politicalcivility.com Blog

New Yorkers have a reputation, NY cab drivers especially, of having a short fuse and for being fairly aggressive.  Well I’ve finally figured it out why.  Yesterday while enjoying my nice commute home, I heard a news clip stating that cigarettes in NYC are now $10 per pack. 

So there you go: either the New Yorker, in whose crosshairs you just found yourself, is so addicted to smoking that their pulling out an Alexander Hamilton for a pack of cigarettes or they’re in the process of trying to quit.  Either way you’d be pretty ticked off too.

Rep. Rob Bishop came to the Sutherland blogger briefing this morning and shared some thoughts on energy policy in the US and his proposal to affect compreshensive change versus the piecemeal approach we have seen over the last 20 or so years.  Ethan Millard over at SLCSpin posed the question of why hasn’t Congress done anything substantive to mitigate the issues we are now facing, when they’ve been looking at this data for more than a decade.  Bishop’s remark revealed human nature at work in DC.  It just wasn’t painful enough for people to make real change.

I guess time will tell if the voters feeling the pain at the pump translates in to pain at the ballot box for incumbents not used to listening to the broader population.

————————————–

Bishop is part of a Western Republican Caucus that will be shortly announcing a comprehensive energy policy platform that focuses on THREE areas

1. Incentivizing New and Current Forms of Conservation
2. Boosting Production of ALL Energy Forms from Wind to Coal and Everything in Between
3. Innovation in Energy Solutions from Energy Sources to Energy Delivery Systems

Also in the plan are 12 Steps (reminds me of an AA meeting) to facilitating these strategies.  The overall goal of their proposal is energy independence for the United States.

Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution has become one of my favorite books.  It is no easy read.  In fact parts of it read like Isaiah in the Bible.  But like Isaiah, in the midst of all the mud [incomprehensible verse after verse] you find nuggets.

Here is a nugget about what I’d argue is the ‘call of the public servant or elected official.’

“It should never be forgotten, that in a republican government [quick aside here to reemphasize that we DO NOT live in a democracy but in a republic] offices are established, and are to be filled, not to gratify private interests and private attachments; not as a means of corrupt influence, or individual profit; not for cringing favourites, or court sycophants; but for purposes of the highest public good; to give dignity, strength, purity, and energy to the administration of the laws.”

I know we live in an imperfect world, but I believe that Story gives us the golden standard to which we should aspire individually in our personal lives and to which we should hold our public servants accountable.

———————————- 

Given the following charge, where do our current set of federal officials and current governor stack up.  I’d be interested in your thoughts.

In response to my post on Obama’s PAC pledge, Misty asked a question about what did I mean about “incentives.”  It’s a fair question and one that is best answered by using a recent constituent letter I received from Senator Hatch’s office after I emailed his office asking him to oppose the farm bill. 

In my view, Hatch’s letter perfectly illustrated both the pork spending problem and the incentives issue that drives decision making and $$ flow in DC.  Hatch gave no principled justification as to why this farm bill was the right thing for government to do.  Every rationale he used in his letter pointed to one overriding theme–bring home the bacon or in the case of this farm bill all the benefits, special programs, business perks. 

So how does this answer the incentives question?  Toward the end of his letter, he also mentioned that this bill was supported by “many agricultural groups in our state.”  PACs (or in this case agricultural special interests groups) know that Sen. Hatch needs votes and that he needs money to run a campaign.  PACs offer both to the elected official.  PACs and special interested groups on the other hand need the people with the power of the purse (or the ability to take from one person and redistribute to another which would be illegal if PACs did it on their own) to do their bidding–they need their Sen. Hatch’s who have compromised to the point that all they have left to offer their constituents is BACON versus principled leadership.

So there you have the recipe for the continuation of the DC incentive love fest: [INCENTIVE for the Politician) votes which equal reelection and continued power and [INCENTIVE for the Special Interest] the growth of government programs or contracts or a general redistribution of wealth directly designed to benefit them. Of course all this is paid for by yours truly: you and me the taxpayer.

This lovefest is what Frederic Bastiat eloquently describes as “legal plunder.”  And as it relates to our government today, we see a Bastiat’s Universal Legal Plunder played out over and over again and unfortunately not just by our own Sen. Hatch.

———————————-

Bastiat on Legal Plunder:

“See if the law (senators or congressmen/women) takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong.  See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime…

“The person (agricultural interest in the above example) who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state [or its citizens]…

“Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests.”

It’s almost like listening to the news every day.

