True Community

 | 

When Americans think of “community,” they imagine warm and snuggly things. The word conjures a host of wholesome associations. It reminds us of neighbors sharing loaves of home-baked bread, of children playing in a safe backyard, of grownups meeting face to face to solve problems with good, old-fashioned common sense. The term sounds very Currier and Ives. Until we step back and take a good, hard look at those who use it.

These days, it’s thrown around by people who seem uninterested in grownups solving their own problems. A more honest term for how we’re seen would probably be “herd.” It seems calculated to keep us bunched together too closely to remember that we are individuals. It’s the way our teachers used to speak to us in the third grade. If you put Currier and Ives into a blender with Lyndon B. Johnson and Mister Rogers, this is likely what you’d get.

We elected a president who touted his experience as a “community organizer.” He stands at the podium and lectures us about what’s best for us, as if we lacked the sense to figure that out for ourselves. The impression that unmistakably comes across is that he thought he was far smarter than any of those dolts in the “communities” he organized. And that as president, he is certain the voters are so stupid we don’t see that his own reelection — his glorious little career — is factored into every move he makes.

Recently, I bought a new computer. I’ve been very happy with it, because it does a lot of wonderful, whiz-bang things. But I am unfamiliar with some of its programs. I had a screenplay to write — something I hadn’t done since college — and I couldn’t figure out how to set up my document in the proper format.

I managed to figure it out by myself, except for one crucial detail. Geek Squad wouldn’t simply answer my question, but they’d access my system from headquarters and fix the problem themselves — for 60 bucks. I threw it out to some online groups, and kept getting people who would gladly give me an answer — in exchange for my credit card number. From “the community,” I must admit, I wasn’t feeling much love.

Are our government-anointed “community organizers” right? I began to wonder. Have we lost the capacity to solve even the simplest of problems without their guidance? A whole industry has arisen to do for us, for money, what we know in our guts we should be able to do for ourselves — or at least with the help of somebody who won’t charge us for it.

People resent this, but their resentment is often exploited by those who don’t believe in private industry. Devotees of the government collective cluck their tongues about the hucksters out there who’ll take our money to answer questions with which they might help us for free. But are they to blame for wanting payment because we lack the imagination to look for solutions we don’t have to pay for? If our stupidity and helplessness keeps a roof over their heads, is that their fault or ours?

Refusing to give up too easily, I went to the meeting of a group to which I belong — one of those voluntary associations we’re forever being told no longer exist. I asked my question to some friends before the meeting, and within minutes somebody provided an answer. Afterwards I went home, tried it out, and it worked. And I was not one penny poorer.

Community — the real deal — still exists. If we’re willing to trust it. What that means is that we must remember how to trust each other. The real community is us, not an organizing "leader." But we can only trust each other if we dare to trust ourselves. When we allow ourselves to be treated like sheep, we are ripe for plunder by wolves.

The best ideas still come, not from any central committee of self-appointed smarties, but from our friends, our neighbors, sometimes even our children, and ourselves. A little bit of resourcefulness, of self-reliance, of trust in the everyday folks we know, can save us a lot of cash. In the long run, it may save our freedom.

And here's an important point: those in government who claim they will solve our problems for us will not do it for free. That is always the assumption, when they insist on helping us. But it's never true. We will pay for everything we get — and often for things we don't get — in money, time, inconvenience, and anger. And it increasingly looks as if the price they’re demanding is our very souls.




Share This


Thoughts on Crony Capitalism

 | 

The Obama regime has become synonymous with the kind of crony capitalism that characterizes, say, Russia. Crony capitalism is a sort of faux capitalism found in a society where many citizens desire socialism but don’t want to embrace it openly, because of the disrepute into which socialism has fallen. The 20th century was the century of socialism, and it cost the lives of perhaps 150 million people and brought unrelieved poverty to the nations that succumbed to its siren call of “equality.”

