What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

What's wrong with government in the U.S. (1 Viewer)

Joe T

Footballguy
I'm going to start a consolidated list of problems with local, state, and federal government and keep it to one thread.

Here is example #1:

This Metamorphosis Will Require a Permit

Sandy wrecked our house, but bureaucrats are keeping it broken.

By ROGER KIMBALL

"What sort of people were these? What were they talking about? What office did they belong to? K. was living in a free country, after all, everywhere was at peace, all laws were decent and were upheld, who was it who dared accost him in his own home?"

—Franz Kafka, "The Trial"

Like many people whose houses were badly damaged by Hurricane Sandy, my family and I have been living in a rented house since the storm. Unlike some whose houses were totalled, we could have repaired things and been home toasting our tootsies by our own fireplace by now. What happened?

Two things: zoning (as in "Twilight Zone") and FEMA.

Our first exposure to the town zoning authorities came a couple of weeks after Sandy. We'd met with insurance adjusters, contractors and "remediation experts." We'd had about a foot of Long Island Sound sloshing around the ground floor of our house in Connecticut, and everyone had the same advice: Rip up the floors and subfloors, and tear out anything—wiring, plumbing, insulation, drywall, kitchen cabinets, bookcases—touched by salt water. All of it had to go, and pronto, too, lest mold set in.

Yet it wasn't until the workmen we hired had ripped apart most of the first floor that the phrase "building permit" first wafted past us. Turns out we needed one. "What, to repair our own house we need a building permit?"

Of course.

Before you could get a building permit, however, you had to be approved by the Zoning Authority. And Zoning—citing FEMA regulations—would force you to bring the house "up to code," which in many cases meant elevating the house by several feet. Now, elevating your house is very expensive and time consuming—not because of the actual raising, which takes just a day or two, but because of the required permits.

Kafka would have liked the zoning folks. There also is a limit on how high in the sky your house can be. That calculation seems to be a state secret, but it can easily happen that raising your house violates the height requirement. Which means that you can't raise the house that you must raise if you want to repair it. Got that?

There were other surprises. A woman in our neighborhood has two adjoining properties, with a house and a cottage. She rents the house and lives in the cottage. For 29 years she has paid taxes on both. The cottage was severely damaged but she can't tear it down and rebuild because Zoning says the plots are not zoned for two structures, never mind that for 29 years two property-tax payments were gladly accepted.

Kafka would have liked FEMA, too. We've met plenty of its agents. Every one we've encountered has been polite and oozing with sympathy. Even the lady who reduced my wife to tears was nice. The issue was my wife's proof of income. We sent our tax return to FEMA, but that wasn't good enough. They wanted pay stubs. My wife works as a freelance writer and editor. She doesn't get a pay stub. Which apparently makes her a nonperson to this government agency.

In "The Road to Serfdom," Friedrich Hayek noted that "the power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest functionnaire possesses who wields the coercive power of the state on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am to be allowed to live or to work."

And how. But what makes the phenomenon so insidious is that many of the functionaries are as friendly as can be. It's just that they're cogs in a machine whose overriding purpose is not service but self-perpetuation and control.

It is, as Alexis de Tocqueville saw, a recipe for a form of despotism peculiar to modern democracies. It does this, wrote Tocqueville, by enforcing "a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules" that reduces citizens "to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd." The sobering thought is that we're all complicit in that infantilization. After all, we keep voting for the politicians who put this leviathan in place.

Just before Christmas, our 5-year-old daughter had an encounter with Santa. What did she want for Christmas? "My house back."

It's not only us, of course. Thousands upon thousands have been displaced, but the bullying pedantry of the zoning establishment never wavers. While our house stands empty, the city authorities even showed a sense of humor by sending us a bill for property taxes. For a house they won't let us repair.

We've spent a few thousand dollars on a lawyer to appeal to Zoning, many thousands in rent, and hundreds getting a fresh appraisal of our house. The latest from our lawyer: Because of our new appraisal, we may be able to "apply for a zoning permit." "Apply," mind you.

