The Way Forward - Blue State Reforms

The victory by Gov. Scott Walker (R - WI) last night points a way forward for other Blue State Governors to start reforming Public Employee Union problems with pensions and health care.  It is a multi-step process but the key points are now clearly visible.

First - Stop collecting Union dues for the Union at the State and local level.  The power of the PEUs comes from dues garnered from employees who may not want to be in the Union.  As States have sovereign power outside of those powers vested in the federal government, it can decide with input from its people on how best to ensure that public employees are to be treated.  When WI stopped the government role of dues collector and left it up to voluntary contributions, the number of dues paying teachers, as an example, dropped by 2/3 (Source: Fox News/WSJ 31 MAY 2012):

Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees-the state's second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers-fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed Afscme's figures. A spokesman for Afscme declined to comment.

This hits the ability of PEUs to flow cash into political campaigns and to seek to get PEU friendly representatives across the table to pass legislation friendly to the PEUs.  That is inherently corrupt as it puts PEUs in a position of running both sides of the table during negotiations, which short-changes the public at large.  For a Blue State Governor, putting the case forward that the public, alone, should be the ones to decide how many employees should be in the government, what they should get paid and what other perks should be paid by the public to give to the employees.

Of course this is the 'Third Rail' of PEU influence in politics at the State and local level.  Yet it is the easiest to sell to the public.  Why should PEUs get a say in the political process which, in essence, allows them to influence votes, influence the legislative process and to bias the legislation in their favor at public expense?  The major upside is that public employees will get an opportunity to get a virtual raise by not funding the PEUs.

Second - Pension and health care reform requiring PEU members to pay a larger percent (or ANY percent) of their pension and health care insurance.  Changing the pension system to get away from the pyramid scheme system where current PEU members pay for the pensions of current retirees, with the State or local government picking up any difference, is bankrupting the governments involved.  Shifting to a defined contribution set of plans under the control of the public employees individually, firstly empowers employees to determine their own course in life means that their independence is increased by having an individual retirement plan.

As most private employees pay a large percentage of their health care insurance (either through an employer or purchased individually) the idea that public employees should pay an equivalent amount, or at least something closer to what the federal employees pay (approx. 40%) attacks the idea of 'fairness'.  Putting public employees in the same position as their private counterparts is self-evident as a 'fairness' measure, and yet another easy sell to the public at large.  Anyone who spouts 'fairness' should support this as it is the basis of having a level employment system amongst public and private employees.

These can both be made more palatable to public employees by letting them decide if they want to pay dues to the PEUs (step 1), thus by doing the first step, the second becomes easier.  This can be made more palatable to public employees by allowing a voucher so that they can choose a private health plan or cash it out as additional income and fully take the risk for their own health care on their own.  Shifting cost need not be a fully negative affair and can be made into a liberating and empowering experience for the individuals involved.

Third - Remove the under-performers.  For the public to see an increase in performance and to see that tax dollars are being spent wisely and that public employees are dedicated to their job and not just to their perks, remove protection from being fired from the public employee workforce and shift pay to meet performance.  To do this set standards of performance and efficiency to be met by public employees and fire the bottom 10% each and every year, regardless of seniority, time in service, or level of service.  Performance can have input from peers within the workforce, input from upper and lower levels of the public employee structure and public input.

This moves a step beyond what has been done in WI, but follows the successful system utilized by the CIA.  There it is possible to shift up and down the pay structure very quickly which means that performance matters.  By linking pay with performance and getting under-performers out of the system means there is incentive to perform better and serve the public in a more open and friendly manner.  After the power of the PEUs is removed and public employees are given more independence, the move to a performance based system then becomes possible.  This utilizes the 'best of breed' systems utilized elsewhere and underscores that the job of a public employee is to serve the public, not just service the public.

By increasing visible efficiency and friendliness government functions are done better and with greater transparency.  Increased efficiency means having a workforce that can be downsized over time, perhaps by removing job billets with the annual 10% reduction, until optimal efficiency is reached by the remaining labor force.  Companies do this and the same methodology can be applied to government functions.  After step one and step two, this then puts the results of those two into play to the benefit of the public.  A way to show this is to remove fees and other payment overhead from State functions for the public as the public is already paying for the function and shouldn't have to pay twice for it: efficiency should have visible rewards beyond just better service.

Result - For a Blue State Governor this achieves reform without having to become a 'Right To Work' State, which means that Unions (not just PEUs) have no basis to lobby against the government on hostility to Unionization grounds.  Public employees are a different category from private employees as they serve the public, on the public's dime and that is garnered through involuntary taxation (not voluntary purchase).  That sovereign function of needing individuals to perform duties for the State is due to there being a public willing to support the system of government for the benefit of the public in an unbiased manner.  Public employees do not have to worry about evil capitalist bosses as the State is not in a position to make a profit as it is not a corporation, thus there is no 'exploitation' of workers: the public sets the rules through the legislative process, everyone knows what they are and what the standards are for employment on the public's dime.

Resolving the problems of insolvency of States and local government can be handled in such a way as to ensure that all services (not just 'vital' ones) are done in an efficient, timely and courteous manner by public employees.  By rewarding efficiency and courtesy, it is reinforced, meaning that public employees understand that they are volunteering to take a public job and that they are beholden to the public for their activities.  This is a benefit not just to the public, but to public employees who are given the ability to chart their own course for longer-term life necessities and make their own decisions about what they should be.  By not rewarding organizations that slack off, by not rewarding inefficiency through larger work force sizes, and by not taking on the future debt of public employees, government size and cost can be reduced.  Showing a balanced budget, a user-friendly government, transparency on cost, and by demonstrating that positive moral values are enforced by the government, a Blue State Governor can demonstrate that they can support public needs while not putting future generations at risk for insolvent decisions made for politically expedient reasons, now.

Because of the future insolvency problems due to the current system of PEU contracts, reforms will take place.  Taking some pain now can mean avoiding default and bankruptcy of governments, which is a much, much larger pain when that happens.  It doesn't matter how Blue the State is: this is coming.

The other results from last night were from the cities of San Diego and San Jose reforming pensions for their public employees.

CA is a very Blue State, yet even there reform is coming due to decades of spendthrift government and bloated government PEU structures.

If a Governor doesn't get ahead of the game, then it will be done for him or her starting from the ground-upwards.

When that happens the color of Blue just might disappear.

Even the most deeply committed ideologue in government does have a survival instinct.  From last night's results, that instinct is now being forced to the forefront.

Reform is coming to America.

You can do it fast and with some pain now, or with much greater pain in a couple of years and putting our children and grandchildren into a 3rd world failed Nation situation.

That choice is yours.

I suggest you make sure you are registered to vote.

Technobabble, Bureauratese and Elitism

When reading Angelo M. Codevilla's piece on America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution at the American Spectator (JUL-AUG 2010 issue) I got to thinking about some concepts that had been present in my past work with other aspects of society: the science-fiction, science and technical communities.  One of the main aspects of them deals with words, jargon and how they dove-tail in creating communities.

From Wikipedia, YMMV:

Technobabble (a portmanteau of technology and babble), also called technospeak^[1], is a form of prose using jargon, buzzwords and highly esoteric language to give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation. Someone who does not understand a technical description that necessarily contains many technical terms may describe it as technobabble,^[2] but it also can describe prose intentionally made obscure through gratuitous technical terms and technical slang.

From Merriam-Webster online:

bu·reau·crat·ese

Pronunciation: \ˌbyu̇r-ə-(ˌ)kra-ˈtēz, -ˈtēs, ˌbyər-\

Function: noun

Date: 1949

: a style of language held to be characteristic of bureaucrats and marked by abstractions, jargon, euphemisms, and circumlocutions

I've had to partake of both of those worlds of jargon-speak, plus a number of other venues in the science fiction and fantasy realms that feature such word use and creation (like Treknobabble).  The use and utility of words in the english language means that new words formed by the importation of words from other languages and the contraction or compounding of older words or the creation of acronyms (like RADAR) allow for the language to be highly fluid and adaptable to new situations.  While the French try to keep their language 'pure' via an official government committee, those who speak english in a varieties of dialects, pidgins and other culturally derived forms (ex. Spanglish) means that speakers of english can call a CD-ROM as a 'CD' and think nothing of it, while the official French language (as opposed to common, everyday, on the ground spoken french) does not allow 'le CD'.  English, as a language, picked up traits from other languages (like the propensity of German words to just add in entire other words until you have to contract them down to something you can say in a single breath) and the use of linguistic short-hand allows for the entire richness of english to have humor types that aren't even conceived of in other languages ('time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana').