Crony capitalism characterizes regimes, such as Vladimir Putin’s, that follow the collapse of overtly socialistic economic systems (which invariably die, sooner or later, whenever — as Dame Thatcher famously observed — they run out of other people’s money). It also characterizes regimes such as Obama’s that occur in countries where the elites want socialism but realize that they can’t openly sell it to the public in its naked form.

A crony capitalist regime is sustained by favorable economic feedback loops between the regime’s leaders and key, corrupt leaders in the “private” sector (such as business and labor organizations). The regime’s leaders award these favored business and labor leaders (the “cronies”) sweetheart contracts for governmental projects; arrange financing from the public purse or banks that are funded by the public but controlled by the regime; use regulatory and tax policies to reward their supporters and punish their competitors; and so on. The regime’s players are paid back by the corrupt private sector players in various ways: by cushy jobs given to the bureaucrats when they “retire” from “public service;” by favorable deals for buying homes or business franchises; by monetary bribes (campaign “contributions,” or — especially when the regime is located in a third-world cesspool, such as Uganda or Chicago — in cash). The regime thus increases its power, and is able to pay off more corrupt businesses.

It is all very convenient for the players, however inconvenient it may be for the ripped-off taxpayers and the honest businesspeople who are denied a level playing field.

The crony capitalism of the Obama regime comes in several major flavors — that is, the many industries it has corrupted or hijacked. Lately on display is its crony green capitalism. The regime has received massive financial support from various wealthy investors in so-called “green” energy technologies and from the major environmentalist groups. It has repaid them by doing its best to block domestic drilling for oil and gas, even as it pushes grotesquely inefficient wind and solar technologies. The crony green capitalism has been exposed to the light of public notice in the Solyndra case and others.

But we must not forget the regime’s crony car capitalism. It created Government Motors in a colossally corrupt bankruptcy that stiffed secured creditors and stockholders alike in favor of the UAW, a lavish supporter of the regime. This led to the waste of billions in taxpayer dollars, a huge tax preference given to GM and Chrysler to the disadvantage of Ford, the UAW being given obscenely unjust stakes in the new companies, and later to the singling out, by the regime’s secretary of transportation, of a competitor of Government Motors (Toyota) for harassment.

Crony capitalism is a sort of faux capitalism found in a society where many citizens desire socialism but don’t want to embrace it openly.

As a result, the UAW — which should have been decertified by its members for destroying the companies for which they worked — was given new life. Lately it has been portraying itself as a trustworthy companion to automakers, existing only to help improve worker morale. It has gotten some traction, amazingly, with a German automaker, Volkswagen.

The latest interesting wrinkle is that Ford felt compelled to pull a highly effective ad that implicitly criticized its American competitors for taking part in the corrupt bankruptcy deal.

Ford ran a series of ads that had actual customers telling what made them buy a Ford. What caused a flap was the testimony from a man named Chris McDaniel, who said:

I wasn’t going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government. I was going to buy from a manufacturer that’s standing on its own: win, lose, or draw. That’s what America is about is [sic] taking the chance to succeed and understanding when you fail that you gotta pick yourself up and go back to work. Ford is that company for me.

Not only does Chris McDaniel feel that way, but others do too. A Rasmussen poll recently revealed that nearly one in five Ford buyers chose Ford because they resented the government-manipulated bailout of its competitors. Nevertheless, the ad aroused fury in the sycophant media. Some even accused Ford of hypocrisy, because it had in the past accepted loans from the government and lobbied the government for support.

But that doesn’t pass the laugh test. The fact stands that Ford didn’t collude with the feds and the UAW to screw its creditors in a jury-rigged bankruptcy, while GM and Chrysler surely did.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the same critics of Ford’s alleged hypocrisy were conspicuously silent when GM ran ads in the wake of the Toyota brake hysteria, saying that GM cars were safer — thus hypocritically ignoring its own sorry record of recalls. These critics were also silent about GM’s attempt to get a class-action lawsuit dismissed, a suit by owners of Chevy Impalas wanting GM to honor its warranties. Considering the number of people crippled and killed over the decades by its own defective vehicles, GM was being hyper-hypocritical.

