We Need a Whole New Way of Thinking About Government

[Foxfyre]

The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.

The die has been cast. Those new Conservative members will be able to turn the country in a new fiscally responsible direction with more personal accountability; or they will cave in to the status quo of more and bigger and more powerful, intrusive government.

How do you want it to go? Please include at least some basic reason for your choice that is more than an insult toward another person or group.

The basic crisis seems to be summarized in this article in Forbes today:

(emphasis mine)

California Suggests Suicide; Texas Asks: Can I Lend You a Knife?
By JOEL KOTKIN

In the future, historians may likely mark the 2010 midterm elections as the end of the California era and the beginning of the Texas one. In one stunning stroke, amid a national conservative tide, California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits.

California has drifted far away from the place that John Gunther described in 1946 as “the most spectacular and most diversified American state … so ripe, golden.” Instead of a role model, California has become a cautionary tale of mismanagement of what by all rights should be the country’s most prosperous big state. Its poverty rate is at least two points above the national average; its unemployment rate nearly three points above the national average. On Friday Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was forced yet again to call an emergency session in order to deal with the state’s enormous budget problems.

This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests.

In the new year, the once and again Gov. Jerry Brown, who has some conservative fiscal instincts, will be hard-pressed to convince Democratic legislators who get much of their funding from public-sector unions to trim spending. Perhaps more troubling, Brown’s own extremism on climate change policy–backed by rent-seeking Silicon Valley investors with big bets on renewable fuels–virtually assures a further tightening of a regulatory regime that will slow an economic recovery in every industry from manufacturing and agriculture to home-building.

Texas’ trajectory, however, looks quite the opposite. California was recently ranked by Chief Executive magazine as having the worst business climate in the nation, while Texas’ was considered the best. Both Democrats and Republicans in the Lone State State generally embrace the gospel of economic growth and limited public sector expenditure. . . . .
MORE HERE:
California Suggests Suicide; Texas Asks: Can I Lend You a Knife? - Joel Kotkin - New Geographer - Forbes

 

[Modbert]

The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.

The die has been cast. Those new Conservative members will be able to turn the country in a new fiscally responsible direction with more personal accountability; or they will cave in to the status quo of more and bigger and more powerful, intrusive government.

Too late:

'Tea party' freshmen embrace status quo - latimes.com

Two examples from the article:

On his campaign website, incoming Arizona Rep. David Schweikert promised he would "be there to represent your interests, not big spending special interests. I will push for common sense reforms in Congress that will reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests."

Schweikert invited lobbyists to a debt-retirement fundraiser at the National Republican Campaign Committee in early December. The suggested contribution was $500 for an individual, $5,000 for a "benefactor."

So it raised eyebrows Tuesday when several House freshmen held a fundraiser in a swanky Washington hotel. The event, organized in part by California Rep.-elect Jeff Denham (R-Atwater), stood out as the flashiest celebration of the new Congress.

As a candidate, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin — who defeated longtime Sen. Russell D. Feingold — blasted his opponent for being too close to a union lobbyist. But after winning the Senate seat, Johnson appointed a former lobbyist, Don Kent, as his chief of staff. Since 2008, Kent has worked as a registered lobbyist for Navigators Global LLC. His clients included Tyco International, United Parcel Service and CSX Transportation. Johnson's office did not respond to a call for comment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No we need to go back to the old way of thinking about government.

We need to see government as George Washington did.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

Government is an odious entity, one that should be seen as a necessary evil to be tolerated for the greater good of protecting individual freedom.

 

[Foxfyre]

The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.

The die has been cast. Those new Conservative members will be able to turn the country in a new fiscally responsible direction with more personal accountability; or they will cave in to the status quo of more and bigger and more powerful, intrusive government.

Too late:

'Tea party' freshmen embrace status quo - latimes.com

Two examples from the article:

On his campaign website, incoming Arizona Rep. David Schweikert promised he would "be there to represent your interests, not big spending special interests. I will push for common sense reforms in Congress that will reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests."

Schweikert invited lobbyists to a debt-retirement fundraiser at the National Republican Campaign Committee in early December. The suggested contribution was $500 for an individual, $5,000 for a "benefactor."