The massive downside of that is in the realm of specialization, and it doesn't matter if it is scientific, religious, political, or the type of wine or beer you like, the jargon of any specialized field can sound very authoritative and important to an outside, while being relatively innocuous for those who are 'in the know'.  Thus 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' sounds very important but is, in actuality, a hypothesis that the tiny amount of carbon dioxide increase seen during the span of man on the planet means we are all going to die as everything is flooded out and choked to death by poison.  Don't mind the fact that the planet has had far more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere in the past and that this has never happened (because we are here to talk about it), and that such things as solar radiance, cloud cover, and the relatively shallow ocean basins and lack of circumglobal oceanic currents from the creation of the Isthmus of Panama have put us into a cyclic and somewhat chaotic glaciation cycle that won't abate no matter if we burn every last hydrocarbon on the planet.  The technobabble and very important looking graphs with misleading scales and representation standards make it all sound very convincing because, you know, a scientist said it.  And scientists were taken in by Piltdown Man and created a lovely, and utterly backwards system of science in the USSR called Lysenkoism because it catered to politicians, not due to it having any basis in science, at all.  Carbon dioxide is used by plants to grow, a necessary inert gas that helps us breathe and relatively innocuous (unlike that evil dihydrogen monoxide).

Technobabble serves as an 'in-group' identifier, a means to show you actually are part of some group and hold similar beliefs to it by being able to talk in its jargon.  Speak the lingo in a passable fashion and you get accepted.  Nodding your head in agreement helps bunches, too.

Because it is an 'in-group' linguistic system it can also be used to stonewall those outside the 'in-group' by claiming that they 'don't understand what they are talking about'.  To learn the jargon you must accept the premises of such groups so as to understand what they are getting at, even if the jargon is nonsensical as created and applied.  That is how AGW, Piltdown Man and Lysenkoism actually got anywhere: they purported to show certain findings and correlations while, in fact, they were doing no such thing and yet utilized a variant of existing jargon to give some foundation to their outlooks.  Of course scientific fraud has a relatively short shelf-life as it requires repeatability to it, that is you can repeat the exact, same experiment with the exact, same conditions and come up with the exact, same results (+/- 10% due to measurement error).  Lysenkoism fell apart when Communist Genetics proved not to work in any way that was meaningful, for which we are all deeply thankful.  Piltdown Man went down under analysis of the actual bones to show they were not only not of the same individual, not of the same species but not of the same time period.  AGW is coming apart as the very basic concept of 'being able to show one's base data without any corrections done to it' cannot be met, and entire global datasets now have to be rebuilt from scratch due to the non-diligence and obfuscation of the researchers in the field.

While Lysenkoism only side-tracked Soviet genetic research, AGW is aimed directly at the heart of the industrial system to deny it energy production that isn't 'sustainable'.  Don't ever ask what 'sustainable' actually means, or the time frame of it, because there is no, zero answer to that.  When the answers vary from 'now, immediately! if not sooner!!!' to 'over the next thousand years or so', you know you are no longer talking about science, technology, economics, nor any other aspect of meaningful lingo.  'Sustainable' is a feel-good term that is too fluid to mean much of anything when applied to economics, science or technology.  If using fossil fuels, mining for ore and doing anything other than growing plants, and then only 'sustainable plants' is an objective, then the entire planet was absolutely sustainable in the late Neolithic period.  Save for all that wood burning, of course, we would have to drop that and get to mankind before the taming of fire.  That was perfectly 'sustainable'.  Miserable in the extreme with short life spans, rampant disease, high infant mortality rates, and so on and on.

Blending alarmism into technobabble gets you emotionally laden terms that mean very little.  This has happened in religion where personal salvation, standing before your creator after you die to account for your life, is replaced by group-think or collective salvation where everyone must think alike, act alike and be controlled alike to be saved...too bad accountability is on a retail, not wholesale business level, huh?  Collectivism is a creation of not only religious groups but of followers of Marx who believe in some 'will of the collective' to guide society.  Using such concepts creates an 'in-group' that then talk about all sorts of lovely things to be done to 'save' the 'poor' by depriving ordinary citizens of the fruits of their labors so that the poor can be 'uplifted' from poverty.  You know, steal a fish from one man to make him go hungry so you can feed another to keep him indebted to you, so the two of you can gang up on the first man to enslave him?  That sort of thing.  This only works by the importation of emotionally laden terms of 'wealth' and 'rich' and 'wealthy' that most people don't believe applies to them, yet those wishing to do the stealing tell you its on the upper X% of society.  That X factor is always, without fail, no matter what is said, 49.  Basically if the lowest 1/8th of the wealthiest (that 49%) can be convinced that they aren't 'wealthy' then the scam is on.  And when the top 3-5% join in as they have so much that losing 15% more won't matter to them, you then have a 'majority' to steal from those able to create wealth to give to the poor who can't.  Thus everyone gets poorer as those able to create wealth stop doing so because there is no pay-off in it for them, which then leaves the top 3-5% with any left-over wealth which which to rule everyone else as they beg for scraps.

But you meant to 'save the poor' and 'create a sustainable economy'!  And you did!  When 97% of the population is poor and the economy is ruled by a handful, that is sustainable for, oh, a decade or two, unless you have an beholden servant class and dedicated military class to keep the masses down.  That worked for thousands of years for Hydraulic Empires (Egypt, Babylon, China and other Nations having a major waterway) and can even be semi-benign due to the crushing poverty involved.  As technology goes up the sustainability of such societies must shift to the technocrats and military classes, so that Modern China revolves around the leadership, the crony capitalists beholden to the technocrats administering State guidance, and the ever present threat of military crackdown if you happen to think freedom is a neat idea.  That sort of thing aptly describes: Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Syria and Zimbabwe.  The proportions between adhering bureaucrats and technocrats to military varies, but they are, in sum total, higher than in feudal States of Europe (where 1 in 100 were in the nobility and aristocracy).  This gets closer to the Japanese culture when they closed off their contact with other cultures due to the higher percentage of their elite (1 in 10 for feudal Japan until Admiral Perry came along and even that didn't change things much until WWII).

The concept of being able to dictate from the Nation State level down to its population to get an adoring, or at least obedient or subservient people, is a common one across all cultures.  It is always presented as a 'solution' to social ills, and the programs used to mask it vary from the Kulturkampf against Roman Catholics to Gramsci's concepts of cultural hegemony that seeks to make 'common sense' not based on what one sees but on one's culture and a rising of 'class consciousness' to political consciousness which, instead of putting forward that all people are equal, puts forward that there are repressive groups in society and those that are repressed by them.  Each of these puts forward that there is an 'evil' in society (Roman Catholicism, capitalism and capitalism... yes the last two are depressingly the same thing) and that the only way to go after these 'evils' are via State based power.  By being able to put forward that there is a minority that 'controls' society to its own benefit and that a cultural reaction that seeks to put down that minority so as to gain 'authentic' majority control is then put forward with those doing so being the political class (or elite class) seeking to gain more power via villainization of a segment of society.  If you would just reject the minority and give more power to the rulers of the 'majority' then all will be well!  The White Knight, the One True Leader of the movement will then lead you into a land without repression and with lots of love, peace and prosperity!

Don't mind the repression from the military and police set up by these 'winners', their crushing laws applied to everyone and the poverty that ensues as the State seeks to subsume private wealth for the 'public good'.  Tens of millions have died following this fruitless dream that more power to the State yields a better life, peace and prosperity.  They are usually the ones elected to office and who seek to rig and game the system so as to never get challenged in their beliefs by marginalizing segments of populations via things like limiting representation and gerrymandering districts.  Why we never see THAT going on in the good old US of A, right?  Politicians who see their elected seat as THEIRS and not that of the people... who see fit to found political dynasties built upon the public coffers and handing out goodies to selected portions of the population instead of looking after the good of everyone.  Couldn't happen here, right?

That is what Mr. Codevilla is getting after: it is a cultural imperative of the elite class (usually self-defined as we don't cotton on to warlords and such these days) who then need to convince you that they are smarter/better/more worthy than the average Joe to sit in the seats of power.  They can cite lovely scholars, whip up graphs to show that more taxation leads to prosperity and back 'science' that then empowers them to tell you just how awful you are to lovely Mother Earth and that you really need to be punished for being healthy and wealthy.  That has worked as an ongoing meme for over a century, now, and what is on the horizon is what comes to any Nation that puts bureaucrats ahead of good sense and thinking that you can regulate your way to prosperity: special police, adherent political militants, political crimes, and repression of those who disagree that those who rule are, actually, unfit to rule.  Yup, bureaucrats, technocrats, police and military all set up by those in charge to make sure that they get what you make and you are enslaved because they are so much smarter than you... though far, far less competent in anything but grabbing power.

Flipping the side from the Ruling or Elite Class gets you Mr. Codevilla's Country Class.