After Ford pulled its ad, Chris McDaniel honorably stuck to his guns. As he later put it,

I still stand by what I said, and that is, as Americans, we need to decide if we’re going to be run by a government or if we’re going to be run by free enterprise. That’s really the debate we are facing today. So I applaud Ford, still, to this day, for having the courage to put that ad on the TV and spur the debate.

Indeed, sir.

Now, an interesting theory has been aired by no less a writer than Daniel Howes, associate business editor for the Detroit News. He has suggested that Ford pulled its apt, accurate, and reasonable ad after a phone call from the White House expressing, well, discontent. Howes noted that the White House later denied the story. But we have a right to be skeptical.

After all, this is the most mendacious regime in recent history, Nixon notwithstanding. In a short time, it has lied and deceived about more major matters than any others.

Some of this has come to the attention of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chair of the House Oversight Committee, who sent a letter to Ford asking whether it removed the ad under White House or other pressure. Ford responded on Facebook and Twitter that it hadn’t removed the ad permanently, but Issa wants a response in writing.

I suggest that what Issa really needs to do is to hold hearings on the whole affair: the crony bankruptcy, the UAW funding of Democrats over the period leading up to the crooked affair, the subsequent federal actions devoted to running GM and hurting GM’s competitors, etc. Let’s see all the internal memos, emails, and other documents, and let’s question everyone involved — under oath before the House Committee. Turn over this rock, and shine a light on the roaches underneath. Then we will all understand the nature of crony capitalism better, and in more detail.




Share This


Whom Is Destroying the Language?

 | 

Mankind’s zest for the inaccurate knows no bounds. It's not surprising that it constantly manifests itself in errors of diction and grammar. Sometimes, though, you wonder how people who are ostensibly educated and intelligent — and who, in many cases, have achieved the power to rule over others — can actually say the things they do.

A good example appeared on July 18. The culprit was British Home Secretary Theresa May. She was discussing the possibility of “police corruption” in the scandal that enveloped News of the World. She told fellow members of Parliament that "it is natural to ask whom polices the police."

Michael Schein, a longtime friend of this column, immediately sounded the alarm: “Shouldn’t that be who polices the police?”

Right! The reason is that the case of a pronoun is governed by its grammatical function within its clause. May was using “whom” as the subject of a clause in which “polices” is the verb. Subjects always take the nominative case. Therefore, the correct word is “who,” which is nominative. The clause in question happens to be embedded in a larger clause, of which the subject is “it,” the verb is “is” (never mind what Bill Clinton would do with this), and the complement is “natural to ask,” followed by the direct object of “ask,” which is the clause “who[m] polices the police.” (“What did you ask?” “I asked, ‘Who polices the police?’”)

That explanation was a little complicated. Indeed, the grammatical rule that the home secretary violated is said to be the hardest to explain in the English language. Yet this merely indicates how easy English grammar really is. English word choice can involve extraordinary difficulties, because English has many more commonly used words than any other language, but English grammar just ain’t that hard.

Well, it must have been the embeddedness of the clause that misled — indeed, addled — the home secretary. But you don’t need to be able to diagram her sentence to see that something went wrong. You just need to be aware that someone is pictured as asking a question, and the question is, “Who[m] polices the police?” After that, your ability to read and listen should guide you in the right path. You already know how to form a question in the English language. Did you ever hear anybody ask, “Whom hit the ball?” or “Whom killed Cock Robin?” No, and you never will, unless you hang out with the British home secretary.

There was a time when British politicians were far above this sort of thing. Some of them, in fact, were among the greatest masters of English prose. Still, you would expect that anyone, anyone at all . . .

