Pointless Comparisons

There’s a motivational parable out there that I recently read for the first time:

This is a story of four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it but Nobody did it.

Somebody got angry with that because it was Everybody’s job.

Everybody thought Anybody could do it but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it.

It ended that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

To this date these four people are still arguing why Nobodydid the job.

The parable made me think of recent headlines heralding the relative unpopularity of the United States Congress. Apparently the legislative branch of the United States federal government is quite unpopular and someone thought it would be of some utility to compare its favorability to all sorts of supposed undesirables.  The comparison and its results are pointless to share because it is utterly useless. It doesn’t matter one bit how unpopular the US Congress is so long as it remains relatively unchanged. And the composition of the US Congress, most specifically the House of Representatives will not change so long as there are no term limits and gerrymandered districts exist, resulting in many hyper-compartmentalized districts that elect representatives that stand for incredibly precise interests that are almost always in contradiction to the general interests of the country at large.

Just about every Representative is elected by promising their constituents that someone else can, should and is responsible for paying for the things that they want provided for by the federal government. Those who are successful at convincing their respective electorate that they can or have benefited them directly by getting someone else to pay for those things are rewarded handsomely through perpetual re-election. The most successful Representatives have so much power in incumbency that they don’t even have to bother with campaigning for re-election and enjoy Saddam Hussein levels of approval. These representatives, and there are more of them every election cycle, couldn’t care less about congress’ aggregate approval rating because it matters not one bit towards their own.

As the federal government regulates more and more of everyday life by passing more and more laws they become more of a national government hyper-regulating every aspect of daily life for erstwhile citizens. With this comes less and less of the notion of state sovereignty. This hyper-regulation does little for the very real differences in priority at the state level affecting the national reputation of the entire Congress, and for Representatives and Senators alike. That national reputation, however, matters little so long as the local reputation of these politicians remains strong.

There’s a reason the founders established a limited federal government with unenumerated powers reserved for the states, it’s because in a country as large and diverse as the United States it is impossible to accurately and fairly represent everyone’s interests at the national level. Attempts to so through hyper-regulation and one-size-fits-all federal government only exacerbate differences in this country and necessarily elevate some differences at the explicit expense of others. That is why limited federal government is important. It can’t be expected for enough voters to comprehend this reality so long as they allow themselves to be fooled into believing that politicians can give them something for nothing because someone else will pay for it. Showing that the Congress is less popular than some silly celebrity won’t change our current reality and bloated government, through popular elections we get the government we deserve.

Someone Else Should Pay For It!

This past weekend I was visiting friends that I haven’t seen in a while. We were watching the NFL playoff between the Vikings and Packers that started about 8:30 PM local time in early January, outdoors in freaking Wisconsin. The game was boring, likely attributable to the injury related loss of the Vikings’ starting quarterback, and the conversation drifted to tax policy. I learned that two of my oldest friends, husband and wife, believe that the insatiable tax revenue appetite of the political class can be solved through the increased taxation of so-called “luxury items” to include but not limited to certain cars and firearms.

This plan seems reasonable, right? What possible problem could anyone have with it? First and foremost, this scheme is just another in a long line of having someone else pay for the functions of government. This is a politically sound argument proven by the president who was recently re-elected by demonizing “millionaires and billionaires” who don’t pay their “fair” share without ever defining what that is while ignoring IRS data showing that those with higher incomes actually pay a largely disproportionate share of taxes collected and more as a relative percentage of income.

Second, who decides what is considered a “luxury” item? Politicians, of course, who are human and have as broad a definition of “luxury”, “the basics” and “needs” as the general population. The best retort to the argument “nobody needs that” is “why should anyone care?” Needs and wants are relative to the individual and any official definition of such serves only to divide the citizenry by elevating the relative interests of one group over another. And just because one group may be comparatively small doesn’t mean that their interests may be ignored, tyranny of the majority and whatnot. There is no guarantee that those supporting higher taxes for others one day won’t eventually be on the other side of the argument on another.

It may be emotionally satisfying to consider certain items so essential that they should not be subject to sales taxes and that the forgone revenue should be made up by increasing taxation on less essential items but it is inherently unfair and betrays the notion that “we’re all in it together”. The reason for this is because if the majority of citizens vote for and advocate policies that increase the costs of Government there is a dishonest contradiction in simultaneously advocating policies that assign those costs to others. The bottom line is that if the result of an election is more costly government then that increase should be borne equally across the electorate.

There is nothing unfair in assessing a sales tax equally across like products. And because sales taxes are applied as a percentage of a purchase, an item considered extraneous or luxurious will by definition be taxed more than other things simply because it either costs more or is something that someone somewhere may consider unnecessary and otherwise go un-purchased. One unintended consequence of such a plan is fewer “luxurious” items being purchased resulting in less production of them as artificially inflated prices constrict demand plausibly resulting in less tax revenue being collected than if there were no added “luxury” tax.

At the end of this conversation, my dear friends thought they had me in a Catch-22 because I drive what may be considered a “luxury” car (in truth, it’s a fancy Nissan) and therefore was only dissenting in my own interests. There’s truth to that, in that I don’t think that I or anyone else for that matter should pay artificially higher prices or forced to make purchasing decisions based on the subjective judgment of a self-styled enlightened few. They even agreed to the purported fairness of such a law affecting my fancy Nissan while not applying to a Honda Accord costing the same, relying solely on an arbitrary name-brand classification of “luxury”. In the end, how is it in my self-interest to resist paying more than others for my purchases but not in theirs to tax others more and themselves less? Is there any other argument other than, “someone else should pay for it”?

