RSS
 

Archive for the ‘Government’ Category

Shut down

20 Jan

the government? Oh PUH-LEEZ!

They won’t shut down anything important, anyway. Checks will still keep coming. The military will function, at least for a little while. OK, really BIG deals like the Pandacam will go dark. Oh, the humanity! But I guess I can try to live without it. Yeah. Whatever.

 
Comments Off on Shut down

Posted in Government

 

I have long argued for

11 Dec

this. I presume it will never it would happen, but I think that it would clearly be for the best. The only reason it doesn’t is bald self-interest. Congressmen and women are accustomed to being petty celebrities, and they will fight such a change as if their very existence lies in the balance–because it does.

You want to be a gov’t apparatchik? Go live in Ames, Iowa. DC is NOT your destination.

In fact, I would take it one step further: In today’s world there is just no reason for a Representative or Senator to physically move to DC. Here is a VPN for a secure Internet connection. You vote that way, and all your communication goes through that. I mean, voting is already electronic! So it’s not even that big of a change!

You have two paid trips there a year, and you can meet your colleagues then. Everyone shows up for the first and last day of a session. Leave the President and his entourage there.

Just why not?

It would make graft far less prominent. It would minimize the influence of lobbyists. It would root the Senators and Representatives to their homes, and it would make this a short-term service rather than a career path. It would also reduce the power of “The Deep State” and increase security. It would be virtually impossible to “decapitate” the United States.

There is very little of government that can be done in person that can’t be done by video link. Very little.

This is just a great idea, and now we have the technology to do it.

It’s hard to underestimate how good this would be for the country.

And it has almost happened before: There hasn’t been so much buzz about getting “Washington” out of Washington since Franklin D. Roosevelt sent 30,000 federal workers to the Midwest after a presidential commission advised such moves would ensure the prototypical federal employee “remains one of the people in touch with the people and does not degenerate into an isolated and arrogant bureaucrat.”

Yeah, THAT would sure be nice. So let’s do it again!

I just don’t see a downside: it would be cheaper, safer, and more locally responsive. That move alone would drastically increase state power and drastically decrease federal power; state legislatures would become the place to be. And now we can do it–we have the technology…

I mean honestly, why does the Social Security Agency need to be based in the DC area? What would be different if the Energy Department was run out of Alaska?

 
1 Comment

Posted in Government

 

We need

29 Nov

a separation of powers.

And I think Trump is just the guy to do it. Let me explain:

Trump has very long history of being extraordinarily wealthy. He also is quite accustomed to power. This is who he has always been. He doesn’t need the Presidency to get power and riches—he has long had both. So he is quite willing to see a decrease in the power of the Presidency. He can restore a separation of powers because it is no skin off his nose. The Executive Branch should indeed cede power to the Legislative one, and Trump is able to do that. That was not true with Obama or Clinton or Bush or Bush, and certainly not with Hillary. McMuffin was just a sick joke whose only job was to fool the rubes and pave the way for Hillary…

Trump is psychologically equipped to do this job in a way none of his predecessors of the last 30 years were. Not since Reagan has a President been so equipped.

So you might carp and whine and be a hater and pick nits, but Trump was the best person available for the job. Let’s not lose sight of the ball, here.

 
 

Here’s what I think:

27 Nov

Senators and Representatives should always stay/live in the districts and states they represent. Yes, maybe twice a year they should travel to DC and meet other committee members, etc. But the “default” is that they live in their own states and districts.

When you are elected you are issued a VPN. Then you have secure conferencing with those other members. Votes are taken electronically. It is easy to have secure committee conferences with a VPN, and it can be quite secure. Spend money on cyber security, not capitol police.

Think of the problems that would solve! It would place an extreme limitation on lobbying. It would ensure that Congressmen and Congresswomen don’t “go native” in DC. People would be beholden to their own communities, not so much to a national party. It would attract people who actually want to serve rather than be a petty celebrity. Think about that. You would select for a totally different set of people. It would also be many orders of magnitude cheaper.

Now I recognize that the “DC Royalty” are not at all likely to want to go along with this, but it is the right thing just the same. There is NO reason to have congress physically go DC, and many good reasons for them not to.

I would keep the President in DC for many reasons, but I can think of few if any good reasons for Congress to be physically there.

 
1 Comment

Posted in Government

 

Yeah,

17 Nov

ya think?

And yet the Left wants MORE government power! Go figure…

 
Comments Off on Yeah,

Posted in Government

 

When you start

07 Oct

seeing this kind of stuff, you know that there is real change in the air.

This can’t be good for Tillerson retaining his position. NRO may well be doing “battle-space prep,” here.

 
Comments Off on When you start

Posted in Government

 

I just don’t think

07 Jul

that there are other decent options left.

But just let me say that the problems are at least grossly exacerbated if not caused outright by the foolish course we took with direct election of Senators.

Like for most stupid things, we can thank the Left for this.

If Senators were chosen by state legislatures we wouldn’t be in this mess. The House was to be directly elected, but the Senators were to be chosen by state legislatures. That increases the States’ power and made laws closer to the people. It was a combination of madness and stupidity to change this. Maybe there was a pinch of malice, too.

The founding fathers were RIGHT! This was genius, and we have been too stupid to follow the simple plan. That really is sad…

Get rid of direct election of Senators!

 

I think a

31 Aug

radical openness” would be startlingly refreshing! Certainly Hillary can’t do that, as being open would land her in federal prison.

 
Comments Off on I think a

Posted in Crime, Government

 

Why the Left HATES

06 Jul

the Constitution and especially the Declaration Of Independence. They want power, and the DofI specifically says the rebellion can be just and in fact morally “right.” It quite directly denies the very validity of despotic government, and justifies violent resistance. Yeah, there’s a very good reason the “Tea Party” is so rooted in the American Revolution, and it is the exact same reason the ruling Leftists hate it with a white-hot intensity–they certainly sense the threat and fool others in an effort to gain adherents. Unfortunately, the age-old story is that even the very elect are fooled…

This is NOT merely run-of-the-mill government incompetence, it is malice aforethought. And this is NOT the first time this has happened. I think that it was Thomas Jefferson who said that the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of patriots. May it never be required in my day! I’d rather not have my blood water that tree. But then again, so thinks everyone who faces such issues (to paraphrase The Lord of the Rings). Our duty now is to just stand up for what is right.

 
Comments Off on Why the Left HATES

Posted in Government, Political Philosophy

 

Let me say again,

30 Apr

their is a simple solution to this whole gay marriage deal.

Get the gov’t out of the marriage business altogether.

There IS no “marriage” from a legal standpoint. Or everyone gets a marriage license. Same thing–there is no meaningful difference. Each person owes in taxes what he or she owes, regardless of marital status. This is easier with a flat tax, but it is not crucial for this to work. Everyone files income tax. So live with and “marry” whomever or whatever you want in any number. If you have common property, there are guidelines for that. You live together more than X years? It’s a common-law “marriage.” Get a “prenup,” you fool! The only issue is the contract.

Now, if you want to be married in the Catholic Cathedral, go talk to the Priest. He can put whatever strictures he wants on his own property. You don’t have to be married by the Catholic Priest. You can have a ceremony done by any bum on the street (or none at all). Such a marriage is a religious issue, not a State  one. The State should just butt out.