So it raised eyebrows Tuesday when several House freshmen held a fundraiser in a swanky Washington hotel. The event, organized in part by California Rep.-elect Jeff Denham (R-Atwater), stood out as the flashiest celebration of the new Congress.

As a candidate, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin — who defeated longtime Sen. Russell D. Feingold — blasted his opponent for being too close to a union lobbyist. But after winning the Senate seat, Johnson appointed a former lobbyist, Don Kent, as his chief of staff. Since 2008, Kent has worked as a registered lobbyist for Navigators Global LLC. His clients included Tyco International, United Parcel Service and CSX Transportation. Johnson's office did not respond to a call for comment.

Okay so this involves fund raisers and lobbyists, both of which certainly factor into the debate. These are the very least of our problem however. Fund raisers are a necessity for elections. Lobbyists are simply another way of petititioning the government.

My approach to government is to limit its scope and authority which in itself will reduce the need for fund raisers and will reduce the influence of lobbyists.

 

[Modbert]

Okay so this involves fund raisers and lobbyists, both of which certainly factor into the debate. These are the very least of our problem however. Fund raisers are a necessity for elections. Lobbyists are simply another way of petititioning the government.

My approach to government is to limit its scope and authority which in itself will reduce the need for fund raisers and will reduce the influence of lobbyists.

So wait a minute, you are worried about there being no change in Washington but you don't care if the people you want to bring change to Washington are in the pockets of the same people who want to keep the status quo? What?

Also, if you reduce government scope and authority on a federal level and just give more power to the states, then lobbyists will just merely focus on state houses, senates, and governors more. Nothing you are proposing will actually reduce the influence of lobbyists.

So yes or no question, do you have a problem with all these "tea party" candidates putting lobbyists in essential roles and accepting various lobbyists help in the form of cash and or gifts?

 

[shintao]

The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.

The die has been cast. Those new Conservative members will be able to turn the country in a new fiscally responsible direction with more personal accountability; or they will cave in to the status quo of more and bigger and more powerful, intrusive government.

How do you want it to go? Please include at least some basic reason for your choice that is more than an insult toward another person or group.

The basic crisis seems to be summarized in this article in Forbes today:

(emphasis mine)

California Suggests Suicide; Texas Asks: Can I Lend You a Knife?
By JOEL KOTKIN

In the future, historians may likely mark the 2010 midterm elections as the end of the California era and the beginning of the Texas one. In one stunning stroke, amid a national conservative tide, California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits.

California has drifted far away from the place that John Gunther described in 1946 as “the most spectacular and most diversified American state … so ripe, golden.” Instead of a role model, California has become a cautionary tale of mismanagement of what by all rights should be the country’s most prosperous big state. Its poverty rate is at least two points above the national average; its unemployment rate nearly three points above the national average. On Friday Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was forced yet again to call an emergency session in order to deal with the state’s enormous budget problems.

This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests.

In the new year, the once and again Gov. Jerry Brown, who has some conservative fiscal instincts, will be hard-pressed to convince Democratic legislators who get much of their funding from public-sector unions to trim spending. Perhaps more troubling, Brown’s own extremism on climate change policy–backed by rent-seeking Silicon Valley investors with big bets on renewable fuels–virtually assures a further tightening of a regulatory regime that will slow an economic recovery in every industry from manufacturing and agriculture to home-building.

Texas’ trajectory, however, looks quite the opposite. California was recently ranked by Chief Executive magazine as having the worst business climate in the nation, while Texas’ was considered the best. Both Democrats and Republicans in the Lone State State generally embrace the gospel of economic growth and limited public sector expenditure. . . . .
MORE HERE:
California Suggests Suicide; Texas Asks: Can I Lend You a Knife? - Joel Kotkin - New Geographer - Forbes

Oh, I thought this was about federal government??

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay so this involves fund raisers and lobbyists, both of which certainly factor into the debate. These are the very least of our problem however. Fund raisers are a necessity for elections. Lobbyists are simply another way of petititioning the government.