But let’s return to Michael’s astonished protest. “According to a non-Tea Partied version of Wikipedia,” he says, “this woman graduated from Oxford University!” He’s right again — although Oxford may be able to avoid some of the blame. May’s father was an Anglican priest. Such people, though sometimes daft in other ways (notice their frequency in mystery novels), are supposed to be fluent in English. But perhaps this one wasn’t. After being born, May worked at the Bank of England, where proper English used to be spoken with great naturalness. Perhaps it isn’t now. She even became “a senior advisor in international affairs.” Perhaps English isn’t necessary in such a job; perhaps her associates discouraged its use. At one time, when the Conservatives were out of power, she was their Shadow Education and Employment Secretary. Education! Now we’re really getting someplace. “Education” is where you can expect the worst influences to be exerted.

So we can understand the social forces that may have led Theresa May to illiteracy. But when she questions whom polices the police, the rest of us must still ask, with Michael Schein, “Where are the grammar police?”

When those police show up, May will be arrested — not for simple ignorance, but for ignorance in one of its most aggravated forms: snobbery. She is evidently one of those people who believe that “who” is a low, mean, common word, used only by the voters who keep you in power, while “whom” is a high-class word, reserved for the loftiest bureaucrats. Similarly, people like May — and people like President Obama, graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School — always say “just between you and I,” never dreaming that the working-class “me” is actually the correct form.

When the grammar police show up, May will be arrested — not for simple ignorance, but for ignorance in one of its most aggravated forms: snobbery.

It’s striking, the extent to which the British language has decayed. Its decadence is usually attributed to the influence of street slang, and this plays a part. But the ignorance of snobs is almost as influential as the stupidity of yobs. I’ve just finished reading a book called The Winter War (2008), by a Brit named Robert Edwards. It’s a history of the Russo-Finnish conflict of 1939–40. Its analysis is intelligent, and its perspective is firmly anticommunist, so I learned from it and sympathized with it, too. But its language is smarty, rather than smart, and its approach is unrelentingly arch. The writer always acts as if he were above his subject — despite the fact that he is often far below the common rules of sense and grammar.

Watch this passage as it struts across the stage. It’s about the Soviets’ prewar attempts to intimidate Finland, and their effects on Britain:

“The Soviet desiderata . . . included issues [‘issues,’ meaning things contested, is taken as synonymous with ‘desiderata,’ meaning things desired] that went against the very warp and weft [every cliché requires a ‘very’] of British policy. Implicit in the price to be paid for an eastern anti-Nazi bulwark would be free rein over the territories previously controlled by the man who had happened to be [as if he had won his title in a lottery] the last Grand Duke of Finland [who was he? tell us who!], Nicholas II [thank God! now we know who the last Grand Duke of Finland was; what we don’t know is why that was the climax of the sentence]. Further, the freedom to do so hinged around the concept of . . . .”

All right; that’s enough of that. I can picture plenty of things hinging on something, but I can’t picture anything hinging around anything. Meanwhile, I’m wondering how “to do so” functions in this pretentious maze of words. To do . . . what? The intended reference must be to “free rein,” but that’s not a verb. “Free rein” isn’t something you do.

Oh well. A writer who’s convinced of his superiority shouldn’t be required to reflect on what he’s written. But by the way, do writers still have editors?

There is something much worse, however, than the modern British “literary” style. It is the jargon of politics in modern America. One of its worst practitioners is a congresswoman from Florida named Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who happens to be the chair of the Democratic National Committee. This is the person who, on July 19, incurred the wrath of Republican Congressman Allen West by standing on the floor of the House and uttering the following words about a plan to do something about the US budget: “Incredulously, the gentleman from Florida [Allen West], who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries.”