This Country Class is not associated with 'populism', as 'populism' is a form of cultural political movement to address some 'evil' of society... in other words it is a ruse used to demonize some group/problem/ill by the Elite to get some popular fervor so as to pass laws and changes that invest more power to a centralized government, after which the fervor dies down as the laws 'changed things'.  Until, of course, the next big 'problem' arises that the new laws didn't address, which is the reason why we hear that the answer to failed regulations is: more regulation!  Perhaps what was regulated was not suitable to regulation in the first place?  How rare we ever hear that little question.  So the Country Class does not rely on nor descend from 'populism' or 'populist' movements, although members of it may join such things they do not consider such movements self-defining.  So just who is in the Country Class?

The description Mr. Codevilla gives is one that is very similar to others I've presented (bolding mine, throughout):

Describing America's country class is problematic because it is so heterogeneous. It has no privileged podiums, and speaks with many voices, often inharmonious. It shares above all the desire to be rid of rulers it regards inept and haughty. It defines itself practically in terms of reflexive reaction against the rulers' defining ideas and proclivities -- e.g., ever higher taxes and expanding government, subsidizing political favorites, social engineering, approval of abortion, etc. Many want to restore a way of life largely superseded. Demographically, the country class is the other side of the ruling class's coin: its most distinguishing characteristics are marriage, children, and religious practice. While the country class, like the ruling class, includes the professionally accomplished and the mediocre, geniuses and dolts, it is different because of its non-orientation to government and its members' yearning to rule themselves rather than be ruled by others.

Even when members of the country class happen to be government officials or officers of major corporations, their concerns are essentially private; in their view, government owes to its people equal treatment rather than action to correct what anyone perceives as imbalance or grievance. Hence they tend to oppose special treatment, whether for corporations or for social categories. Rather than gaming government regulations, they try to stay as far from them as possible. Thus the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo, which allows the private property of some to be taken by others with better connections to government, reminded the country class that government is not its friend.

It is a class that believes, then, that the best government is that which provides equal treatment under the law for all citizens and tries to not correct the wrongs that come about due to discrepancies in talent and capability.  When government attempts to do so it then moves from equality of treatment to seeking some form of 'justice' in outcome, thusly government becomes an institutionalized affliction for a certain group or class based on temporary problems.

What else is seen as defining?  Meritocracy, not bureaucracy:

Members of the country class who want to rise in their profession through sheer competence try at once to avoid the ruling class's rituals while guarding against infringing its prejudices. Averse to wheedling, they tend to think that exams should play a major role in getting or advancing in jobs, that records of performance -- including academic ones -- should be matters of public record, and that professional disputes should be settled by open argument. For such people, the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Ricci, upholding the right of firefighters to be promoted according to the results of a professional exam, revived the hope that competence may sometimes still trump political connections.

It is, culturally, a standpoint that to do right one must do good and that doing good requires not only the want of doing good, which is supported by the Elite in all they do, but that one must understand what they are doing and do it well so that something is done right.  Doing something right by oneself to one's own liberty is upholding the greater rightness of society where we advance through capability, not adhering to Elitist word games and socialist equivalence.  When each is according to their ability and need, and the absolute minimal needs of survival in society are few, then applying one's ability falters to a lowest common denominator: whatever it takes to get by.  That is seen as a social inversion of doing right by doing good, and by creating a system in which there is no difference in mankind's efforts from beginning to end then mankind cannot advance nor self-improve as only base needs are met no matter what the effort.  Promotion by skill and merit requires application of skills and ability and working at them to hone them and improve them, and the reward is fruits of one's liberties in better pay, advancement and recognition of the worth of the skills and the character necessary to get them.  It takes character to build skills and society, and when character is removed through a grand equivalence of everyone, that all work is equal and therefore meaningless, then society falls backwards and humans no longer care about the maintenance of it through doing good work.  From that meritocracy and rewarding good work because it is good work is paramount not only to improve the character of others but to show that good, hard and skillful work is its own reward.

The country class actually believes that America's ways are superior to the rest of the world's, and regards most of mankind as less free, less prosperous, and less virtuous. Thus while it delights in croissants and thinks Toyota's factory methods are worth imitating, it dislikes the idea of adhering to "world standards." This class also takes part in the U.S. armed forces body and soul: nearly all the enlisted, non-commissioned officers and officers under flag rank belong to this class in every measurable way. Few vote for the Democratic Party. You do not doubt that you are amidst the country class rather than with the ruling class when the American flag passes by or "God Bless America" is sung after seven innings of baseball, and most people show reverence. The same people wince at the National Football League's plaintive renditions of the "Star Spangled Banner."

Unlike the ruling class, the country class does not share a single intellectual orthodoxy, set of tastes, or ideal lifestyle. Its different sectors draw their notions of human equality from different sources: Christians and Jews believe it is God's law. Libertarians assert it from Hobbesian and Darwinist bases. Many consider equality the foundation of Americanism. Others just hate snobs. Some parts of the country class now follow the stars and the music out of Nashville, Tennessee, and Branson, Missouri -- entertainment complexes larger than Hollywood's -- because since the 1970s most of Hollywood's products have appealed more to the mores of the ruling class and its underclass clients than to those of large percentages of Americans. The same goes for "popular music" and television. For some in the country class Christian radio and TV are the lodestone of sociopolitical taste, while the very secular Fox News serves the same purpose for others. While symphonies and opera houses around the country, as well as the stations that broadcast them, are firmly in the ruling class's hands, a considerable part of the country class appreciates these things for their own sake. By that very token, the country class's characteristic cultural venture -- the homeschool movement -- stresses the classics across the board in science, literature, music, and history even as the ruling class abandons them.

The country class supports the military absolutely as it is necessary for the security of a free Nation and to safeguard us all within the Nation State.  They normally do not vote lock-step Republican even when they do not vote Democratic, thus they are 'Independent' in word and deed.  For us to have a Nation together there is no political ideology that is seen as 'correct' and the greatest good of the Nation is done by its people, not its government.  Culturally the country class is very much a 'back to basics' view, so that which is good and has worked is cherished and the new only adopted when it has demonstrated its worth and value and does not contradict prior good teachings and work.  The art of reconciling the 'new' to culture is not done from government, business or marketers, but at home and amongst family and friends.  It is the individual that must find a good way to apply what is new under the sun and then ensure that it is understood and implemented to the benefit of all.  To do that the good, old ways must be taught, understood and cherished, which means that new 'teaching methods' that short-change history and accomplishment in understanding are rejected, often completely rejected, and parents take up Do It Yourself schooling.

What is this country class?  If you are an Elite this is an alien culture as they do not depend on the prism of race, class, politics, foreign affairs or any of the touchstones of the Elite to determine what needs to be done by individuals so as to guide society from the bottom up.  Elite schools, elite culture and elite politics are all, in every instance, top-down structures and authorities at the top are not questioned to hold them accountable for what they say or do.  Elitists must divide the rest of society and then push forward their notions of what is 'good' for a privileged sector so as to gain permanent power at the highest levels of government for a ruling class that becomes more and more archaic and brittle over time.  To an Elite member of the select class (or those attempting to cast themselves into it by shutting down their minds to thoughts of human liberty as individuals) the tools of the trade are:  attack, condemn, belittle and twist any fact to fit a pre-defined outlook that does not and cannot adjust to 'facts on the ground'.  If they could adjust to what is actually happening in the world without a prism applied to it, then the ideology would fall to pieces as it cannot withstand actual results that are not what is expected.  What is 'new' or 'good' to an Elitist is to remove power to the bureaucratic class and ruling class as these appointed members are best utilized in 'guiding' society via regulations in every aspect of life.  It is the concept of the perfectibility of man and it always, without fail, comes at a high cost of human liberty, life and blood wherever it is applied.

If the ideology of the Elite class is apparent because it is used as a tool to demean and belittle citizens at every turn so as to invest power in government, then the country class seeks to invert that so that civil discourse and coming to term with honest disagreements can lead to a better society that has little need of oversight or regulation from government at any level.  By keeping to the Framing and Founding documents of the Nation, and their outlooks that are invested in them, the country class feels little need to justify their concepts of a 'leave me alone' attitude towards government as it is a tried and true way to win a good life by one's hard work.  Even such as 'reformers' of government become distrusted as they attempt to add more apparatus into government to 'correct' its problems, but those only serve to increase the size, power and scope of government at each and every turn.  There is no 'good' that can be done by government, save their being less of it.  It is hard to get a spokesman for these beliefs, and yet a few (very few) have cropped up in our history after the Founding.  For this I need not travel back far, at all, in my own postings to come up with this document and these words from a past President of the United States:

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves-in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy.