My approach to government is to limit its scope and authority which in itself will reduce the need for fund raisers and will reduce the influence of lobbyists.

So wait a minute, you are worried about there being no change in Washington but you don't care if the people you want to bring change to Washington are in the pockets of the same people who want to keep the status quo? What?

Also, if you reduce government scope and authority on a federal level and just give more power to the states, then lobbyists will just merely focus on state houses, senates, and governors more. Nothing you are proposing will actually reduce the influence of lobbyists.

So yes or no question, do you have a problem with all these "tea party" candidates putting lobbyists in essential roles and accepting various lobbyists help in the form of cash and or gifts?

I don't care about fund raisers. And I don't worry about lobbyists. I do have concern that government will become ever biggers, more intrusive, less responsive, and more costly when we are already at the brink of bankruptcy.

Fund raisers don't cost me a dime. And they will be even less of a factor if people aren't able to buy favors, disbursements from the treasury, or influence by participating in them. How about we make it more difficult to be rewarded for attempts to buy favor from an elected official?

Lobbyists don't cost me a dime--it's their success in persuading our elected leaders to fork over the people's money that is the problem.

How about we reduce our elected leaders' ability to do that?

 

[shintao]

The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.

The die has been cast. Those new Conservative members will be able to turn the country in a new fiscally responsible direction with more personal accountability; or they will cave in to the status quo of more and bigger and more powerful, intrusive government.

Too late:

'Tea party' freshmen embrace status quo - latimes.com

Two examples from the article:

As a candidate, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin — who defeated longtime Sen. Russell D. Feingold — blasted his opponent for being too close to a union lobbyist. But after winning the Senate seat, Johnson appointed a former lobbyist, Don Kent, as his chief of staff. Since 2008, Kent has worked as a registered lobbyist for Navigators Global LLC. His clients included Tyco International, United Parcel Service and CSX Transportation. Johnson's office did not respond to a call for comment.

Okay so this involves fund raisers and lobbyists, both of which certainly factor into the debate. These are the very least of our problem however. Fund raisers are a necessity for elections. Lobbyists are simply another way of petititioning the government.

My approach to government is to limit its scope and authority which in itself will reduce the need for fund raisers and will reduce the influence of lobbyists.

All Volunteer Government Party (AVGP)

 

[Modbert]

I don't care about fund raisers. And I don't worry about lobbyists. I do have concern that government will become ever biggers, more intrusive, less responsive, and more costly when we are already at the brink of bankruptcy.

Fund raisers don't cost me a dime. And they will be even less of a factor if people aren't able to buy favors, disbursements from the treasury, or influence by participating in them. How about we make it more difficult to be rewarded for attempts to buy favor from an elected official?

Lobbyists don't cost me a dime--it's their success in persuading our elected leaders to fork over the people's money that is the problem.

How about we reduce our elected leaders' ability to do that?

So that's a no. You don't care if the lobbyists are paying off your congressmen or congresswomen, ensuring that their business interests of who they are representing is put before you as long as your congressmen or congresswomen throws you a bone by being "fiscally conservative". Such thinking will come back to haunt us in the long run. In fact, this is the same thinking from 1994 and the early half of the 2000's that propelled "fiscal conservatives" into office who did absolutely nothing about the budget or debt.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't care about fund raisers. And I don't worry about lobbyists. I do have concern that government will become ever biggers, more intrusive, less responsive, and more costly when we are already at the brink of bankruptcy.

Fund raisers don't cost me a dime. And they will be even less of a factor if people aren't able to buy favors, disbursements from the treasury, or influence by participating in them. How about we make it more difficult to be rewarded for attempts to buy favor from an elected official?

Lobbyists don't cost me a dime--it's their success in persuading our elected leaders to fork over the people's money that is the problem.

How about we reduce our elected leaders' ability to do that?

So that's a no. You don't care if the lobbyists are paying off your congressmen or congresswomen, ensuring that their business interests of who they are representing is put before you as long as your congressmen or congresswomen throws you a bone by being "fiscally conservative". Such thinking will come back to haunt us in the long run. In fact, this is the same thinking from 1994 and the early half of the 2000's that propelled "fiscal conservatives" into office who did absolutely nothing about the budget or debt.