DWS’s personal attack elicited an overly personal response from West, a response that was denounced by many. But at least West’s remarks weren’t so stupid that you could hardly bear to read them. He didn’t portray himself as astonished that anyone who represented “thousands of Medicare beneficiaries,” as every US congressman does, could possibly consider making them pay anything more for their benefits, ever. He didn’t express the snob’s moral outrage, the outrage of someone whose unexamined views are finally being challenged. And he didn’t take the snob’s typical course of reaching for a big word, only to grab the wrong one — as Wasserman Schultz did.

What she literally said was that West was incredulously supportive of a wicked plan — which makes no sense at all, except to show that she doesn’t know what her big words mean. “Incredulously” doesn’t mean “incredibly.” No, truly it doesn’t. It means something very different: “unbelievingly.” The wicked people were unbelievingly supportive.

Hmmm. But suppose she had changed the word to “incredibly,” and cleaned up her grammar by eliminating the dangling modifier (because that’s what “incredulously” is). Then she might have said, “It is incredible that the gentleman from Florida, who blah blah blah, is supportive of blah blah blah.” But that still wouldn’t be literate. “Incredible” means “not worthy of credence,” “unbelievable.” Had she chosen that word, the congresswoman would have been denouncing West for doing something she couldn’t believe he did.

Wasserman Schultz’s personal attack elicited an overly personal response from West, but at least his remarks weren’t so stupid that you could hardly bear to read them.

So on July 19 she was wrong six ways from Sunday. But try her on June 5. Here also she appeared to cherish the snobbish illusion that her audience would buy anything she said, no matter how preposterous it might be. Asked for her views on attempts to prevent voter fraud, attempts that she wanted to show are anti-black, she said this:

“Now, you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally — and very transparently — block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it’s nothing short of that blatant.”

Donning her vatic robes, DWS divines a sinister movement: Republicans (including, I suppose, Allen West, who is black) are struggling to institute legal apartheid (“Jim Crow”). This movement — this plot — has so far existed in such depths of secrecy that only she has noticed it. Nevertheless, it is “blatant,” “literally and very transparently” “blatant.” In short, it’s perfectly obvious.

Why does she say things like this? Probably she’s never spent a moment of thought on the meanings of any of the words she uses. It’s also possible that she’s never considered that words have meanings.

Ah, but they do. Her words say that Republicans are trying to “block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates.” That means that the Republicans want to block access to about 50% of American voters. I wonder how they plan to pull this off. Only Debbie Wasserman Schultz knows that.

Now consider what she says about the racist idea of having to prove who you are, before you vote: “I mean you look — just look at African-American voters as a snapshot. About 25 percent of African-American voters don’t have a valid photo I.D.”

Notice the literal, the blatant meaning of this slam on African Americans: she’s saying that 25% of adult black people can neither drive a car nor board an airplane nor cash a check nor take a job that requires identification — because they, unlike you or me, have never bothered to get a valid ID. In my entire life I have never encountered an African American adult who was disadvantaged in this way, yet the congresswoman insists that one in four African American voters are.

But perhaps she intended to emphasize the word “valid” — in other words, to insist that although virtually all black people are able to present a photo ID, a huge number of them have to fake it. That’s an even bigger slam. Is that what she meant? Or does she know what she meant?

Likely she doesn’t, because the next thing she says is this: “We already have very legitimate voter verification processes, signature checks that are already in place; and there is so little voter fraud, which is the professed reason the Republicans are advancing these — these laws. There’s so little vo- — voter fraud, and I mean you’re more likely to get hit by lightning than you are to see an instance of voter fraud in this country, but Republicans are imposing laws all over the country, acting like it’s not — voter fraud is rampant, and it’s ridiculous.”

Why does she say things like this? Probably she’s never spent a moment of thought on the meanings of any of the words she uses.

The syntax alone says a lot about the current chair of the Democratic National Committee. But the words . . . On a generous interpretation, her words mean that when I walk over to my polling place at the Pentecostal church, sign the official logbook, and cast my vote (supposing that I don’t vote an absentee ballot, as perhaps 40% of our countrymen, or their spouses, or their 6-year-old children, do), I am as unlikely to be committing fraud as I am to be hit by lightning. Clearly, she who knows everything about everything else has never heard of ACORN.

