MP America's Fall? A Matter of Priorities Here is the first comment I posted there.
I do agree that "we have met the enemy and he is us".
The folks who choose to buy the best value product / service for themselves, no matter who's job it eliminates.
The folks who have more children than they can responsibly raise, thus squandering our country's huge investment in free public education and dooming their children to continued poverty / low academic capabilities / low skills.
Those folks having more children than they can afford to raise and care for, thus being dependent on others and drawing down the disposable incomes from their friends and neighbors.
Those who choose to not pursue a life of continuous learning and self improvement, thus remaining trapped in poverty and limiting the benefits they could have provided to our country's success.
Now I do agree that some improvements can be made on the other end of the wealth spectrum, however to deny the challenges I have noted above is irresponsible. The reality is that Defense spending is pretty low as a percent of GDP. It is the Entitlement spending that has massively increased with questionable consequences.
Defense Spending
Entitlement Spending
PEW Half of Kids Live in Traditional Family
I do agree that "we have met the enemy and he is us".
The folks who choose to buy the best value product / service for themselves, no matter who's job it eliminates.
The folks who have more children than they can responsibly raise, thus squandering our country's huge investment in free public education and dooming their children to continued poverty / low academic capabilities / low skills.
Those folks having more children than they can afford to raise and care for, thus being dependent on others and drawing down the disposable incomes from their friends and neighbors.
Those who choose to not pursue a life of continuous learning and self improvement, thus remaining trapped in poverty and limiting the benefits they could have provided to our country's success.
Now I do agree that some improvements can be made on the other end of the wealth spectrum, however to deny the challenges I have noted above is irresponsible. The reality is that Defense spending is pretty low as a percent of GDP. It is the Entitlement spending that has massively increased with questionable consequences.
Defense Spending
Entitlement Spending
PEW Half of Kids Live in Traditional Family
25 comments:
I see two flaws in your formulation. First, folks seeking the best value for the money is the essence of free-market competition that is the foundation of our economy. The fact that our government penalizes our side-- the supply side-- of that global competition is the problem, not the demand side that would bring down prices for everybody and raise their standard of living.
The other is this notion that people having "kids they cannot afford" is the cause of the entitlement problem. That's backwards. Back before entitlements, families were larger and poverty more rampant than today, yet essentially all the kids went on to successful educations and becoming productive participants in the economy. I'm not saying we should take away welfare to force a return to those halcyon days, merely removing the "entitlement" aspect of it. Set some expectations, and make it easier (and more rewarding) to meet those expectations than to kick back in the taxpayer-funded hammock.
First, we do not necessarily penalize companies that do business in the USA. We do however ensure that they do not pollute excessively, put their employees at excessive risk, mistreat their employees, cheat their shareholders, etc. Whereas in other countries they do not enforce these common sense measures.
And when American Consumers choose to buy low cost products and services from low costs countries, not only are they are supporting the firing of millions of Americans and the reduction of American employee incomes. They are promoting additional pollution of our planet. That is why I find it ironic when Liberals buy foreign goods and services...
And please read more carefully... "It is the Entitlement spending that has massively increased with questionable consequences." Meaning that entitlement spending increases likely were causal to the break up of families and the vast number of single Parent households. (not the other way around)
Secondly, you have got to be kidding... There were millions and millions of academically challenged kids way before NCLB started measuring them. My Mother in Law and Father in Law both only had 8th grade educations, but that was okay for a an old family farm back then. The required knowledge standards continually increase in our high tech highly collaborative world.
And actually I think
We DO penalize companies that do business in the US through excessive tax rates, first of all, and with labor restrictions that don't do much for workers but DO make hiring expensive, both of which make American goods more expensive. Beyond that, there is such a thing as excessive regulation that, again, does not justify the expense involved let alone the cost of the regulatory agency itself. I think it fair to say that other countries DO enforce the "common sense measures," but they don't engage in the excesses (nearly $2 trillion worth, at last count) of our hyper-regulated economy.
I would have had to read VERY carefully to read that statement of causality you just provided into that vague original. Of course I agree with you, and that again, government is responsible for the problem. And government is also NOT contributing to the solution (thus part of the problem) of poor kids getting an education to let them escape penury and squalor.
