Circumstances changed --- opinion noted - not shared he will either represent Americans, no-hyphenation needed - or not
choose sides carefully On Jan 11, 11:50 am, VT Sean Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > Circumstances changed, > President Obama was willing to be fair and transparent > and assumed the Republicans would do the same. > > It is clear the Republicans are not just about saying no and > doing nothing, but they are actively trying to facilitate the > failure of any democrat or presidential initiative, Even if it hurts > America and Americans. > > So the Republicans are out, not that they were ever > honestly working for success. > > On Jan 11, 10:57 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The Goal Is Freedom:Opaque By Design"Nowadays to be intelligible is to be > > found out."BySheldon Richman• Posted January 08, 2010“The House and Senate > > plan to put together the final health care reform bill behind closed doors > > according to an agreement by top Democrats.” > > That less-than-startling piece of news was delivered by House Speaker Nancy > > Pelosi. She was at the White House when she said it, so it’s okay with > > President Obama. > > Thus, as theCBS News headlinehad it, “Obama Reneges on Health Care > > Transparency.” > > Anyone who is really shocked (shocked!) that this is happening should avoid > > talking to strangers on the street. You’ll wind up believing you own a > > bridge. > > In other words, no one really thought Obama and his cronies were going to > > make government transparent by conducting business on C-SPAN. As the head > > of the Council on Foreign Relations said admiringly about Obama in another > > context, “He’s learned the difference between campaigning and governing.” > > Indeed. Even if he wanted to, there was no way Obama was going to get our > > misrepresentatives in Congress to do it. > > The phrase “transparent government” is just this side of a logical > > contradiction. A really transparent government would barely qualify as a > > government at all. Imagine if you could witness all the backroom dealing, > > logrolling, outright bribery, and the rest of the shenanigans that go on > > under the laughable rubric “governing.” It wouldn’t last a week. > > Once in a while we get a glimpse. When Sen. Ben Nelson’s vote on the > > health-insurance takeover was cynically bought with the promise that > > everyone but Nebraskans would pay Nebraska’s new Medicaid bill, there was > > genuine disgust even in Nebraska. The payoff to Louisiana Sen. Mary > > Landrieu got a similar reception. But that was just the tip of the iceberg. > > Did you hear that companies with fewer than 50 employees would be exempt > > from the health-insurance mandateexcept forconstruction companies? Then the > > threshold is five. It’s a little favor to the construction trade unions: > > “Labor unions that have negotiated health benefits for construction workers > > lobbied for the provision. Without it, they said, small nonunion employers > > would have an unfair competitive advantage over companies that they say do > > ‘the right thing’ by providing health benefits to plumbers, electricians, > > carpenters, roofers and other workers in the building trades,” > > theTimesreported. > > This sort of thing happens every day. As Michael Kinsley once said, the > > real scandal in Washington is the legal stuff, not the illegal stuff, that > > goes on.Political Transactions CostsWe can’t say we weren’t warned. A few > > years ago a great scholar named Charlotte Twight explained it all in her > > bookDependent on D.C.: The Rise of Federal Control over Ordinary > > Americans.I’m a huge fan of this book, and everyone concerned with liberty > > should read it closely. What Isaid about it in 2003 still holds:If I may be > > blunt, this is a subversive book in the sense that if average Americans > > were to read and grasp it, they would turn into libertarian > > revolutionaries. Why? Because Twight documents the ways that officials > > systematically mislead us about what government does. In many cases, she > > uses their own words to convict them of mass deception aforethought.The key > > to her thesis is the concept of political transactions costs. In economics, > > transactions costs are the expenses one accepts to engage in exchanges. To > > use Twight’s example, if you hire someone to plant a tree in your yard, the > > transaction costs include any expenses you would not have incurred had you > > planted the tree yourself. > > There are transactions costs associated with politics too. These, Twight > > says, are “the costs to individuals of reaching and enforcing political > > agreements regarding the role and scope of government… [t]he costs to each > > of us of perceiving, and acting upon our assessment of, the net costs of > > particular governmental actions and authority… of learning the likely > > consequences of proposed government programs and taking political action in > > response to such programs….” > > We could sum up the idea with the phrase “eternal vigilance,” which takes > > time, effort, and money. Or as others have put it, “freedom isn’t free.” > > Of course the higher the political transactions costs, other things equal, > > the less monitoring people will engage in. Keep in mind that any one > > person’s clout is small, so the payoff from absorbing the costs and > > engaging in the monitoring are also small. That results in a government > > watched closely by those who stand to gain a lot (the special interests) > > and not so closely by those who stand to pay, in the aggregate, a lot (the > > mass of taxpayers). > > Twight points out that there are “natural” transactions costs, as with any > > economic activity, but also “contrived” transactions costs the ones > > “deliberately created by government officials to increase our costs of > > assessing and responding to government policies” (emphasis added). > > You’re not apt to read about these in textbooks or the establishment > > apologies on most newspaper editorial and op-ed pages. For some > > unfathomable reason, most pundits don’t want us to worry our little heads > > knowing that politicians may intentionally make it more difficult for us to > > see what’s really going on or to do anything about it. > > But it’s hard to conclude the politicians would want it any other way. How > > else to explain 2,000-page bills laden with impenetrable legislatese which > > no member of Congress will read in their entirety and 800-page amendments? > > Have you tried reading the federal budget? Such output mocks the ideal of > > an “informed citizenry.” That’s the last thing the misleaders in Washington > > want. > > As Oscar Wilde said, “Nowadays to be intelligible is to be found > > out.”http://www.thefreemanonline.org/tgif/opaque-by-design/?utm_source=The...- > > Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