This is a succinct enunciation of the outlook of Mr. Codevilla's country class and that President is condemned by the Elite class for the outcomes of actions he started but succinctly said he did not wish to start in the first place and warned of the consequences of not using reason and accommodation to work out mutual problems.  That is President Andrew Jackson and the quoted section, above, comes from his Bank Veto message of 1832 which was the last time a massive part of the federal government's work to 'guide' the economy was rejected and dismantled.  That lasted for 80 years until President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve into being.  As for the Elitist imputation that Andrew Jackson was a genocidal racist, they cannot square his actions of adopting a native child as his son nor his words and deeds to ensure that we had good relations with Indian tribes that did work with us and went so far as to castigate Congress for letting those accounts fall into disrepair.  Racial genocide cannot be squared with those words, deeds and the meanings behind them, and yet to divide the people from those outlooks and actions (good and bad) they misrepresent the bad, hype it up to a high degree and then seek to say that is the sum total of the man.  If that were the case he would not have taken the actions he did, give the warnings he did, attempt to avert the problems as best he could and then, only in failure, still try to find a good end to what was a very bad situation in which lives were being lost.

No matter how vilified the man is, his outlooks, rooted in the basics of human individualism as the source of strength for society and prosperity, continue to this day.  Mr. Codevilla is not the first to highlight these people, and another writer took up that task nearly a decade ago:

The new Jacksonianism is no longer rural and exclusively nativist. Frontier Jacksonianism may have taken the homesteading farmer and the log cabin as its emblems, but today’s Crabgrass Jacksonianism sees the homeowner on his modest suburban lawn as the hero of the American story. The Crabgrass Jacksonian may wear green on St. Patrick’s Day; he or she might go to a Catholic Church and never listen to country music (though, increasingly, he or she probably does); but the Crabgrass Jacksonian doesn’t just believe, she knows that she is as good an American as anybody else, that she is entitled to her rights from Church and State, that she pulls her own weight and expects others to do the same. That homeowner will be heard from: Ronald Reagan owed much of his popularity and success to his ability to connect with Jacksonian values. Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan in different ways have managed to tap into the power of the populist energy that Old Hickory rode into the White House. In both domestic and foreign policy, the twenty-first century will be profoundly influenced by the values and concerns of Jacksonian America.

[..]

Jacksonian America’s love affair with weapons is, of course, the despair of the rest of the country. Jacksonian culture values firearms, and the freedom to own and use them. The right to bear arms is a mark of civic and social equality, and knowing how to care for firearms is an important part of life. Jacksonians are armed for defense: of the home and person against robbers; against usurpations of the federal government; and of the United States against its enemies. In one war after another, Jacksonians have flocked to the colors. Independent and difficult to discipline, they have nevertheless demonstrated magnificent fighting qualities in every corner of the world. Jacksonian America views military service as a sacred duty. When Hamiltonians, Wilsonians and Jeffersonians dodged the draft in Vietnam or purchased exemptions and substitutes in earlier wars, Jacksonians soldiered on, if sometimes bitterly and resentfully. An honorable person is ready to kill or to die for family and flag.

[..]

The underlying cultural unity between African Americans and Anglo-Jacksonian America shaped the course and ensured the success of the modern civil rights movement. Martin Luther King and his followers exhibited exemplary personal courage, their rhetoric was deeply rooted in Protestant Christianity, and the rights they asked for were precisely those that Jacksonian America values most for itself. Further, they scrupulously avoided the violent tactics that would have triggered an unstoppable Jacksonian response.

Although cultures change slowly and many individuals lag behind, the bulk of American Jacksonian opinion has increasingly moved to recognize the right of code-honoring members of minority groups to receive the rights and protections due to members of the folk community. This new and, one hopes, growing feeling of respect and tolerance emphatically does not extend to those, minorities or not, who are not seen as code-honoring Americans. Those who violate or reject the code—criminals, irresponsible parents, drug addicts—have not benefited from the softening of the Jacksonian color line.

[..]

Jacksonians are instinctively democratic and populist. Hamiltonians mistrust democracy; Wilsonians don’t approve of the political rough and tumble. And while Jeffersonians support democracy in principle, they remain concerned that tyrannical majorities can overrule minority rights. Jacksonians believe that the political and moral instincts of the American people are sound and can be trusted, and that the simpler and more direct the process of government is, the better will be the results. In general, while the other schools welcome the representative character of our democracy, Jacksonians tend to see representative rather than direct institutions as necessary evils, and to believe that governments breed corruption and inefficiency the way picnics breed ants. Every administration will be corrupt; every Congress and legislature will be, to some extent, the plaything of lobbyists. Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it’s probably a fly. Jacksonians see corruption as human nature and, within certain ill-defined boundaries of reason and moderation, an inevitable by-product of government.

From Walter Russell Mead's The Jacksonian Tradition, put out in the fall 1999/2000 issue of the National Interest (archived here by Steven Den Beste).

From Mr. Codevilla's outlook of 'what if the country class took power in Congress and most Statehouses?' he clearly puts forward that the top-down methodology of the current ruling Elite class cannot serve as it is inherently Statist, not individual oriented:

Achieving the country class's inherently revolutionary objectives in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with its own diversity would require the Country Party to use legislation primarily as a tool to remove obstacles, to instruct, to reintroduce into American life ways and habits that had been cast aside. Passing national legislation is easier than getting people to take up the responsibilities of citizens, fathers, and entrepreneurs.

Reducing the taxes that most Americans resent requires eliminating the network of subsidies to millions of other Americans that these taxes finance, and eliminating the jobs of government employees who administer them. Eliminating that network is practical, if at all, if done simultaneously, both because subsidies are morally wrong and economically counterproductive, and because the country cannot afford the practice in general. The electorate is likely to cut off millions of government clients, high and low, only if its choice is between no economic privilege for anyone and ratifying government's role as the arbiter of all our fortunes. The same goes for government grants to and contracts with so-called nonprofit institutions or non-governmental organizations. The case against all arrangements by which the government favors some groups of citizens is easier to make than that against any such arrangement. Without too much fuss, a few obviously burdensome bureaucracies, like the Department of Education, can be eliminated, while money can be cut off to partisan enterprises such as the National Endowments and public broadcasting. That sort of thing is as necessary to the American body politic as a weight reduction program is essential to restoring the health of any human body degraded by obesity and lack of exercise. Yet shedding fat is the easy part. Restoring atrophied muscles is harder. Reenabling the body to do elementary tasks takes yet more concentration.

The grandparents of today's Americans (132 million in 1940) had opportunities to serve on 117,000 school boards. To exercise responsibilities comparable to their grandparents', today's 310 million Americans would have radically to decentralize the mere 15,000 districts into which public school children are now concentrated. They would have to take responsibility for curriculum and administration away from credentialed experts, and they would have to explain why they know better. This would involve a level of political articulation of the body politic far beyond voting in elections every two years.

If self-governance means anything, it means that those who exercise government power must depend on elections. The shorter the electoral leash, the likelier an official to have his chain yanked by voters, the more truly republican the government is. Yet to subject the modern administrative state's agencies to electoral control would require ordinary citizens to take an interest in any number of technical matters. Law can require environmental regulators or insurance commissioners, or judges or auditors to be elected. But only citizens' discernment and vigilance could make these officials good. Only citizens' understanding of and commitment to law can possibly reverse the patent disregard for the Constitution and statutes that has permeated American life. Unfortunately, it is easier for anyone who dislikes a court's or an official's unlawful act to counter it with another unlawful one than to draw all parties back to the foundation of truth.

The cutting of the size of government can be done either piecemeal, as Mr. Codevilla suggests, or via the concept of a 'Grand Bargain' like much of what the Progressives propose again and again.  A reduction in government 'Grand Bargain' attacks the root of the government's intervention in the lives of Americans and would address not just the wastrel spending at Education, Energy, Agriculture, the various 'arts', and so on, but would introduce the dismantling of the government welfare state in a way amenable to any American.

That can be done by, firstly, letting those know who currently draw on Social Security that they can continue to do so.  Second that those who paid into the system can then utilize their 'invested' funds to cut their own taxes.  Third FICA goes away as SSA becomes a direct funding for those left in it, and no new individuals will be let into it.  Fourth Medicare/Medicaid are added up, divided by two, apportioned to the States by population and phased out over 5 years.  SSA, Medicare and Medicaid now eat up all income of the federal government and all else, including interest on the National Debt is paid off in loans.  To working Americans this offers a double tax-cut that will last for some years as withholding from earnings plummets by 15-20%, which puts more money into the pockets of ordinary Americans, and by using SSA funds 'paid into' the system many people can live essentially tax free for some years.

That requires a 'cut to the bone' government which has already, at that point, agreed to remove the bulk of HHS and all of many Departments and Agencies.

The final piece, and really should be done, is to remove the 1911 Public Law setting the size of the House at 435 seats.  That is anti-representative in the extreme and needs to end.  For Americans to be represented in our diversity we need deep and diverse representation.  A Maximum House of 10,000 or may be unachievable (though very Constitutional) and the concept is that the problem of corruption is not the amount of money seeking to corrupt, but too few and easily corruptible.  If the Representative position is turned into a job with no real forward motion from it to higher office, then turn-over will be often for those seats as even minor demographic change impacts representation between each census.  That can be done by a majority in both Houses and either a Presidential signature or a veto over-ride.