I have to give props to Obama for his commitment [see Misty Fowler’s blog] to refusing PAC money.  I hope more elected officials will take his lead, but I have my doubts and here’s why (from a Letter to Editor in WSJ–it just says it better than I could):

“The only reason lobbyists [PACs, special interest groups, etc.] appear as influential as they do is because of the power of the bodies they beseech.  In other words, the power of lobbyists is directly proportional to the ability of the Senate and House of Representatives to give favors to the clients of lobbying firms.  Rein in government [bridges to nowhere, boondoggle research projects in WV, a whole list of welfare programs, etc.] and you rein in lobbyists.  Any attempt to weaken lobbyists without reforming government will do nothing more than violate the Constitution and ensure our politicians become less informed than they already are.”

Until we rein in government, I am afraid Obama’s commitment will be short lived because the incentives just don’t line up.

A side note warning to Obama on his commitment is to not pull a Bush Sr. “Read my lips no new taxes.”  If Obama sticks to his commitment, the political shift that could occur could turn him into an FDR, Reagan type president and would be a tremendous legacy even if that was all he accomplished.

We’ve got a new guy at Sutherland.  His name is Matt Piccolo.  He just finished his Master’s of Public Policy at Pepperdine.  Here’s his blog: http://justandholy.blogsome.com/.  Enjoy.

The Texas courts are on a roll this week.  This ruling strikes down a ban on renting to illegal immigrants where the judge found that immigration policy is strictly a federal function.  Utah legislators would be wise to take a closer look and save Utah taxpayers the expense of litigating a case where their efforts to “curb” illegal immigration is unconstitutional.

Link: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080529/immigration_texas.html?.v=1

I been reading through two education focused books recently.

1. Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind
2. Clayton Christensen’s Disrupting Class

The combination of reading the two books side by side got me thinking again about part of the education reform debate that keeps bugging me.  And until now I hadn’t been able to put my finger on it.  I think in the whole education debate we’ve been starting out with the wrong question.  The current question is “How can we reform, improve our system of education today?”

Here is the question I think we need to start with and I’d be interested in your thoughts regarding the answer: “What is the purpose of education?”  I think we’ve been operating under the wrong answer to that question for more than a century now, namely that education is to produce people, who are good workers and who can keep America competitive in the “global marketplace.”  To me there is something wholly incomplete in that definition of what the purpose of education is.

I’d be interested in your thoughts.

After reading this Letter to the Editor in the DesNews, I got down on my knees and gave thanks for the kind of woman I married.  I know of only a few other people (Mother Theresa comes to mind) who are so wholly focused on blessing the lives of others and who are so genuinely concerned about the well-being of those they work to serve and love. 

I think Emily is the “proof in the pudding” of why my generation is referred to by Dr. Jean M. Twenge and other social scientists as ”Generation Me.”  Twenge sums up the Me Generation thusly, “Today’s young americans are more confident, assertive, entitled — and more miserable than ever.”

I am sure Emily is a nice enough person, but her letter, describing how mature and smart she was for waiting until 30 to get married, shows me that she’s not as ready to marry as she may think she is.  Perhaps the saddest part about the letter to the editor was that in her effort to demonstrate her maturity she abundantly showed her self-centered “me” orientation as noted in this one great sentence: “Single, I have been able to discover myself (ME), fend for myself (ME), depend on myself (ME) and develop skills I (ME, ME, and MORE ME) otherwise would have not had.” (As if a mother in her twenties hasn’t learned all of that and more.)

If Emily were sitting across the table from me, this would be my response to her: “Emily, here is a great book.  It’s called ‘A Purpose Driven Life.’  The first couple of lines made me think about your letter.  Rick writes, ‘It’s not about you. The purpose of your life is far greater than your own personal fulfilment, your peace of mind or even your happiness.’ For all your self discovery Emily you’ve missed the most important discovery of all.  The problem is you won’t discover it until you stop focusing on you.”  

I’ll be the first to admit that I am far from perfect in following my own advice to Emily.  But I can tell her for sure that I learned more about myself while being a father to our three children, than I could have ever done without having to give up myself for someone (in this case my children) else’s case. 

I am probably being hard on Emily. Perhaps her only problem was that she missed that one family home evening with her church group where they shared the scripture, “He that findeth [discovering myself] his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it.” (Matthew 10:39)

Now that ExxonMobil has seen the light (green light that is), we’re going to have to find a new corporate whipping boy who dares to fund research that shows that global warming is not a man-made phenomenon. 

And to think, I thought people grew out of peer pressure when they became adults.