I used to think that our house was, you know, our house. The bureaucrats have taught me otherwise. But then I also used to think that Franz Kafka wrote a species of dark fantasy. I know now that he was turning out nonfiction.

Mr. Kimball is the author, most recently, of "The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia" (St. Augustine's, 2012).
WSJ link
 
Abuse of the philibuster, gerrymandering and lobbying/special interests dominating the process. Not neccesarily in that order.

 
What's wrong?The people can vote themselves benefits and tax breaks at the same time. Somehow, that's a problem.

 
Three immediate thoughts:1. Too much concentrated power/money (which = influence) within non governmental power bodies aka, interest groups.2. We have continued to add more and more laws to the web of laws, rather than ever start with a clean slate regarding legislation. We add and amend past laws, but rarely say screw it, this #### ain't working, let's start fresh.3. Most important of all, and very much interwoven with the above (especially #1) - Politics takes FAR too much precedence over governing. I'd also attribute this to mass media, the sound bite era and the lowest common denominator approach that politicians live by.

 
Abuse of the philibuster, gerrymandering and lobbying/special interests.
Seconded.Money controlling politics is a problem but not the fundamental problem. The reason there is so much money in politics is because there's a huge payoff if you win. Anytime you have a system that distributes trillions of dollars it's going to be in people's best interest to pay a lot of money to influence that system. Greatly reducing the influence of the government is not a practical fix ... even if the size of the government is reduced by 90% you're still talking about a system that takes and spends hundreds of billions of dollars per year, so people will still be willing to spend billions to influence it. I think the solution is to simplify and make transparent the process for deciding how tax money gets spent and to hold officials criminally liable if they break the rules. That means we need a strong oversight and enforcement arm of the government.I think if you are a government official above some level of power your life and actions should be completely exposed to the public. Essentially you have no privacy and your actions are publicly disseminated. Your daily schedule is posted online and all your conversations and government business is recorded and made publicly accessible. It's readily apparent that we can't trust our own officials and that our representatives do not represent us, so this doesn't seem that drastic to me. If your kid repeatedly got into trouble you'd demand to know what they we doing at all times, I don't see why we should not be even more careful about checking up on our politicians given that they've done far worse things than a kid ever could.The other part of the problem is a public that is disinterested in the political process and it's results. I think apathy is a bigger problem than hyper-partisan fundamentalists. Lack of knowledge of said fundamentalists is probably second. Very few people actually know what's going on and care.
 
It just occurred to me that I overheard somebody say recently that you no longer have to stand for a filibuster? Is that true?

 
Lack of term limits
People continue to cite a lack of term limits on this board. I'm not seeing it. Smart voters, not term limits. Term limits make the lobbyists even more powerful, it is crazy.
The problem with not having term limits is that the most important thing is getting reelected, not governing. Politicians have figured out that campaigning and running ads is much more correlated with getting reelected than governing well is, so that's what they do with their time. Sure, getting better voters would fix this but that's a huge culture change. Enacting term limits would allow politicians to govern instead of campaign and would be a simple thing to institute.I would like to see extended service time for House members along with term limits for all congressmen. I also think there should be a minimum time between someone being employed in upper levels of government and being employed in the private sector in a related industry; you could come from Goldman and be your town's mayor but not Treasury Secretary for instance. Also much more extensive (and better enforced) rules about conflicts of interest with elected officials, especially concerning previous places of employment. Jack Lew should be ineligible for the Treasury Secretary job simply because of his employment history with Citigroup.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lack of term limits
People continue to cite a lack of term limits on this board. I'm not seeing it. Smart voters, not term limits. Term limits make the lobbyists even more powerful, it is crazy.
Financial influence on the Hill.
What about it?
Influencing votes via campaign donations, implied future donations, and help landing cherry gigs post-public service. See: Abramoff, Jack.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lack of term limits
People continue to cite a lack of term limits on this board. I'm not seeing it. Smart voters, not term limits. Term limits make the lobbyists even more powerful, it is crazy.
Financial influence on the Hill.
Again, smart voters is the answer. The politicians don't keep that money (well most of them don't anyway). It's only useful if the voters are susceptible to the silly ads that the politicians buy with the donations. If the voters are well informed and take the time to vote for the politician whose positions on the issues they agree with the most instead of the one who makes the best "gotcha" ad, the money is useless.
 
