ricky's ragg
Friday, July 28, 2006
I wrote this a year ago last May and just ran across it again:
THERE'S ONE BORN EVERY MINUTE
"Bait and switch" is a term that refers to an illegal method used by unscrupulous people or businesses as a "con" to separate unwitting people from their money. "Extortion" is the illegal act of threatening someone with harm in order to force him or her to accede to the wishes of the extortionist.
These terms also apply equally well to the tactics regularly employed by local politicians, bureaucrats and special interest groups (e.g. public employee unions) in order to squeeze more money from taxpayers. They request more taxes "for the children" or "the elderly" or any number of other "powerless" groups. When the good-hearted citizens respond with more money, most of it goes to higher salaries and more benefits for public employees - not to "the children" as advertised. A car dealer employing such tactics would be in jail.
If the "bait and switch" tactic doesn't work, these same groups regularly trot out scenarios of doom and gloom (see: Barbara Roberts). Their favorite hostages are kids - huge class sizes, shortened school years and outdated textbooks - all parts of the standard litany. They are even willing to threaten public safety by releasing prisoners from jail (see: Bernie Giusto). Worse yet, they lay the blame for these horrors at the feet of voters if we don't knuckle under to their demands.
Their efforts are successful for three reasons: 1) The public still has some small measure of trust in its local elected officials and representatives. (see next paragraph) 2) Individual citizens are effectively outgunned by the sophisticated nature of these campaigns and the high level of organization of those who benefit directly or indirectly from higher taxes and fees. 3) Local print and electronic media, whose willing complicity (with a very few exceptions) provides an incomparable outlet for the incomplete "information", misleading "facts", and inaccurate "statistics" that are the stock in trade of the above mentioned campaigns.
The public still seems to have a misconception of what public service means these days. The old concept implies a selfless, altruistic, trustworthy group of elected officials and public employees. There may be some such in local and state government and to them I apologize. The reality is not quite so pretty. "Public Service", as it has devolved is now synonymous with the "government class". It is comprised of elected and appointed officials, career bureaucrats and staff, unionized teachers and many employees of any government agency. For these the notion of "public service" means lifetime employment, ridiculously generous benefit packages, work rules and job protections written into their contracts, and little or no accountability. Even elected officials usually leave office either to other government jobs or to firms whose primary business is "consulting " (see Neil Goldschmidt, Larry Campbell, et al).
Because of these factors, anyone who derives their income, either directly or indirectly, from the proliferation, perpetuation or expansion of government has a powerful motive for protecting their job. This is not an indictment of government workers or their dependents ? that would be tantamount to an indictment of human nature itself. In their attempts to protect their source of income and security, their motive is, oddly enough, the same one we all share - money! The equation is simple: the more they get, the less we have.
These groups have discovered, to their mutual profit, the world of professional consultants, marketing and media experts. The problem with this symbiosis is that the accountability of these consultants is to their clients and not to the general voting and taxpaying public. In fact, except for their "malleability quotient", voters and taxpayers are not real people - just polling and focus group data. So much for the "caring" teacher and "concerned" public servants.
The appeal of this unholy alliance to individual government employees is that none need put his or her job on the line by saying, "I want more". Professionally handled media campaigns provide cover. The public is once removed from discerning whose interest is being served. Further, the public is purposely misled. When referring to taxes, campaign statements like; "It's for schools" or "It's for the elderly" are not disingenuous - they are lies. It's for salaries and benefits! To commission, or even to tolerate such ads, crosses the line. This tactic is not dissimilar to terrorists using innocents as "human shields".
In the private sector a business or an individual offers a product or service. This product or service must appeal to people such that they are willing to pay for it. If the appeal is not sufficient, or the price too high, the buyers refuse to buy. Our society devolves the provision of some products (but mostly services) to the government: e.g. public safety, education, some utilities, etc. The merits and values of other functions of government are debatable. It is a debate that rarely occurs, however.