Maybe if I type REEEEEALLY SLOW you might not be so obtuse about what I say?

I said I don't care about fund raisers.

I was clear that I don't want fund raisers to have ability to buy favors from our elected leaders.

I said I don't care about lobbyists.

I was clear that I don't want lobbyists to have ability to buy favors from our elected leaders.

I suggested we think differently about government so that these things are no longer the case.

Honestly, I think a third grader should be able to grasp that concept????? Am I wrong about that?

What part of thinking differently about government rather than the same old same old criticisms don't you understand?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No we need to go back to the old way of thinking about government.

We need to see government as George Washington did.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

Government is an odious entity, one that should be seen as a necessary evil to be tolerated for the greater good of protecting individual freedom.

All this "new thinking" is what got us where we are.

 

[Modbert]

Maybe if I type REEEEEALLY SLOW you might not be so obtuse about what I say?

I said I don't care about fund raisers.

I was clear that I don't want fund raisers to have ability to buy favors from our elected leaders.

I said I don't care about lobbyists.

I was clear that I don't want lobbyists to have ability to buy favors from our elected leaders.

I suggested we think differently about government so that these things are no longer the case.

Honestly, I think a third grader should be able to grasp that concept????? Am I wrong about that?

What part of thinking differently about government rather than the same old same old criticisms don't you understand?

You don't want lobbyists to have the ability to buy favors but don't care about lobbyists. You don't want fund raisers to be used to buy favors but you don't care about fundraisers. You do realize that such thinking makes absolutely no sense, correct? I'm reminded of the term doublethink. When it comes to lobbyists and fundraisers, it takes two to tango. Both the lobbyists and political officials are involved in the dance, simply trying to change around the partner (political official) that the lobbyist is having the tango with isn't going to change things.

Perhaps I'm missing something you're saying and vice versa.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe if I type REEEEEALLY SLOW you might not be so obtuse about what I say?

I said I don't care about fund raisers.

I was clear that I don't want fund raisers to have ability to buy favors from our elected leaders.

I said I don't care about lobbyists.

I was clear that I don't want lobbyists to have ability to buy favors from our elected leaders.

I suggested we think differently about government so that these things are no longer the case.

Honestly, I think a third grader should be able to grasp that concept????? Am I wrong about that?

What part of thinking differently about government rather than the same old same old criticisms don't you understand?

You don't want lobbyists to have the ability to buy favors but don't care about lobbyists. You don't want fund raisers to be used to buy favors but you don't care about fundraisers. You do realize that such thinking makes absolutely no sense, correct? I'm reminded of the term doublethink. When it comes to lobbyists and fundraisers, it takes two to tango. Both the lobbyists and political officials are involved in the dance, simply trying to change around the partner (political official) that the lobbyist is having the tango with isn't going to change things.

Perhaps I'm missing something you're saying and vice versa.

Sure it does. Your problem is you think the LOBBYISTS or the FUND RAISERS are the problem. They aren't the problem. The problem is the corruptability of those in charge of the process. Take away the fund raisers and take away the lobbyists and those determined to enhance their power, influence, prestige, or personal fortune will find some other way to do that.

Take away the ability of our elected officials to use the people's money or regulatory power or whatever in order to enhance their power, influence, prestige, or personal fortunes, however, and the problem is eliminated.

Of course it requires a willingness to think differently about government to understand that. Some will be willing to debate this on that basis. And some won't.

 

[Modbert]

Sure it does. Your problem is you think the LOBBYISTS or the FUND RAISERS are the problem. They aren't the problem. The problem is the corruptability of those in charge of the process. Take away the fund raisers and take away the lobbyists and those determined to enhance their power, influence, prestige, or personal fortune will find some other way to do that.

Take away the ability of our elected officials to use the people's money or regulatory power or whatever in order to enhance their power, influence, prestige, or personal fortunes, however, and the problem is eliminated.

Of course it requires a willingness to think differently about government to understand that. Some will be willing to debate this on that basis. And some won't.