The 'Grand Bargain' is that Americans, in a time of economic trouble, look to each other and to get the government out of doing ill to all of us, first, and then reducing the size, scope, power and cost of inefficient and incompetent government and making sure that each American is on a level playing field unfettered by heinous taxation.  The concept of being on a road to fiscal rectitude by paying down our debt with a goal of paying it off rang true after the Revolution as President Jackson made sure that he was the first President of a debt-free Nation.  That didn't last past his administration.  Now with the de-bunking of Keynesian economics and the bad examples set in Europe, the US can see its National budget like its household one and know that being in debt and facing bankruptcy is not at all good.  That can be made to stick as it is compelling and offers a ready exemplar of how you manage your own fiscal house.

It starts with pulling out the underpinnings for the massive federal government and its intervention into our economy (via the Federal Reserve, Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie and Sallie) plus ending the insane proposition of the ponzi scheme of SSA and the demographic black hole of federally subsidized health care.  It ends with increased representation, smaller government and much, much lower taxation aimed at setting us free of debt.

That cannot be done in one session of Congress.

Yet it must be done to retain liberty and freedom for all Americans rich and poor alike.

The detritus of past concepts

The past decade has been one of our changing idea of how we, personally, as individuals, relate to institutions and deal with them.  This conceptual change was getting into swing in 1999 and the Dot Com Bubble economy introduced us to it via the ill-conceived, ill-timed and poorly run companies that sprouted up to offer goods and services via the Internet.  That first wave left the Dot Com Bust of 2000-2001 and the outflow of those poorly funded, poorly conceived, poorly run companies that burned through their Venture Capital and vanished in a puff of business projections.  The reality of what was happening was spoken of widely during the years leading up to 1999, but by 1999 it had become an established concept that was being touted as the 'wave of the future'.  It started in commercial areas then slowly leaked over to more staid venues of governments and institutions that soon found a growing call for them to start doing something very different than they had in the past: provide goods, services, information and feedback directly to individuals and NOT go through a subsidiary institution.

A name was attached to this and describes it to this day:  disintermediation.

That term had a use previous to the Dot Com era, which was to move funds from low yield accounts to high yield ones, but that did not even begin to describe what was happening in that era.  For the Dot Com era disintermediation had one meaning, and one meaning only: getting rid of the middle-man.  Doom forecasters predicted the end of shopping malls, strip malls and even the local market, thus forgetting that there are some items which individuals will insist on seeing, having or otherwise obtaining immediately, not just purchase today and wait for it to be shipped.  With the end of the sock puppet era of advertising, came the concept of 'bricks and clicks' that would see a melding of online transactions with brick and mortar establishments (local retailers) so that customers would have options to purchase and have things shipped, have them made available locally or just shop locally.

Other institutions didn't have that option.

Newspapers had been going through a downturn since the late 1970's with the consolidation of local newspapers with many places becoming 'one newspaper' towns.  That downturn continued with the introduction of cable television and then accelerated in the 1990's as the idea of information delivery, which is something newspapers should have been good at, started to eat away at the print revenue base of newspapers.  For newspapers revenue is derived from circulation and that determines advertising rates.  Thus newspapers are advertising delivery systems, not news delivery systems, and subscriptions make up only a tiny portion of revenue for newspapers.  Those delivery substrates became disintermediated from the news they were containing and trying to get ad revenue from digital delivery has proven to be difficult, at best, as end-users can use proxies, blocking software and other means to stop ads from arriving and get directly to the wanted content.

One phenomena would arrive that had started before the Dot Com era, but became a force after it was unheralded and yet common place.  The ability to have one's credit or bank account automatically charged for monthly billing, which would start to remove the paper bill mailed to individuals.  Furthering that was the concept also started pre-Dot Com which was charging things to a credit card, which had been around for a couple of decades in the catalog sales market, but positively boomed in the Dot Com era and afterwards.  Thus the marriage of any business being able to offer sales online with easy charge systems meant that paper catalogs, while still available, would no longer be the timely way to offer or order goods and services.  Over time this has meant that much of the transactions that take place between individuals and companies for many venues have an online counter-part that is usually far faster and as reliable as the paper based system.

After these venues those of charities, not for profit and information based institutions (notably think tanks) also migrated to have online counter-parts and new opportunities for getting donations, input and other interactions with a public that could only have been considered near unreachable just before 1999.  Today everything from religious teachings to managing your finances to planning your vacation can all be done online with little to no interference from a middle man.  The only place where this lags is the one institution that is one of the most conservative and retrograde on the planet.  That is NOT the US Army which adopted to online games and building an entire electronic system of input and recruiting nearly overnight... no it is the institution far above it: the US Government.

As a whole, not by parts as there are one or two shining examples, the US Government has proven the least adaptable, least capable and least able to move into the disintermediation era.  In an era where one can find information about any medication in mere minutes, we depend on a Government that still takes weeks to months to process simple forms.  Fighting this strong tide of putting more power into the hands of the people, the US Government and many State and Local governments, have demonstrated an inability to adapt, a trenchant attitude against being disintermediated and even trying to build NEW intermediation structures that don't exist.  Just in pure sales alone Ebay can be considered the third largest retailer in the US, coming from nowhere a decade ago.  That ability for person-to-person interaction for goods is NOT being mirrored by any government.  A number do offer some activities online, of course, and if your DMV has any online functions that can AVOID the brick and mortar buildings of it, then people are willing and able to do that and avoid the 'personal' interaction of the institution itself.  The IRS is finding extreme difficulties in moving to a modern processing platform, can't give the same answer to the same question twice, mis-returns forms to thousands of businesses, and only with the leanest, sparsest and least complex returns is it able to offer any swiftness at all.  Data leaks from the IRS, however, demonstrate that your local financial institution is more trustworthy for your personal data than is the IRS.

Lackluster is the best description you can give the IRS and the worst ranges down to abysmal, draconian and authoritarian, what with it having separate courts from the rest of the civil court system.  Yet that is the institution that Congress wants to run some form of National oversight on Health Care.

To put it more succinctly:  Congress wishes to create a huge bureaucratic intermediation institution that isolates you further from your health care practitioner than you currently are and then decide what sort of payments for your health are appropriate.  After a decade of the erosion of institutions to becoming leaner, more responsive and more open, the US Congress wishes to make Health Care more opaque, harder to get and costlier than it currently is by inserting the IRS, of all parts of government, to oversee your health.

Of course your local Congresscritter Representative has a staff of over 20 people to help intermediate between their Noble personages and you the peon.  So if they are unfamiliar with 'disintermediation' it is because they have an entire set of intermediaries to shield them from it, which then distorts their views of how the common man lives their life.  These flacks, flunkies, secretaries and so on run the offices of the Congresscritters to the point where they also write the bills that go on to the floor.  Thus the House of Representatives would be, itself, a prime target for disintermediation by upping the proportion of representation and removing all the staff: you would have the same number of people working but they would all be directly accountable to small and compact districts.

Which, in itself, would remove the power of lobbyists, labor unions, and other organizations trying to sway Congress as 9,000 or so Representatives becomes a very, very, very hard target to sway and the cost to bribe even a small proportion of them is huge.  Unlike the current Congress.

The US Government is entrenched in the late 19th to early 20th century Progressive mold of command and control systems, which means an elite class ruling over the common man who is intermediated by government so as to lose liberty and freedom to make decisions on their own.  Anyone seriously wanting a responsive government and having it disintermediated then must look towards the entrenched old line of thought towards government that was formulated in the horse and buggy era of Marxism.  The Industrial, Space, Post-Industrial, Manufacturing, Information and now Disintermediated eras have all eroded the philosophical core of Marxism and its centralized planning systems.  Even Anarcho-Syndicalists fall into this as the concept of 'workers councils' having any concept of what other people want outside of a supply and demand system is one rife with old-line thought of limited goods, limited distribution, and intermediation of the 'workers council' between the common man and his daily living requirements.  No council, no government, no single institution, no matter how wise can accurately predict or run an important facet of the lives of individuals.  The Roman Catholic Church failed with religion, the USSR failed in an entire economy and goods supply, and the US Government fails in ensuring that individual liberty is not encroached on as those elected to run it feel they have every right to tell the common man what is or is not safe, what is or is not good, what is or is not healthy and then tell the common man to pay up for such divine wisdom as is bestowed by the bureaucracy created by the Aristocracy in Congress.

If the Federal Reserve can't figure out that pushing banks to accept government rated 'safe' securities built on loans to those who can't repay them is a BAD IDEA then just what sort of trust should we have with the IRS and your HEALTH?

The tide of disintermediation is leaving a lot of dead fish on the beach, most of them from government although a number from tiny organizations that should never have been started in the first place and are now long gone.  But Congress is trying to land Moby Dick on the beach to flop around and entertain the beach goers... and then rot in the hot sun for all to enjoy providing you with lovely health care benefits while the system decays and collapses entirely.  Right next to Social Security and Medicare which both have a very unhealthy stench to them, and the newly flopping carcass of the mortgage securities landed by Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie.  Soon the entire beach will be rotting whale flesh, and we will be told how good it is as the maggots infest these dying bodies.