The matter of whether the appeal (necessity, value) of the government products justifies their costs is a valid and necessary exercise. The "products" to which I refer are the myriad rules, regulations and restrictions which affect our daily lives. In making decisions about spending, taxpayers must ask themselves three questions: 1) Do we need or want what they're selling? 2) Do we get what we pay for? 3) (unfortunately) Are the proponents telling the truth?
The government class, their consultants and their accomplices in the media, commonly use the assertion that voters are responsible for specific cuts in programs if they reject tax increases. If taxpayers don't want to pay still more, they are "anti-tax", not "pro-fiscal responsibility". They are described as selfish, greedy and uncaring. Such characterizations are more properly laid at the feet of our representatives and bureaucrats who actually decide priorities in spending. Other adjectives that apply here are cynical, calculating and dishonest.
It is obvious to anyone who cares to look that the budget "cuts" usually splayed all over the front page are those chosen to have the most shock value (see "calculating" above). The fact that "cuts" in these areas come first demonstrates the lack of respect these decision makers have for the voters' intelligence.
A more responsible approach to allocating funds would begin with a prioritization of services of government. Legislators are afraid of this approach. It would put them in a "Catch 22" situation - either please the groups that contribute to their campaigns at the expense of the general public - or fund those programs and services that really are important to all citizens and risk losing contributions. At present, the wisdom appears to be; take the money from those organized groups paying attention and flim-flam the masses with the help of the media.
A prioritized list of spending would attenuate the power of campaign contributions and force legislators to actually represent all the people - not just those who are organized and contribute. Campaign money will still be a factor but its persuasive power will have to be weighed against the reaction of the public in the process of compiling such a list. Consider the risks of publicly supporting the Oregon Cultural Trust at the expense of money for schools. When brought out into the light of day, such a position would be untenable. Rather than fearing such a change, honest legislators should welcome such a public debate. ¶ 1:47 PM 0 comments
THERE'S ONE BORN EVERY MINUTE
"Bait and switch" is a term that refers to an illegal method used by unscrupulous people or businesses as a "con" to separate unwitting people from their money. "Extortion" is the illegal act of threatening someone with harm in order to force him or her to accede to the wishes of the extortionist.
These terms also apply equally well to the tactics regularly employed by local politicians, bureaucrats and special interest groups (e.g. public employee unions) in order to squeeze more money from taxpayers. They request more taxes "for the children" or "the elderly" or any number of other "powerless" groups. When the good-hearted citizens respond with more money, most of it goes to higher salaries and more benefits for public employees - not to "the children" as advertised. A car dealer employing such tactics would be in jail.
If the "bait and switch" tactic doesn't work, these same groups regularly trot out scenarios of doom and gloom (see: Barbara Roberts). Their favorite hostages are kids - huge class sizes, shortened school years and outdated textbooks - all parts of the standard litany. They are even willing to threaten public safety by releasing prisoners from jail (see: Bernie Giusto). Worse yet, they lay the blame for these horrors at the feet of voters if we don't knuckle under to their demands.
Their efforts are successful for three reasons: 1) The public still has some small measure of trust in its local elected officials and representatives. (see next paragraph) 2) Individual citizens are effectively outgunned by the sophisticated nature of these campaigns and the high level of organization of those who benefit directly or indirectly from higher taxes and fees. 3) Local print and electronic media, whose willing complicity (with a very few exceptions) provides an incomparable outlet for the incomplete "information", misleading "facts", and inaccurate "statistics" that are the stock in trade of the above mentioned campaigns.
The public still seems to have a misconception of what public service means these days. The old concept implies a selfless, altruistic, trustworthy group of elected officials and public employees. There may be some such in local and state government and to them I apologize. The reality is not quite so pretty. "Public Service", as it has devolved is now synonymous with the "government class". It is comprised of elected and appointed officials, career bureaucrats and staff, unionized teachers and many employees of any government agency. For these the notion of "public service" means lifetime employment, ridiculously generous benefit packages, work rules and job protections written into their contracts, and little or no accountability. Even elected officials usually leave office either to other government jobs or to firms whose primary business is "consulting " (see Neil Goldschmidt, Larry Campbell, et al).
