Which Do We Want?

So, the government is going to help us get a new car. They are also going to help us get a job and, with the help of Justice Sotomayor, they will make sure no one picks on us or calls us bad names. They are going to be the sort of parents every kid wants growing up. Imagine if everyone could vote for the sort of parents they wanted. You could choose parents that told you had to get a job and buy your own car. Parents that told you that you had to mow the lawn and pull your own weight around the house. Or, you could choose parents that would get you a car, that would pick up after you, and let you sleep late on the weekends. Parents that would protect you from bullies and people who would call you bad names. Which parents do you think would get more votes? The grumpy old conservatives who tell us we have to get a job, buy our own stuff, and pull our own weight? Or the loving liberals, who tell us that we are special, and that if we ever need help with our rent, groceries, car payments, anything at all, we just need to ask? And all they ask for in return is that we vote for them and agree to live by their rules. I suppose the answer would depend on who you asked. Many, if not most children are happy to accept their parents' generosity, even if it means they have to live by their parents' rules. Some, however, come to resent their parents' charity and chafe at the idea of having to live by their rules. Those are the kids that would take a job, save their money, and move out as soon as they were able. Some parents dote on their children and dread the day when their children no longer need them. Other parents take pride in their children's independence and cheer them on as they leave home to begin their own lives.

Of course, we are not children. We do not choose our parents. But we do choose our representatives. Like parents, some politicians dote on their supporters and dread the day they are no longer loved or needed. They are the ones who offer to protect their supporters from bullies, get them jobs and free health care; even to help them buy a new car. Other politicians take pride in an electorate that can manage its own affairs, get their own jobs and buy their own cars. So, are we like children who want the government to take care of us, get us a job, keep us safe, protect us from bullies,and pick up after us so long as we agree to live by their rules? Or do we look forward to the day when we no longer need to rely on the government, and can at last handle our own affairs?

Thanks for the car and the job. Now I need a girlfriend

Evidently, the "cash for clinkers" program is working even better than expected. People are finding it hard to resist the government's offer to help them buy a new car. Now, whenever an American steps outside to admire his new car, he will thank the government, and the Democrats in particular, for their help. I suspect that might have been the true motive all along. If that wasn't the motive, it was at least an incentive. I suppose everyone who gets a job, a car, or a house over the next four years will have Obama and the Democrats to thank. Now, if Obama would just get me a girlfriend.....

Jail: Your Rent is Due

Another anecdote of our government at work: as budgets have been trimmed and pruned over the course of this recession, some states facing budget shortfalls have decided to start charging their prison and jail inmates rent. In New York, a bill has been introduced that would charge "wealthy inmates" $90 a day for "room and board." Arizona now charges prisoners $1.25 per day for meals. In Teney County Missouri, officials want to charge inmates $45 dollars a day to help pay for its new jail in Branson. Several other states are now exploring the possibilities of trying to squeeze income from their prisoners. Aside from the sordidness and desperation evident nationwide as local, and state governments scrounge for funding to keep themselves in the business of governing people, I can only wonder: if the inmates are unwilling or unable to pay their rent, will they be evicted? Or will they be sent to jail?

Educational Commodities

In the ongoing, and seemingly endless discussions over the quality of education, there seems to be a fundamenatlal flaw in the debate. All too frequently, education is discussed as if it were a commodity, i.e. something to be produced and distributed; bought and sold. Poor grades are understood to be the results of a poor product and/or poor distribution. There was once a time when education was understood as an activity, i.e., something one did. The teacher engaged in the activity of teaching; the student in the activity of learning. Somewhere, somehow, education became a noun. Education became something the teacher gives and the student receives. Thus, education reform has come to revolve around making a better product and improving its distibution. Distributing education would seem to be a dead end. It has become simply a body of facts to be retained and retrieved if and when they become useful or necessary. Traditional basics of education, e.g. history, philosphy, and literature, have become largely useless in our modern economy since they are of limited efficacy in the creation or distribution of wealth. The result is a population adept at creating wealth and commodities, but clumsy in its accumulation and appreciation of art and culture. Without art and culture, economic activity becomes a near mindless, and endless pursuit of wealth and comfort.

It Has Come to This

There was an article in this morning's paper regarding where to hold the trials of the detainees held in Guantanamo. Many have expressed unease and dismay at the prospect of suspected terrorists being brought to their state. Many, but not all. Workers at the Standish Maximum Security Prison in Michigan said they would welcome the suspects "with open arms." The reason for this welcome is that the influx of prisoners would "save their jobs". Evidently, prison business is slow in Standish due to the recession. Perhaps they should use some of their federal stimulus money to instigate a crime wave so as to prop up the local economy.

Bureaucratic Overhead

I want to share something I read in this morning's newspaper. Frustrated with the backlog of traffic fines, the city of Dallas decided to take action. People who owe fines will be prohibited from registering their vehicles until their fines are paid. The city figures it is owed about $550,000. However, after "administrative fees", the city expects to collect only about half that amount, or $225,000. Some argue the fees will be lower, perhaps only half of that half, so only $110,00 will be lost. This is only one program in one city. How much else is lost everyday in this country due to bureaucratic overhead? The numbers must be staggering. This is the government that so many people seem to be pinning their hopes, dreams, and ambitions upon. So, after all is said and done, the people can expect to lose 1/2 to 1/5 of their dreams and hopes due to government overhead. Assuming, that is, government is able to pass legislation that truly addresses the people's hopes and dreams, rather than the government's. Seems like a swindle to me.