At least somebody agrees with you:
Mitch Pearlstein
Unfortunately the solution lies in the schools, as I've always said, and not with the societal problem. We should fix what the government already mismanages directly-- the schools-- and worry about what government mismanages indirectly-- family breakdown-- later.
Your premise here seems to be a complaint about symptoms. I'm simply pointing out the common cause of all of them.
The unfortunate reality is that most regulations are created after some greedy irresponsible business or person violates the golden rule. They used to pollute our rivers and air. They worked to cut costs by putting the health of employees at risk. They worked to swindle the foolish and naive. Yes we do have a LOT of regulation, unfortunately most of them are well deserved.
I think Mitch and me would get along very well. While you will stand to the side holding the irresponsible mamas and papas blameless. I always find it amusing when you say that mamas and papas need to be responsible for their actions, and yet you work so hard to blame others.
Now I agree that a generous welfare system has improperly transferred the consequences of their irresponsible choices to unrelated hard working and responsible tax payers. Which of course lessens their natural consequence and their motivation to change, learn, improve, work, etc.
So yes the welfare system is part of the problem, however ultimately it is the bad choices of the citizens who have created this disaster. We need to attack both.
OK, agreement first. Yes, the people "responsible" for their actions are those making those irresponsible choices. But is it really that irresponsible to respond to the incentives offered by the welfare system when there are no better choices out there? Getting a good job when you got pregnant and didn't finish high school is quite difficult, but signing up for welfare would seem to be pretty easy. Getting a good job if you DID finish high school but didn't learn anything is also fairly difficult. I don't say that people are not responsible for their choices, but I will continue to say that government has largely limited the choices available. "We need to attack both," you say. Actually, there is no need to attack the citizens. All you have to do is make the "right" choices easier and more available than the bad choices and everybody will follow along.
The unfortunate reality is that most regulations are created after some irresponsible Congresscritter goes on a crusade to regulate some "problem" that doesn't exist, and some bureaucracy piles on endless regulations on top of that. So, say one company engages in some serious financial shenanigans that sends a few folks to jail and the company into bankruptcy. As a result, EVERY company in the country spends thousands of hours each year complying with a complicated plethora of Sarbanes-Oxley regulations that have no noticeable value to the company, the consumer, or the public at large. It is over-regulation, pure and simple.
It's pretty simple: The law can recompense individuals and the public from torts committed by an individual business. Regulations seek to PREVENT ALL torts arising from ALL businesses. It's generally political posturing rather than good sense.
As is often the case, we will have to agree to disagree.
I am happy to chip away at welfare, regulatory and the school bureaucracies, since they do have problems. However I am not ready to blame them for all of our county's problems.
There are just too many greedy, lazy, unethical and/or irresponsible people out there to do that.
And of course I find this statement incredibly naive... "All you have to do is make the "right" choices easier and more available than the bad choices and everybody will follow along." There are just too many people out there who are willing to make bad choices to get more with less effort.
Ironically, someone just tried to use one of my credit card numbers at Walmart on line at 2 AM this morning. Maybe stealing my credit card number and committing fraud is them "following along".
And then of course there were those Enron and Arthur Anderson executives who chose to bad things even though it should have been easier to do the right thing And many innocents citizens paid terribly since SOX was not in place back then.
I will agree to disagree, but only to a degree that it does not negate my basic point, which is that the vast majority of people WANT to do the "right thing" but are obviously constrained by the choices available to them. Most parents WANT a good education for their kids, but government won't give it to them. Most people would like to provide for themselves but government regulations and poor educations hinder it.
On the other hand, you have a few who are criminally inclined. Punish them according to law rather than punish everybody with regulations. Fraud and embezzlement, false financial statements, etc. were criminal LONG before SOX came into being. So why did it come into being?
As we know from our discussions here... The "right thing" varies greatly between different people. Therefore we have social norms enforced via laws and regulations.