Only a Congress unconnected to the actual, real world that the common man lives in could have devised something like this.

And soon we will all pay for the rotten flesh dropping on us from these rotting beasts.

Because bureaucrats know how to run your life better than YOU DO.

And yet you were born free.

Instead of 'shovel ready'

Interesting days on the financial side of things, no?

Take, for example, Fannie Mae's draw on the US Treasury after a $14.8 billion loss (Source: Al Yoon, 05 AUG 2009 at al-Reuters):

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Fannie Mae, the largest provider of U.S. home mortgage funding, on Thursday reported a $14.8 billion quarterly net loss that it said would force it to go to the U.S. Treasury trough a third time for money to stay in business.

The company noted a "significant uncertainty" of its long-term financial health in reporting its eighth consecutive quarterly loss, which illustrates its struggle to make money in the face of rising defaults and pressure to do more to stabilize the housing market.

Say, isn't Fannie Mae supposed to be one of those lovely government backed organizations that does so much 'good' for borrowers? If so, then what is up with the big, bad nasty loss after the 'stimulus'?

Ah, just a drop in the bucket that, after all...

How about Freddie Mac? Doing great, huh?

From Trading Markets, 07 AUG 2009 we can find that Freddie is turning a profit:

(RTTNews) - Friday, government-sponsored home mortgage finance company Freddie Mac (FRE Quote Chart News PowerRating), reported a swing to profit in the second quarter of 2009 from a loss a year ago, driven by higher net interest income reflecting a $4.2 billion gain on its derivative portfolio. On account of funding commitment to the Treasury Department, Freddie Mac has paid out a dividend of $1.14 billion on the its senior preferred stock. The dividend payment has left Freddie Mac with a loss attributable to common shareholders, however, one that narrowed from last year. Further, the mortgager noted that it would not request any additional financial support from the federal government. Freddie Mac indicated signs of slowing in home price declines, however, remains cautious due to rising foreclosures, growing unemployment, tight lending standards and buyers' reluctance to re-enter the market.

The McLean, Virginia-based company reported that its second quarter net income attributable to the company totaled $768 million, compared to a loss of $821 million in the prior-year quarter.

The company paid out a dividend of of $1.14 billion to the U.S. Department of the Treasury on the senior preferred stock during the second quarter.

After the dividend pay out, Freddie Mac posted a loss attributable to the common shareholders of $374 million or $0.11 per share, compared to a loss of $1.05 billion or $1.63 per share in the same quarter last year.

Oh, it only moved in a profitable direction. It still posted a loss after getting Treasury help. And from that nasty 'derivatives' sector that everyone decried from SEP to DEC 2008, you remember the folks who supposedly played lots of games with the market? Well Freddie Mac is helping them to do that, it appears.

That must mean all is going swimmingly with FHA, right?

From Friday Morning Federal Newscast at Federal News Radio 18 SEP 2009:

The Federal Housing Administration, hit hard by the mortgage crisis, is in need of a cash infusion. For the first time, cash reserves will drop below the minimum level set by Congress according to FHA officials. The FHA part of Housing and Urban Development insures mortgages against losses and guaranteed about a quarter of all U.S. home loans made this year. The Washington Post reports rather than raise fees or go to Congress for a bail out the agency is considering a proposal that would require banks and lenders to keep a million dollars in capital to repay the agency for losses due to fraud to make up the shortfall.

Say, instead of asking others to cover for the FHA, how about taking the regulations off the books that allow people with No Income, No Jobs or Assets (NINJAs) to get loans? That might help a whole lot more by getting creditworthy borrowers into the system and ease the un-creditworthy ones out as they default on loans.

Do remember that one of the groups to push for that was ACORN Housing Affordable Loans, LLC, with the help of many:

"Bank of America is proud to participate in the launch of ACORN's mortgage brokerage," said Glenda Gabriel, Bank of America Neighborhood Lending Executive. "Working with ACORN, this valuable partnership will make Bank of America's suite of safe and affordable mortgage products more accessible to first-time homebuyers interested in achieving the American dream of home ownership."

"Over the last 12 months, we have worked diligently together to get ACORN established as a broker, provided training and support as they set up their broker operations and strategy. The launch today is a culmination of these efforts. We are proud to announce this alliance with Acorn Housing Corporation," said Danny Gardner, National Director of Strategic Markets for CitiMortgage. "In the current climate, we feel the mortgage products we are offering through this relationship will not only help first-time homebuyers looking for a home but also may help those faced with rising mortgage payments."

"First American Title has been a committed partner in the industry in serving low-to-moderate income and multicultural families in achieving the American dream of homeownership. We are happy to take another step forward with this partnership with ACORN Housing Corporation, " said Lionel Savage, Vice President for Lender Services and Industry Relations, First American Title Insurance Company. "First American Strategic Markets is fully equipped with assisting in this partnership with our multicultural escrow and closing services and tools that directly address the need for education about the homebuying process amongst the multicultural community."

"Fannie Mae is proud to work with ACORN Housing, " said Thomas Collins, Director, Single Family Business, and Fannie Mae. By working with ACORN and lenders like Citibank, we can support their efforts to expand homeownership opportunities for underserved communities at affordable price points achieve sustainable homeownership."

Yup and the ACORN folks are a small business by the SBA rules on such, so can get preferential treatment! It has truly taken a great number of swell hearted fools handing out federal money hand over fist, no money down, low interest for the first year, no questions asked to get the mortgage sector into this mess.

But 'cash for clunkers' was a glorious success, no?

From Gary E. Sattler at BloggingStocks comes this analysis:

Analysts are also pointing out that consumers who purchased vehicles during this period paid higher prices on average for those vehicles than purchasers in the previous month. It is believed that the Clunker vouchers dampened the spirit of wheeling and dealing by helping to reduce initial sticker shock.

The data also shows that the average age of traded-in vehicles during this period almost doubled. In this regard, the Clunkers program was a great success. While consumers put new cars into service, saving themselves fuel expense and short-term maintenance costs, they also created a flurry of new consumer debt. However, negative equity of trade-ins dropped to its lowest point of the year, thereby considerably reducing the "rollover debt" factor.

Another noteworthy sales dynamic I garnered from the article is the fact that the value of vehicles sold during this period actually trended downward, indicating that the program's vehicle value cap did in fact limit or direct consumer choice. People bought less car for more money. The facts speak for themselves.

To get the 'good' of lower mileage cars, consumers paid more for lower end vehicles and got lesser vehicles for their purchase. In other words the net effect of the vouchers was a higher end cost for a lower end value, because there was less haggling in the market on trade-in values and new car values. Buyers would have been better off without the vouchers, without the 'help', gotten cars for less money and better value. To balance that people purchased cars below what they normally would have gotten which did help banks, somewhat, but removed market incentive to do more for less.

Good job!

And today we find out that there are some minor problems at another place, this at WSJ 18 SEP 2009:

WASHINGTON -- Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair said Friday her agency may tap its $500 billion credit line with the U.S. Treasury to replenish its deposit insurance fund, though she appeared cautious about doing so.

"We are carefully considering all options" including borrowing from the Treasury, Ms. Bair said Friday after a speech in Washington.

Ms. Bair has already warned banks that they may face an assessment increase to bolster the fund. Friday, she said there are also other little-known options available to the agency, including requiring banks to prepay assessments. The FDIC board of directors will meet at the end of this month to consider how to replenish the fund, she said.

Ms. Bair appeared cautious about resorting to the Treasury credit line, saying there are different views on when it should be used. She said some believe it should be reserved for emergencies only, rather than for covering losses that are already known.

Congress acted earlier this year to allow the FDIC to borrow as much as $500 billion from the Treasury if the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the White House believe it is warranted. Otherwise, the agency can borrow up to $100 billion.

So let me get this straight:

• We have major problems in the mortgage market that go unaddressed to stop giving out mortgages to those who can't afford them.
• We have the two federally backed mortgage groups losing money, even with cash infusions and playing with the derivatives market.
• We have the FHA dropping below its minimal required cash reserve levels, which should mean that it will stop handing out cash but, instead, will seek to put good money after bad.
• We have just one group that helped stimulate all these loans finally getting some scrutiny nearly a decade after the regulations were loosened under the Clinton Administration.
• We have a federal program which ends up costing the consumers money in order to get federal largesse to trade in cars.
• We have the FDIC, that much vaunted institution that everyone always points to as the one great good of the FDR Administration now pointing out that it is running out of money to cover depositors.

The 'We' is you, me and every other citizen of the United States.

That is our cash they are playing with, and treating our hard earned money as play money.