Rep. West — who, according to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has a 25% likelihood of not possessing a valid photo ID — denounced DWS as “vile” and “despicable.” Well, his heart’s in the right place. But maybe he should have traced the problem not to defective character but to defective education. Wasserman Schultz — a woman lauded in 2004 by the National Organization for Women as an “exciting new feminist legislator to watch” and a fighter for increased funding for “education” (as well as for “equal gender representation on state boards and price parity for dry cleaning women's and men's clothing”) — is a graduate of the University of Florida, where she presumably learned something. But maybe it wasn’t the right thing. According to Wikipedia, she credits the University, where she was deeply involved in what is idiotically called student government, with developing her “love for politics and the political process."

Some college students develop a love for science, or Shakespeare, or Chinese history. This one developed a love for government.

Since then, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, B.A., has returned to academia whenever possible, becoming an adjunct professor of political philosophy at Broward Community College, as well as something called “a public policy curriculum specialist” at something called “Nova Southeastern University.” It isn’t Oxford, but so what? It’s literally, transparently, blatantly, incredulously “education.” And whom am I to criticize?

ldquo;unbelievable.




Share This


“What’s in Your Wallet?!”

 | 

We like to laugh at those Capital One commercials. The Vikings are always doing funny, dear things like impersonating Elvis in Las Vegas or taking their pet goat to Disney World. Of course, Madison Avenue has better sense than to portray them realistically. The behavior of real Vikings wasn’t so dear.

A thousand years before the age of Victorian gentility, my Norse ancestors prowled the European coastline in dragon-headed ships. Those fanged and snarling mastheads crept out of the mist like something from a nightmare, and the nightmare was all too real. No one’s property was safe, not even that of the Church, which the pagan marauders hated with a special passion, viewing gospel gentleness with the disdain they reserved for the weak. They plundered sanctuaries, raped nuns, slaughtered priests, and took orphaned children as slaves.

Fast forward through the age of gentility, and we reach our present day. Our sophisticated and enlightened government, brimming with postmodern compassion, never fails to ask us the same question we hear from those Sea World-visiting Vikings: “What’s in your wallet?!”

The government knows exactly what’s in our wallets, of course, because it has ways of watching us that the barbarian hordes never dreamed of. They don’t need Thor, Odin, or even the Christian God. They’ve got computer technology powerful enough to track our bank balance down to the cent. And they think every cent is theirs for the taking.

This is different, they assure us. They act in the name of the people, from whom they claim to derive their consent. And most of us believe this. After all, we’re a “democracy,” are we not?

That is exactly what frightens me. What has the allure of our neighbor’s loot done to We the People? If the cause can be made to sound high-minded enough, our latter-day Erik the Reds can get us to cheer their every raid. Big government has made barbarians of us all.

How is it they get to decide who keeps their money and who doesn’t? What is it, besides the swords in their belts and the monster faces on their long ships, that gives them such authority? The Norse people of old, mostly peaceable farmers in their own lands, sent forth the marauders with their blessing. They didn’t have a democracy, but they knew all that plundered gold and silver, all those cattle and slaves, would be split with them. When the stamp of the government — even the approval of the gods — is given them, there is no end to what people will cheer for.

We must reduce our argument for property rights to the basics. Those who wantonly take whatever they want from others are barbarians. This is as true when they’re wearing Brooks Brothers suits as it was when they wore iron mail and wolf masks. It has become open season on the money and property of those who cannot gather hordes large enough to defend it. In our disregard for the very concept of private property, we are sliding back toward the Dark Ages.

No cause, however noble, can trump an individual’s right to keep the fruit of his or her own toil. To allow this to happen is to endorse slavery. If we fall prey to arguments to the contrary, we have surrendered civilized society to marauders. After that, we have nothing to look forward to except being carried off in chains.