This answers Why pretty well
Correct. "...Congress responded to the Enron media fallout, a lagging stock market and looming reelections. " Do you see anywhere in that "why" about why companies must conform to hundreds of pages of detailed regulations when it should be enough if people follow existing law and good common sense?
The /details/ of the "right thing" varies, it is true, but fundamentally we are all on the same page or we don't have a society that works. One of the dangers of the government welfare system is that it creates a two-tier society in which one forsakes the norms of the other, yet expects the other to provide its every need. Before, we all agreed, more or less, to help the "less fortunate" so long as they were making the effort. "Progressives" want to turn that very human system on its ear.
The simple reason... Existing law and good common sense did not protect the citizens from the huge financial loss created by these bad actors. Something better was needed.
"fundamentally we are all on the same page or we don't have a society that works."
You must be kidding... How would one describe a "society that works"?
We have dead beat and/or criminal free loaders in every economic group who think their well being is more important than the well being of others or that of our society. This is why government is needed...
A society that works is one in which we all follow the same set of common beliefs in what is "moral," and in which those things are written into law and where "everyone" believes those who break those rules are criminally or at least civilly liable.
You are describing your belief in a society that isn't working, because "most" people are doing things such that most "good citizens" consider them "dead beat and/or criminal free loaders." It's "us vs them" not "we're all in this together." I do not believe that of my fellow citizens. I believe there are a few criminals out there, and I bemoan the general degradation of moral standards, but not for a minute do I believe that 99.9% of people do not recognize what the "right thing" is, even as they violate those legal or moral restrictions.
Let me introduce you to a truth about government, stated well by our Founder John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." It is not possible to write laws
OR regulations that will prevent crime or immorality. There have always been laws against murder but it happens every day. So if we create a regulation that says nobody is allowed to be a murder victim, does murder end? How about that regulation allowing people to post "no guns allowed" in the window? Did you notice that not a single convenience store nor liquor store has been robbed at gunpoint since those signs went up? Of course not. LAW-ABIDING citizens don't take guns into liquor stores; criminals still do. Law-abiding companies obey all the SOX regulations, at considerable cost and effort, but those opportunists still, I am sure, go around, under, over or through. It's simply a vast waste. Necessary laws and regulations, to codify what we all think or to clearly set out guidelines that aren't immediately obvious, sure. At least 70% of US regulations are unnecessary.
I agree that it is unfortunate that the lazy, irresponsible, unethical, immoral, greedy, etc minority make it necessary for our country to have so many regulations...
You have an odd definition of "necessary." How many Enron's have been prevented by SOX? How much gasoline has been wasted by requiring AIRs on all cars, regardless of their mileage? How many terrorist events have been prevented by inspecting shoes, shampoo and underwear? Remember that all of these terrorists actually got on the plane, despite the regulation, and that what they did was greatly illegal and immoral. How many holdups and murders have been prevented by those "no guns allowed" signs? Why should we need a dozen regulations to prevent something already against the law?
It is simply not possible for government to solve all society's ills by the parody prescription: "Minnesota, where everything not mandatory is prohibited."
jerrye9
For better or worse we elect politicians to weigh the trade offs. Keep lobbying them and maybe you can convince them of your view.
If only one plane has been saved by me limiting my liquids and taking of my shoes off, I will be happy to keep doing so.
As for SOX, I agree that it is a big pain in the butt. However I also know that it has driven a lot more rigor into tracking assets and reporting revenues. I think the company data is much more reliable than it was 15 years ago, which is good for the investors.
"...to weigh the trade offs." All well and good, but the tradeoffs far too often consider only the political ramifications or worse still, how much "damage" can be done to the opposing party with the issue. Almost NEVER is there consideration for a) what we OUGHT to do to solve the problem (if there is a problem at all) and b) What we are ALLOWED to do under the Constitution.
And has one plane been saved? After inspecting a billion or so shoes and forcing millions of gallons of shampoo into 3-day-supply containers, not to mention groping millions of citizens' underwear and confiscating tons of nail clippers and pocket screwdrivers, there is apparently NO further terrorist detection. Not only that, something like 95% of "testers" actually get through TSA security with their bomb or weapon. Millions inconvenienced for no benefit.