Because of these factors, anyone who derives their income, either directly or indirectly, from the proliferation, perpetuation or expansion of government has a powerful motive for protecting their job. This is not an indictment of government workers or their dependents ? that would be tantamount to an indictment of human nature itself. In their attempts to protect their source of income and security, their motive is, oddly enough, the same one we all share - money! The equation is simple: the more they get, the less we have.
These groups have discovered, to their mutual profit, the world of professional consultants, marketing and media experts. The problem with this symbiosis is that the accountability of these consultants is to their clients and not to the general voting and taxpaying public. In fact, except for their "malleability quotient", voters and taxpayers are not real people - just polling and focus group data. So much for the "caring" teacher and "concerned" public servants.
The appeal of this unholy alliance to individual government employees is that none need put his or her job on the line by saying, "I want more". Professionally handled media campaigns provide cover. The public is once removed from discerning whose interest is being served. Further, the public is purposely misled. When referring to taxes, campaign statements like; "It's for schools" or "It's for the elderly" are not disingenuous - they are lies. It's for salaries and benefits! To commission, or even to tolerate such ads, crosses the line. This tactic is not dissimilar to terrorists using innocents as "human shields".
In the private sector a business or an individual offers a product or service. This product or service must appeal to people such that they are willing to pay for it. If the appeal is not sufficient, or the price too high, the buyers refuse to buy. Our society devolves the provision of some products (but mostly services) to the government: e.g. public safety, education, some utilities, etc. The merits and values of other functions of government are debatable. It is a debate that rarely occurs, however.
The matter of whether the appeal (necessity, value) of the government products justifies their costs is a valid and necessary exercise. The "products" to which I refer are the myriad rules, regulations and restrictions which affect our daily lives. In making decisions about spending, taxpayers must ask themselves three questions: 1) Do we need or want what they're selling? 2) Do we get what we pay for? 3) (unfortunately) Are the proponents telling the truth?
The government class, their consultants and their accomplices in the media, commonly use the assertion that voters are responsible for specific cuts in programs if they reject tax increases. If taxpayers don't want to pay still more, they are "anti-tax", not "pro-fiscal responsibility". They are described as selfish, greedy and uncaring. Such characterizations are more properly laid at the feet of our representatives and bureaucrats who actually decide priorities in spending. Other adjectives that apply here are cynical, calculating and dishonest.
It is obvious to anyone who cares to look that the budget "cuts" usually splayed all over the front page are those chosen to have the most shock value (see "calculating" above). The fact that "cuts" in these areas come first demonstrates the lack of respect these decision makers have for the voters' intelligence.
A more responsible approach to allocating funds would begin with a prioritization of services of government. Legislators are afraid of this approach. It would put them in a "Catch 22" situation - either please the groups that contribute to their campaigns at the expense of the general public - or fund those programs and services that really are important to all citizens and risk losing contributions. At present, the wisdom appears to be; take the money from those organized groups paying attention and flim-flam the masses with the help of the media.
A prioritized list of spending would attenuate the power of campaign contributions and force legislators to actually represent all the people - not just those who are organized and contribute. Campaign money will still be a factor but its persuasive power will have to be weighed against the reaction of the public in the process of compiling such a list. Consider the risks of publicly supporting the Oregon Cultural Trust at the expense of money for schools. When brought out into the light of day, such a position would be untenable. Rather than fearing such a change, honest legislators should welcome such a public debate. ¶ 1:47 PM 0 comments
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Here's a couple of well-written, honest discussions concerning one of Randy Leonard's latest ideas to improve your lives through regulation:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1661876/posts
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11012/patrick-bedard.html
One can't help but wonder whether Leonard or any of the city council has read them.
I doubt it, since, paraphrasing the "Great Inventor", they contain "inconvenient facts". ¶ 9:26 AM 0 comments
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1661876/posts
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11012/patrick-bedard.html
One can't help but wonder whether Leonard or any of the city council has read them.
I doubt it, since, paraphrasing the "Great Inventor", they contain "inconvenient facts". ¶ 9:26 AM 0 comments