Clear Thoughts, Living Free

I couldn’t sleep Tuesday night. I went off to bed feeling uncertain with a bad taste in my mouth, my head throbbing with perplexing doubt. I thought that the election was all about the numbers, economic numbers. I was completely wrong. Everyone can take whatever they want and interpret the results however they please, to me this election was won by the takers and the enablers based on ignorance and the blaming of an administration that is four years in the past that spent less than the current one (in twice the time no less). It was won based on the personal destruction of a good and decent man, one who had the tools to be a successful President with a stellar resume containing extensive private and public sector experience. I spent countless time defending him from crude caricatures and misrepresentations, in the end it did not matter.

I will have no criticism of the Republican candidate, he attempted to run an optimistic campaign and he did as well as anyone could have against the tide. I reject the conventional wisdom of many who share my basic principles who seem to think that Republicans must embrace a candidate because of their physical and genetic characteristics along with rhetorical prowess. I reject the thinking that the Republicans must compromise basic principles and shun those whose thinking is considered impolitic by so-called progressive liberals. I reject the notion that this great country has neither right nor obligation to define and protect its borders and define immigration in a way that benefits this country and its citizenry. I reject the notion that unborn children have no rights and that there should be no debate about their systematic destruction when it is a matter of convenience. I reject the breakdown of language that results in the invention of tangible rights made up of consumables that are decidedly not free because they have costs that must be paid.

I realized on Wednesday that I am a dinosaur, as I approach my mid-thirties. I believe that big government fosters dependency and through that destroys initiative and personal responsibility. I think that big government divides us because it forces too many of us to participate in things that we have no desire to, to pay for things many of us find abhorrent while we have to make do with less in order to cover those things we find important and want to take care of ourselves. Those beliefs were rejected by the majority of an electorate who thinks contraception is free and any thinks that opposition of such is the result of a desire to deny access because we see it as a personal decision and responsibility. Forget them.

I will always be a Conservative and a Republican and I love this country. The federal government, it has clearly changed fundamentally and has no use for someone like me except to leach off my hard work. I do not want to “pitch in” more, if the federal government was efficient and limited to only those things that were truly necessary I would be more conducive to the message. Every day the definition of what’s necessary is expanded by the takers who have figured out they can vote themselves “free” things that they should really be taking care of themselves. I am now disengaged from the political process as a choice. It is a time for personal austerity and intelligent investing. My new goal is to learn how to legally minimize my taxable income. There are many things that I think government should do and much that it should not. Those elected and much of the electorate rejects this, they can have each other. I will protect what is mine moving forward and let them vote themselves trinkets into bankruptcy.

The Straight Ticket

I got myself in trouble with the missus last week because I failed to vote for a judicial candidate she preferred, thinking that I did so as an insult to her personally. Of course this wasn’t the case and like anyone actually trying to get out of a hole I stopped digging by not explaining myself any further. What happened was that I effectively voted straight ticket in early voting last week.

I understand that there are many who believe that straight ticket voting is a bad thing and the reasons against it appear reasonable. I don’t have an opinion for or against the practice and I don’t agree with the overt sanctification of voting this time of year. I couldn’t care less if anyone votes or not, it’s a personal choice and the constant nagging (i.e. “civic duty”) and self-aggrandizing (i.e. “I voted” stickers) over it is just as annoying as the nonstop commercials aimed at terrifying those dependent on government entitlements (as if the reality of impending bankruptcy can be deflected by pretty words).

In any case, I didn’t actually vote straight ticket, I voted separately for each contest and the result happened to be a virtual straight ticket (virtual because there were several single party races). At the top of the ballot, President, Senate, House, etc., there is a clear and discernible difference between candidates. At the judicial and local level, the difference is much more minute and sometimes impossible to discern.

I read the available position and biographical information and didn’t have a reason to vote against many of the candidates. I went with my gut, and considered voluntary association. At the top level of the ballot I was voting for the person I voted for and at the same time was voting against the other candidate. In the presidential and senatorial contests I was voting with extreme vigor against. Anyway, the tie-breakers down the line where I didn’t have a preference one way or the other went for the party I voted for at the top. There are several candidates this year that have so offended me through their campaigns that I consider any association with them, however meager, to be a net negative and party affiliation is not meager.

So, that’s my early-voting-got-me-in-trouble story. Of course no one’s going to stop nominating people who I think are jerks but it does affect my voting down the line, perhaps I’m not the only one. So, vote or not, for any or no reason. Fingers crossed the path more conducive to reality wins. Five more days!

The Television Programmers versus Distributors Cat Fight

DirecTV subscribers currently do not have Viacom channels, some of them good, as part of their subscriptions. Dish network’s subscribers currently do not have AMC channels, home to the mesmerizing and Albuquerque located Breaking Bad, as part of their subscriptions. The programming providers want more money for their product. Seemingly nothing wrong with that, except that product is bundled as part of larger packages distributed to customers and that more money will come from increased prices for those customers which might lead to canceled subscriptions, resulting in lower revenues to distributors. Both sides have launched cheesy campaigns worthy of a slimy political contest in attempts to blame the other side for their joint issues and distract the consumer from their ever growing monthly television bill. This cat fight is one in which the observer hopes both sides lose leading to a revamped home television entertainment model, one in which consumers can choose the programming they want. Currently, customers only have the choice of packages determined by distributors who have to include packages sold to them by programmers. It’s an outdated and doomed model; the only question is when the transition will take place. The sooner, the better.