Mind you this was all done with federal regulations and the close observation of federal regulators and 'oversight' by the swell minded idiots Upon the Hill. No one can complain that there weren't ENOUGH regulations as it was the regulations that caused these problems IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And now that 'We' are still in a recession, with high unemployment rate, these bozos Upon the Hill refuse to STOP playing with our money and start addressing the problems that has been caused by our elected representatives in the House, Senate and White House for decades. Thus they are lengthening and deepening the recession and just as 'We' begin to get a little economic footing under us, the bill for all that lovely government spending comes due and that will get us a devalued currency with inflation, to boot. To pay out all that money will require a huge cash infusion into the system over the next few years just to cover the debt that our government has put into place. Plus the hugely expanded deficit that will then kick into high gear about 5-6 years down the road when the huge amounts of interest on all that lovely new debt comes due for us to pay out. That being 'We'.

We the People.

We have an agreement.

This is not forming a more perfect Union.

The agreement is being violated.

This government, even if it changed over to Republican majorities overnight, would leave the Nation with a huge debt, climbing deficits, and, as Republicans are so fiscally management oriented, with a political class that will want to KEEP the new status quo of spending.

That is a Charlie Foxtrot no matter which way you go.

The last time Democrats had any concept of fiscal sobriety was in the 19th century.

For Republicans that last time was in the early 20th, probably around the Taft Administration.

The much vaunted two party system is SOS.

Stuck on Stupid.

Both parties, without exception.

They can't even recognize that before spending on 'shovel ready' things they need to spend on 'hole ready' things, because the holes already exist and they need to be filled and closed off so that the filling doesn't melt away.

Our swell Ignoramuses Upon the Hill can't figure that out.

We have a problem when our government will not do things necessary to get out of our way so that We may build a more perfect Union.

Activism FOR more government regulation and control has purchased us this problem. It is the problem, not a solution.

So if more government is not the solution, then how about less of it?

Or are we afraid to build our more perfect Union with less government and more from ourselves?

Just how much do you fear that face that looks back at you in the mirror?

Just how much do you want to be controlled by government?

This isn't about other people and helping them, it is about you and you giving up your voice, your money, your liberty and your freedom to those that don't give a damn about you. Do you really want someone else to take a major role in deciding if you live or die, and that can change with a misfiling of a form? An accidentally dropped number?

Are you a number?

Or are you a person?

The Undefended War

H/t to Jules Crittenden for examining this subject.

America is a unique Nation amongst all Nations in having a tradition of arguing about everything.  Not only does our Constitution protect this, but the Declaration of Independence cites that we are humans born with all liberties and rights, and that we come together to make government to defend us.  Some things we do come together on readily, like the question posed by the framers of the Constitution of the necessity of having armed forces to protect the Nation.  That was supposed to be batted around every two years and seriously considered, but needing some military presence has required an ongoing commitment to it that is now never questioned.  One of the most humorous things is to see 'conservatives' who argue for strict constructionalism and for abiding by the wishes of the founders never, not once, bringing up this little tidbit as it is so taken for granted that we need a military that we now never question the very threat to liberty and freedom that such armed forces pose.  We have, indeed, seen many other societies over the past centuries succumb to military dictatorship and to armed forces ruling over society and government in many lands.  Our single, strongest bulwark in our government is to argue that need every two years, right there in the US Constitution on the needing to re-authorize the military for every two years.  In not addressing this very, basic question of representative democracy, we have turned military spending into a political football, and bat that about all around an area delimited by the personal and political whims of those we elect to High Office.

Luckily, I am not a 'conservative' nor a 'liberal' and while I do see the necessity of the armed forces, the need to actually hand strong definition to that need every two years in a 'hammer and tongs' way in Congress means that Congress gets to spend oodles of time arguing about things they don't get in the Constitution instead of sticking to those they do.  So when the question of 'Defending the War in Iraq' comes up we, as a society, no longer have the basis to actually know what our armed forces are for, what they get committed to do and to ensure those same armed forces have the strictest possible oversight so as not to push society aside when decisions need to be made.  Without that basis we have no common ground to see what the armed forces are put to, in the way of work, until, like a bolt out of the blue, they actually get committed to doing something by Congress or the President.  Then the great American Tradition going back to the founding comes into play.

We argue.

And what is the basis for that argument?

By not having a societal level agreement on the necessity for the armed forces, each and every person who argues about it decides to pick their own ground: by having no common ground they have no ability to compare nor contrast their starting position with the common position held by their fellow citizens on this topic.  By being able to tailor-make what they think the basis for judgment is, they can then leave out anything they don't like, don't want to address or otherwise ignore, completely.  Without that basis, the argument is pointless as no one will settle down to recognize the validity of some of their opponents framework for reasoning and offer constructive criticism on multiple points.  The Left has turned this into mere finger pointing, shouting obscenities, deriding and belittling their fellow citizens, and often just calling those they disagree with 'dumb' or 'stupid' when an obscenity is not furnished.  The Right, however, has an equally deep problem in not being able to recognize that the foundation that we have for government to control the armed forces is society, and that society must use the means of government to come to common agreement on some very basic principles to defend the Nation.  The Left makes up principles as it goes along, discards them with equal ease and will not take any firm stance on any ground to allow themselves to be examined and question outside of tailor made frameworks for any given argument, and only that argument, and only for that brief period of time they hold those views.  The Right ignores that society now has no common agreement, thinks it does and is absolutely, positively unwilling to state what their framework is, either.  Thus multiple frameworks from the Right get trotted out and they are just as tailor made as on the Left.

There is a problem in this.

You aren't arguing about the same thing with common basis.

Thus we argue about the form of war, formula of war, the outcomes of war, and seek to build argumentative basis that is tailored to each of us.

We do not examine the other side of this, and we are now, horrifically, so at odds with each other, across the spectrum that we can no longer recognize that function and its basis to be.

To understand form, you must understand function.

To understand function, you must, unequivocally declare what the actual, real function of war is for our society, at the very least, and then recognize that all other societies have recourse to it.

We do not understand the actual basis for warfare or what it is as a society.

We cannot describe its function and what its use is as a society.

And people want to argue about its forms and outcome?

Heh.

Lotsa luck on that, I tell ya.

 

Part of my purpose in writing in this space, in this blog, and in some few other places, is to trace out my reasoning for such things as warfare, peace, society, and individual responsibility.  These are not separate venues at the level of the Nation State or even the State.  It is a complete package that must be understood in parts to be understood in its entirety.  Arguing about any single part, in absence of its place in both higher and lower level structures that we, as humans, create, is a pointless exercise.

I detest war.

I adore human liberty for myself and my fellow citizens and have this strange idea that we, as humans, can learn to exercise its positive aspects and create good things for ourselves and our fellow man.  That is the positive aspect of liberty and rights: creation.

I detest war, the destruction of life, the devastation of property and the strange concept that our fellow man, either singly or in entire Nation States, want to kill me, kill you, kill our society and rule over all other humans on this planet.  That is the negative side of liberty and rights: not only destruction but removal of life, liberty and rights from others.

As a citizen I must, first and foremost before any other thing, actually get to know what these positive and negative liberties are so that I know which ones to use and which ones not to use at any, given time.  The basis for those rights and liberties is not the Nation State, not the State, not society, but the individual.  These rights and liberties are mine, as a human, and yours, too, and is granted to all beings coming from Nature via the Law of Nature.  This is a 'scale free' concept first encapsulated for our Nation at its Declaration of Independence which had to examine that spectrum from its very fine grained basis.  That single document took hundreds of years of advanced understanding on the human condition, boiled it down, and gave a clear and distinct reason to rise up against a Mother Nation and remove its ability to govern over us as a sub-unit.

We forget what the other thing that the Declaration of Independence is.

It is a Declaration of War.

It clearly states the position of what a society is, what it does, what its purpose is and even that coming to common understanding between a Mother government and that of its sub-units is much better than waging war, and that waging war is only something taken up when the ills of government become unsufferable.  The final two-thirds of the actual document, the part no one really bothers to read in the modern era, is an exacting statement of what these ills are, instances of these ills and ties each back to the basis for common society and government. 

Further, it sets a foundation and basis of understanding that this applies, as all men are created equal, to all societies: it is a common standard and agreement.  It represented the combined viewpoint of 10% of the population in 1776.  At that point 15% supported the Crown.  The war that would follow would force everyone to take sides, break families apart, kill about 10% of the population and see 15% flee the new Nation.  From that Declaration the Articles of Confederation were made, Continental Congress presided and the Nation went heavily into debt to pay for the war.

The stated principles were in the Declaration.

The function of war was in the Continental Congress under the Articles.

The form of war was all-volunteer, low pay (when you could get any), short on supplies, short on training and, unfortunately, long.  It had a horrific death toll to it percentage wise, and left the new Nation crippled.  That Nation *failed*: the Articles were so impoverishing poor farmers and imprisoning them via the State governments assuming their portion of the debt that insurrection was in the air.  America needed to re-start so that she could pay off her debts.

