enjoy an informed electorate. Maybe.  

Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com   or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com