Share This


The Tail Slapping the Dog

 | 

I grew up in a blue-collar world listening to jokes and snide remarks about government workers. They were uttered frequently by my father, and the fathers of most of my friends, especially during tax season. I came to perceive that government, at all levels, was riddled with chumps, lackeys, and dullards — people who couldn’t make it in the private sector but found a home in the lackadaisical workplace of government.

It was tacitly assumed that public employees earned less money than their private sector counterparts and that “psychic income” explained their willingness to do so. Psychic income has been defined as “something apart from money that you get from your job, and which gives you emotional satisfaction such as a feeling of being powerful or important.” Anyone who has dealt with government bureaucrats (from IRS agents to building inspectors and DMV clerks) can attest to its allure. My father probably would have described psychic income as a negative salary differential that gave this army of self-important, insecure underachievers a pass. That is, as long as they made less money, their shoddy (good enough for government) work could be tolerated.

That was back in the late 1960s. The Great Society was shifting into high gear. Big government was booming, and the demand for government workers was exploding. In those auspicious days, the job of many public servants was to invent jobs for more public servants. As government revenues continued (1969 to the present) to grow more than 15 times faster than median income, additional public servants were needed just to spend the extra tax money.

During the recession, when nongovernment workers were losing jobs and taking pay cuts, the government was hiring and giving out raises.

But my father’s suspicions about the negative salary differential were partly wrong. Federal civil servants were already making more money than their private sector brethren. And they, as well as state and local public servants, were on track to make much more. I didn’t have the heart to tell my father that the lower salary — the only redeeming characteristic of the shiftless and slothful government workforce — was an illusion. And the grudging tolerance of his generation was being augmented by the unwitting generosity of mine to unleash relentless public sector growth. My generation rewarded public sector workers with unprecedented income — both real (salary and benefits) and psychic (power and importance), sweetening the deal with unprecedentedjob security. The tail began wagging the dog.

Today, the average federal civilian worker earns twice as much in wages and benefits as the average worker in the private sector ($123,049 vs $61,051, annually). The benefits (healthcare, sick days, vacation time, retirement plans, etc.) are profligately generous, as are the taxpayer contributions that pay for them. For example, in 2007, state and local governments paid an average of $3.04 an hour toward each employee's retirement; private employers paid only $0.92/hour. And, in recent years, the pace (of both hiring and wage increases) has accelerated. For example, when the recession started, the Department of Transportation had only one person with a salary of $170,000 or more. That number has now reached 1,690. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009.

We are told (by President Obama and many others) that such obscenely generous compensation is required for attracting the best and the brightest to run government programs. Just think of the mess that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Postal Service, Amtrak, public housing, education, etc. would be in if managed by less competent professionals. And who could do a better job fighting the wars against poverty, drugs, cancer, AIDS, etc. than the people presently employed? With successes such as these, no wonder they have moved on to protecting us against such menaces as trans fats, sugar, secondhand smoke, bicycles, and toys (the lead-painted ones from China and the obesity-inducing ones from McDonald’s).

And since we must be regulated in both good times and bad, public service is a recession-proof industry. During the recent recession, the federal government added 192,700 jobs (+ 9.8%). State and local governments added a paltry 33,000 (+ 0.2%), but the private sector lost 7.3 million (-6.3%). The average federal government salary increased 6.6%; the average state and local government salary increased 3.9%. To summarize, during the recession, when nongovernment workers were losing jobs and taking pay cuts, the government was hiring and giving out raises.

It has reached a point where even big-government advocates have become appalled. For example, Mort Zuckerman, billionaire businessman and generous contributor to the Obama campaign, has recently discovered that “public workers have become a privileged class — an elite who live better than their private-sector counterparts. Public servants have become the public's masters."