We had good understanding of the basis for war.

We had a pretty good ability to give function to war.

We were piss poor at the form of war, and it showed.

 

Today when I hear 'arguments' about the War in Iraq, I must ask: what is your foundational understanding of the human condition?

Do you conceive of the human condition of having all liberties and rights invested in YOU or do you put forward that GOVERNEMENT gets those and administers them TO YOU?

You cannot argue about war, any war, until this is examined and understood within yourself.

If you can't believe that war is something you have within you, that Private War is something you are handed as an individual by being derived from the Laws of Nature, then you cannot put forward that war is either bad nor good because you have nothing to compare it to within yourself.  That is not being civilized: it is barbaric to think that such a thing is only handed to those things we create because that is a child-like belief in the immaterial being given substance by naifs in the woods.

I have studied warfare about as well as I can do as a private citizen, and the idea that we don't get war until we create society, State and Nation is not only foolish, not only child-like, but goes against all evidence before our eyes and all scientific evidence that clearly shows only the most isolate, most tiny and most remote human populations ever lose the capability for war.  And they still suffer predators, defend themselves and understand what war is as fighting for one's life against a creature that will end it must also recognize that your fellow humans can return to the state of nature and become willful predators upon you.

There is no metaphysical bestowal to government to do these things: we grant those things to government so that we can put aside our negative liberties so that we can come to agreement on what is necessary to defend our society, our State and our Nation.  When you say this is 'not in your name' then you have a problem in this representative democracy: it damned well IS done in your name by OUR common agreement.  To disavow that is to ask to be a subject of government, not a participant in it for the common good.  You may disagree with the OUTCOME, but you can not say that for yourself or your fellow citizen this is NOT done in your name, my name and in the names of all of those in our society.

To think otherwise is to set yourself above your fellow citizens and it smacks of despotism and authoritarianism to think that all of society should follow your wishes.  That is why we have civil government - to hold it accountable to us, as a society, and to put forth reason as a basis of understanding.  Once the civil discussion is over, we may talk about if our representatives got the issues and their basis right: and because we have a bunch of ne'er-do-wells elected to High Office, chances are they screwed it up.

The answer is NOT to take to the streets and 'protest'.

It is to get those twits and asshats in High Office out of there to better represent YOU.

Because those elected representatives are ruining YOUR GOOD NAME.

When you attack your fellow citizens verbally, besmirch their honor, and rant that they are childish, ignorant, and really aren't as enlightened as you are, may I suggest that you find a mirror and see the lack of your own halo?

If you want to change society, then just what sort of Totalitarian Government sponsoring individual are YOU?

Yeah, that goes for the 'Left' and the 'Right' for those that take up to 'change society' by the means of government.

 

I am more than willing to examine the War in Iraq, its aftermath and what is going on there.  I have been doing so for years, but my rationale is, apparently, different than those trying to argue about the FORM of war and if it was EFFECTIVE.

Effective?  To what ends?  Care to cite something on that?

I cite the Congressional actions that put the Nation to war and ask the pertinent question: When does Iraq end?

The startling conclusion is that Iraq does NOT end when the fighting stops and a peaceful government gets put down, our absolutely insane representatives Upon the Hill want us to help these folks learn about democracy and get a representative democracy going.  What idealogues, no?  To think that human beings, because they ARE human beings and have all positive and negative liberties bestowed upon them that they might, just might, be able to govern themselves?

Heck, we have a problem with that!

Who are these angels upon the Earth who had been oppressed for so long that THEY can learn this while WE can't?

What sort of ignoramuses did we elect, anyways?

Still, I do grant that they actually got most of the functional questions properly stated and put down, even if, as I am sure, they don't know what the basis for those various functions actually are.  As I have pointed out before, in our lovely authoritarian mode of thinking about schooling, we just don't teach the basics of what government is, what its overall form is, and why its form is guided by its deriving from individuals, society and the State.  If they don't teach it, how can you forget it?

 

So, can the Iraq War be defended?  Yup.

I do so in The Worst Wars of All, and quite clearly point out the functional necessities of the War in Iraq.

I do not bother to see if the war is 'good' on its own, I do examine what 'just' means within the framework of Nations, and also what the actual powers of Nations are and their restrictions in warfare.  I take a view that, surprisingly, no one wants to take up because it is a bare-bones examination of wars conducted by Nations.  Somewhere, in this vast and flabby expanse of the thing we call the Federal Government, there is still a skeleton floating around in the tons of lard.  The thing has gotten a bit disconnected from the skin and vital organs in a few places, to tell the truth, and has numerous cancers in it.  People don't want to read that stuff as it is basic and uses reason to approach the question... so much better to argue about outcomes than to ask if there is reasoning behind a war!

No, my position that I take, did take, still take, is that this war is something far worse than its outcomes:  it was a necessary war.

Ye God how I hate necessary wars!

Still, it is not the worst type of war, not by any means, but that does not make it in any way, shape or form 'good'.  You can work damned hard to get some good from it, and I thank with the deepest gratitude I can express our fellow Citizen Soldiers who have done, are doing and continue to do that.  We were handed a carton of broken eggs and told them to get a chicken from it... it doesn't have to be a beautiful chicken...

My hatred for warfare does not  influence my viewpoint on the necessity of the war:  I understand it, accept that we have had incompetent government since 1991, and that we, as a society, just wanted Saddam to crawl back under his rock and go away.  I'm none too pleased with my society nor my fellow citizens on that score.  Our gutless wonder, Bush (41), and then Clinton and the intervening years of Congresses were true marvels of barbarism, being unable to decide if civilized means to get rid of a despicable world leader who had wronged all he touched was worth doing.

You folks have got a lot to answer for on not only not doing your duty to your fellow citizens, recognizing the awful burden nature has placed on you within society, but you have also been encouraging Cold War, Long War and Barbaric War by the way our representatives have been encouraged by you to act against our interests as a Nation, a State and a society.  As I must accept that, no matter how vile, this has been the considered judgment of our society via its representative government, I do as I say others should do and speak up against the basis for such reasoning. 

I do not parade around, make fun or belittle anyone, and consider the equality of all our rights and liberties and that they must be upheld by my actions first and foremost.  Because I do recognize that placement of all rights and liberties, I also make it very and substantially clear that International lawlessness begins at home with you.  As individuals we agree to be held accountable to these higher constructs made to serve and protect everyone in a form of civil government that culminates in something known as 'civilization'.  Now if we could only get folks interested in being civil to each other, again...

 

I have a relatively high bar when talking about war:  if you can't understand where it comes from or how we try to control it, you really can't say all that much about it, other than 'god, its awful'. 

Want to talk about outcomes?

Why?

You are expecting something good from having the negative liberty of aggressive war utilized?

The best you can get from it, if you work really, really hard, is the ability to argue about it afterwards.

You can, also, demonstrate the advanced civilized trait of mercy towards those you defeat and who fight honorably in war against you, and then help them, afterwards, to build something just a tad bit better so they don't have to fight *more* and *worse* wars in the future.  If you think the cost of doing that is 'high', just wait until you see what happens when you don't.  World War II taught us that lesson, but no one wants to learn it, apparently.  Nor did Vietnam, and we should have known better by then.

Getting some positive outcomes is hard, hard work.  It can, and often is, harder than actually fighting a war, this cleaning up and helping others to stand up and defend themselves business.  Usually not in lives, though, so it is immeasurably cheaper than fighting a new war, later, because you were such a cheapskate and thug that you just walked away after the fighting stopped.  That is rank cowardice and being a bully. 

Strange that I heard a few voices on the Left advocating doing just that when most of the fighting was over... aren't these supposed to be the 'building' people of hope and bridges between societies and paying off others to do the hard work sort?

That said if expecting 'good' from the negative liberty of aggressive war is asinine, then saying that the positive liberty of defensive war is 'bad' or 'threatening' is just plain awful.  Positive, defensive war can get you one, immediate and most excellent benefit:  you survive!  That is a hell of a lot better than the alternative, which is why I support that for my fellow citizens and myself.

 

So where do I stand on the Iraq War?

Behind our soldiers and supporting them, giving to the USO, Soldiers Angels and contributing to Vietnam Vets organizations.  These are, to me at least, the best people on the planet.

Bar none.

Ever.

 

The war itself?

Justified and necessary, because of our own inaction.

Do you see all those in High Office in DC?

Tar and feathering them and riding them out of town on a rail is too good for them.  They might *like it*, and that is worse.

 

My real worry?

Slacker America -  The Do Nothing Nation.

Because if you can't figure out what your rights and liberties are, what you have to do to protect them and can't be bothered with actually doing those things, then you soon won't have your rights and liberties.

Then its 1776 all over again... 10% dead.... 15% fled... what a failure that was!

Still, we got a second chance, if we can keep it.

Brought to you by A Citizen of the Republic