I believe lobbyists and fund raisers like in the example I posted are part of the problem. You seem to think they aren't a problem at all, that's your problem. Take away the ability of our elected officials to be tempted by lobbyists and such kinds of fund raisers and you make corruption that much more difficult. Is it going to solve the problem? Nope, and I never said it would. However, it would help.

All of this is focusing away from my original point however. The "tea party conservatives" that were elected to bring change to Washington and stop corruption are embracing the status quo that new Speaker of the House Boehner is a expert at.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sure it does. Your problem is you think the LOBBYISTS or the FUND RAISERS are the problem. They aren't the problem. The problem is the corruptability of those in charge of the process. Take away the fund raisers and take away the lobbyists and those determined to enhance their power, influence, prestige, or personal fortune will find some other way to do that.

Take away the ability of our elected officials to use the people's money or regulatory power or whatever in order to enhance their power, influence, prestige, or personal fortunes, however, and the problem is eliminated.

Of course it requires a willingness to think differently about government to understand that. Some will be willing to debate this on that basis. And some won't.

I believe lobbyists and fund raisers like in the example I posted are part of the problem. You seem to think they aren't a problem at all, that's your problem. Take away the ability of our elected officials to be tempted by lobbyists and such kinds of fund raisers and you make corruption that much more difficult. Is it going to solve the problem? Nope, and I never said it would. However, it would help.

All of this is focusing away from my original point however. The "tea party conservatives" that were elected to bring change to Washington and stop corruption are embracing the status quo that new Speaker of the House Boehner is a expert at.

You don't know what they are embracing. We haven't tested them yet to know if their votes or influence is being bought in those fund raisers or by those lobbyists.

But your opinion is noted. You are determined to think the status quo when it comes to assessment of government and how we think about it. If you think lobbyist and fund raisers are even part of the problem, that's your prerogative no matter how naive I believe that to be.

I am just as determined to try to keep the focus on the OP with the hope that we will choose to think differently about government and how to fix it and make it more effective, efficient, and economical and more responsive to what most Americans really want. The examples of California versus Texas are instrucftive to begin that process.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

How do you put a positive note on sewer scum?

 

[Foxfyre]

So who is sewer scum? Texas or California?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I would say both, Foxfyre, since they both are playing shell games in reference to their budget woes. They're both going to make massive cuts. And then Ca has a state income but yet Tx does not. I see Texas slashing into the 30B dollar budget of education. How's California going to solve their debt? I think both states can solve the issue without raising taxes. California can't even afford to raise taxes. It's one helluva conundrum.

 

[sangha]

The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.

The die has been cast. Those new Conservative members will be able to turn the country in a new fiscally responsible direction with more personal accountability; or they will cave in to the status quo of more and bigger and more powerful, intrusive government.

Too late:

'Tea party' freshmen embrace status quo - latimes.com

Two examples from the article:

As a candidate, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin — who defeated longtime Sen. Russell D. Feingold — blasted his opponent for being too close to a union lobbyist. But after winning the Senate seat, Johnson appointed a former lobbyist, Don Kent, as his chief of staff. Since 2008, Kent has worked as a registered lobbyist for Navigators Global LLC. His clients included Tyco International, United Parcel Service and CSX Transportation. Johnson's office did not respond to a call for comment.

Okay so this involves fund raisers and lobbyists, both of which certainly factor into the debate. These are the very least of our problem however. Fund raisers are a necessity for elections. Lobbyists are simply another way of petititioning the government.

My approach to government is to limit its scope and authority which in itself will reduce the need for fund raisers and will reduce the influence of lobbyists.

Because if we pass the right laws, politicians will stop having fundraisers and listening to lobbyists (who raise money for them) because with the right laws, politicians will not want more money

 

[Foxfyre]

In the interest of thinking differently about government, the following appeared in one or more north Texas newspapers and has been circulating in emails lately.

It outlines a concept that prompted several to comment and urge me to start this thread.

I would be interested in everybody's opinion of it, but most particularly I would like to hear from the Left why any one of the suggestions would be a good or bad idea:

PUT ME IN CHARGE!!!

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good."

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville

And recently somebody added one more:

While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job or find other legal means of supporting yourself.