I think you are overly cynical regarding politicians and bureaucrats. I do agree that they sometimes do go overboard, however I think it is because they forget to factor in the cost. They just keep thinking that they will somehow pass enough laws to save everyone from everything no matter how irresponsible they are.
Remember... "The path to hell is paved with good intentions."
Personally I think many planes / passengers have been saved. I think the systems are thorough enough to stop the bad guys from even trying. Now they are limited to using cars and trucks... I know I feel safer getting on the plane knowing that everyone has been searched.
I don't think of it as cynical, though I might be. I prefer to think of it as experienced. I think your characterization of politicians as believing they can "make everything nice for everybody" by passing laws and regulations is spot on. I am convinced they believe the can repeal the laws of human nature, physics, economics and supply and demand. They are convinced that good intentions make good policy and they are absolutely wrong.
I think the goal of dissuading terrorists from planes has not been worth the cost in hassles to ordinary travelers. And these measure have NOT been even modestly effective. A 95% failure rate is a FAILED system.
MSP TSA
"cost in hassles to ordinary travelers."
Now that is silly since it is pretty much painless, and I go through the lines a lot.
Just curious...
If they stopped and then a plane blew up and killed all passengers.
What thoughts / feelings would you have?
What if someone you loved was on the plane?
With a 95% failure rate from TSA, the odds of a terrorist blowing up a plane are pretty much the same with or without TSA.
As for pain, I have a foot condition where taking off my shoes at the airport and walking through creates pain that lasts for hours or even days. And painless or otherwise, it's an unnecessary bother for no gain-- typical of government regulations fomented by bureaucrats to justify their continued employment. If our priority is safe airline travel, the TSA is the wrong solution. Why do we do it that way? Because that is what the bureaucracy deems to be the solution.
It is very unlikely that one will get a speeding ticket and yet I think enforcement does a pretty good job of having people speed excessively.
On the other hand my guess is that the TSA's success rate is much higher than reported. And I am always fascinated by what people try to bring on the plane.
I am thinking you should buy some compression socks and invest in a pair of slip on shoes for traveling.
Strangely enough you have an ally at VOX...
Of course I wish they could age, race and sex profile... That would make it much more efficient and effective.
I have already invested heavily in custom orthotics and footwear that at least make walking tolerable. Besides, why should I conform to regulations that, BY TSA'S OWN reporting, is only 5% effective?
Fortunately, with much effort and cost to me, I have Pre-Check now, but that's just a band-aid on the real problem. Easier to stop the bombers than to search everybody for the bomb.
I'm glad you raised the speed limit question. For a long time, Montana had a speed limit of "reasonable and proper." The average speed on their interstate highways was between 75 and 80 mph. Now the limit is 80, and the average speed is... between 75 and 80. People regulate their own behavior far better than any law and regardless of any degree of enforcement. The law may act as a guideline, but MN Interstate traffic still seems to move between the limit-- 70-- and 78, 10% over the legal limit. People aren't rigidly following the law at all, but judge for themselves that faster is OK. Remember Prohibition?
First no one at the TSA is saying that is only 5% effective. They have said they have had tests where 95% of the contraband got through... Seemingly the system has been 100% effective since no jets have been blown up or high jacked in the US since it was enacted.
What is the method you recommend to do this? "Easier to stop the bombers than to search everybody for the bomb."
So you are saying we should get rid speed limits, everyone will exercise self control and there will be no large increase in severe accidents... I don't think so...
"Seemingly the system has been 100% effective since no jets have been blown up or high jacked in the US since it was enacted."
Now THAT is funny! We have just proven that a TSA inspection regime that lets 95% of prohibited materials on the plane is the CAUSE of a 100% decline in airplane bombings. That's exactly the same logic involved in saying that because burning fossil fuels puts CO2 into the atmosphere, that humans are responsible catastrophic global warming. Correlation, especially really bad correlation, is not causation.
The article did mention a test of the "profiling" approach, but somehow with much poorer results than what Israel seems to get every day. I think we could certainly start with adding a little common sense profiling to this searching of little old ladies' underwear.
Post a Comment