I don't think a socialist democrat republican libertarian 4 party system where everyone gets 15-25% of the vote, congressional seats would be any better.
Why not? In the current system we have, candidates have to pretty much align themselves with the part platform in order to stay elected. It completely blocks any 3rd party presidential candidate from having a prayer of a chance. It allows for total stagnation of the legislature as well as a host of other restrictions. Simply having a 3rd relevant party is enough to help uncork things and allow for a moderate option.
 
Lack of term limits
People continue to cite a lack of term limits on this board. I'm not seeing it. Smart voters, not term limits. Term limits make the lobbyists even more powerful, it is crazy.
Financial influence on the Hill.
What about it?
Influencing votes via campaign donations, implied future donations, and help landing cherry gigs post-public service. See: Abramoff, Jack.
What does that have to do with supporting or not supporting term limits?
 
Lack of term limits
People continue to cite a lack of term limits on this board. I'm not seeing it. Smart voters, not term limits. Term limits make the lobbyists even more powerful, it is crazy.
Financial influence on the Hill.
Again, smart voters is the answer. The politicians don't keep that money (well most of them don't anyway). It's only useful if the voters are susceptible to the silly ads that the politicians buy with the donations. If the voters are well informed and take the time to vote for the politician whose positions on the issues they agree with the most instead of the one who makes the best "gotcha" ad, the money is useless.
I think financial influence in DC goes far beyond creating "gotcha" ads. It props up the entire two-party system and insulates it from things that would harm their backer’s interests. It drives the agenda and media narrative that buries dissenting voices. Even smart voters (which is ridiculous to expect) will have a tough time looking through this to find some who will genuinely support their issues.
 
Lack of term limits
People continue to cite a lack of term limits on this board. I'm not seeing it. Smart voters, not term limits. Term limits make the lobbyists even more powerful, it is crazy.
Financial influence on the Hill.
Again, smart voters is the answer. The politicians don't keep that money (well most of them don't anyway). It's only useful if the voters are susceptible to the silly ads that the politicians buy with the donations. If the voters are well informed and take the time to vote for the politician whose positions on the issues they agree with the most instead of the one who makes the best "gotcha" ad, the money is useless.
I think financial influence in DC goes far beyond creating "gotcha" ads. It props up the entire two-party system and insulates it from things that would harm their backer’s interests. It drives the agenda and media narrative that buries dissenting voices. Even smart voters (which is ridiculous to expect) will have a tough time looking through this to find some who will genuinely support their issues.
Good points, although again, it only does some of these things (propping up two party system, driving agenda) if the voters/consumers allow it to be so.The larger point is that the money is a means to an end, not the end, and that the people have the final say as to whether and how significantly it affects that end. I think that point sometimes gets lost in all the complaining about the influence of money in politics.
 
Lack of term limits
People continue to cite a lack of term limits on this board. I'm not seeing it. Smart voters, not term limits. Term limits make the lobbyists even more powerful, it is crazy.
Financial influence on the Hill.
What about it?
Influencing votes via campaign donations, implied future donations, and help landing cherry gigs post-public service. See: Abramoff, Jack.
What does that have to do with supporting or not supporting term limits?
Term limits will backfire as you suggest without first addressing those things.
 