It is of no small significance that the big gainers in the government hiring binge are regulators, lawyers, and public health and safety experts. They are the most annoying of public servants. Operating as social engineers, and under the assumption that without their guidance we (individuals, families, and businesses of all types and sizes) will make bad decisions, they serve two principal purposes: (A) ensuring that we obey every silly law with childlike compliance, and (B) writing more silly laws. This is the tail slapping the dog.

Feckless public servants lavished enormous retirement benefits on themselves, used taxpayer money for payroll contributions, managed to come up $7 trillion short, and now expect taxpayers to foot the bill.

Much of the sting from the slap comes from their colossal ineptitude. They are simply terrible at what they do. The vigilant financial regulators who protected us from the subprime mortgage debacle are a case in point. They include the elite that was running HUD, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the SEC (whose crack securities experts were downloading porn while credit default swaps and Bernie Madoff ran amok). Their predecessors were equally inadequate in preventing the S&L crisis, the junk bond fiasco, the Enron and WorldCom scandals, and the dotcom bubble.

It should be no great surprise, therefore, that our public masters running government pension funds have reached no higher level of competence. According to a recent report from the Employee Benefit Research Institute, federal pension plans now have unfunded liabilities exceeding $1.6 trillion. Unfunded state and local pension liabilities are estimated at $3.6 trillion. With healthcare benefits added in, state and local government unfunded retirement liabilities could be as large as $5.2 trillion. Consequently, our children face a huge future slap in the form of a tax bill approaching $7 trillion. To summarize: feckless public servants lavished enormous retirement benefits on themselves, used taxpayer money for payroll contributions (at a rate three times that of theprivate sector), managed to come up $7 trillion short, and, instead of going to jail, now expect taxpayers to foot the bill.

Then there is Public Service Recognition Week (PSRW), a nationwide campaign honoring public servants and educating citizens about the sacrifices they make while serving the nation. Federal, state and local public servants spend the first week of every May honoring themselves and bragging about the terrific jobs they are doing. They have exhibits showcasing “the innovative and quality work performed by public employees.” They even have parades “recognizing and thanking their unsung heroes.” This is the tail slapping the dog with disdain.

Public servants have come a long way from the banal, ambitionless, unproductive horde of my father's generation.They are now grossly overpaid, insidiously more powerful, and routinely unaccountable for bad, often abysmal, performance. No doubt most are good people with good intentions, some making legitimate sacrifices. I would go to a parade honoring most policemen, firefighters, teachers, and emergency workers. But there should also be a parade ridiculing those whose malfeasance, indolence, or avarice has failed the public and contaminated the perception of civil service. Regrettably, such a parade could not be held; it would last well over the week allotted.

Today there are simply too many public servants — even good ones. With staggering deficits and staggering public debt, we can no longer afford them. Public resentment deepens the more their compensation is scrutinized, as all levels of government begin trying to cut their budgets. Most are overpaid, especially at the federal level. And today's administrators, regulators, inspectors, social engineers, and the like have painted a disturbing "public masters" portrait of themselves. Furthermore, psychic income as a reward for sacrifice is a thing of the past. As public sector payrolls expand during private sector contraction, it's difficult for taxpayers to see the sacrifice. Public servants have become the "haves," and taxpayers, who pay their salaries, have become the "have-nots." Psychic cost — the economic burden of the government workforce — is a more realistic concept.

From 1787 through the 1920s, federal government spending didn’t exceed 4% of GDP, except in wartime. It has now reached 25% of GDP. Combined federal, state, and local government spending has reached 43% of GDP, and the average taxpayer has to work from January 1 to the middle of each April to pay for this largesse. But even that is not enough. In recent years, federal spending has exceeded tax revenue. It has taken an unprecedented leap since 2008, producing today's massive annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion. To pay off this deficit, the average taxpayer would have to work until mid-May —and consequently have to miss the Public Service Recognition Week parades.

quot;public masters




Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2017 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.