Lack of term limits
People continue to cite a lack of term limits on this board. I'm not seeing it. Smart voters, not term limits. Term limits make the lobbyists even more powerful, it is crazy.
Financial influence on the Hill.
Again, smart voters is the answer. The politicians don't keep that money (well most of them don't anyway). It's only useful if the voters are susceptible to the silly ads that the politicians buy with the donations. If the voters are well informed and take the time to vote for the politician whose positions on the issues they agree with the most instead of the one who makes the best "gotcha" ad, the money is useless.
How do we fix stupid?
 
'Matthias said:
How about a no party system.
I'm telling you: conscripted voters. It's like jury duty, except for 2 years. If your name comes up, boom, you're a US Representative. There's no lobbying and no campaigning and no lifelong politicians. We just get a cross-section of America figuring #### out. Hey. It's not like it could be worse.
I think this would backfire. What would happen, with this group of people that doesn't know what they're doing, is the actual decisions would get made by another group that does know what it's doing (similar to what happens now with ALEC and people like that). But it would be even worse than now because the "officials" would have even less influence than they do now.Speaking of Jury Duty, I think we should have professional jurors that are educated, take CPE courses and are accountable to the public.
 
Lack of term limits
People continue to cite a lack of term limits on this board. I'm not seeing it. Smart voters, not term limits. Term limits make the lobbyists even more powerful, it is crazy.
The problem with not having term limits is that the most important thing is getting reelected, not governing. Politicians have figured out that campaigning and running ads is much more correlated with getting reelected than governing well is, so that's what they do with their time. Sure, getting better voters would fix this but that's a huge culture change. Enacting term limits would allow politicians to govern instead of campaign and would be a simple thing to institute.I would like to see extended service time for House members along with term limits for all congressmen. I also think there should be a minimum time between someone being employed in upper levels of government and being employed in the private sector in a related industry; you could come from Goldman and be your town's mayor but not Treasury Secretary for instance. Also much more extensive (and better enforced) rules about conflicts of interest with elected officials, especially concerning previous places of employment. Jack Lew should be ineligible for the Treasury Secretary job simply because of his employment history with Citigroup.
A few thoughts:1.IWe have an issue with elected officials spending more time running for re-election than serving their governmental purpose. So, we put in term limits. That will reduce incentive for politicians to serve their constituency. You can't run for re-election, so who cares what they think? It gives them even more reason to be selfish while in office. Instead of planning for re-election, they will plan for their next government position or private position. To get these positions, they will have to do a lot of favors. At the same time, we will have inexperienced rookie elected officials attempting to navigate a system filled with veteran lobbyists. 2. I get the idea of conflict of interest with someone that once ran Citigroup and is now Treasury Secretary. However, isn't their a benefit to having someone with major banking/economic/financial experience serve in the position? If we preclude anyone with private financial experience, then we are essentially blocking out anyone with recent relevant private experience.3. If the person made Treasury Secretary and has been out of the private banking industry for many years, do we also say they can't hold investments since having stocks may present a conflict of interest?
 
'humpback said:
'TobiasFunke said:
'Apple Jack said:
'Ilov80s said:
'Tuco said:
Lack of term limits
People continue to cite a lack of term limits on this board. I'm not seeing it. Smart voters, not term limits. Term limits make the lobbyists even more powerful, it is crazy.
Financial influence on the Hill.
Again, smart voters is the answer. The politicians don't keep that money (well most of them don't anyway). It's only useful if the voters are susceptible to the silly ads that the politicians buy with the donations. If the voters are well informed and take the time to vote for the politician whose positions on the issues they agree with the most instead of the one who makes the best "gotcha" ad, the money is useless.
How do we fix stupid?
1. Quality education. 2. Be smart and don't be shy about sharing it. I don't mean brag, but share information, thoughts, ideas with others. Engage people in these types of conversations, even if they aren't the type of person that would normally talk politics.
 
'Slapdash said:
'Apple Jack said:
It just occurred to me that I overheard somebody say recently that you no longer have to stand for a filibuster? Is that true?
Absolutely
Not only do you not need to stand, under current rules, you don't even have to BE THERE. Google "Silent Filibuster".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top