Well, this is unfortunate

(Image Credit artofmanliness.com)

     What do I mean by unfortunate?  Well, those who know me will know that I am an employee of the U.S. Government.  That means on October 1st, because the President and the Congress could not reach an agreement to fund the government either through continuing resolution or annual budget (I know, haven’t seen one of those for a while but they are supposed to be done), then non-essential portions of the government ‘shut down’ until the situation is resolved.  I was one of those considered ‘non-essential’ and was sent home after setting up my out of office for my work email (not with the snarky comment I wanted) and ensuring there were no ‘loose ends’ to be dealt with by the military personnel who now have to do their work and the civilians.

     The bottom line of this impasse (for lack of a better term) is:  the House of Representatives (controlled by one party) is holding funding for the government hostage in order to change a previously enacted law through ‘defunding’.  The Senate and President (the other party obviously) will not let the funding pass with the defunding legislation attached.  They ‘passed’ funding bills back and forth, with the only difference being the defunding legislation.  At this point, no one is talking, the fingers are pointing, and there appears to be no end in the immediate future.  Ideological purity has taken the place of governing, and apparently every issue is a ‘hill to die on’.  Everything is a fight instead of a negotiation.  The process of lawmaking no longer fits the ‘sausage making’ metaphor.  It better fits the ‘death matches’ of the Roman Coliseum, with the fervent party supporters playing the part of Caesar, determining the fate of the combatants.  Well, if you’ll excuse me I don’t want to have the gladiators, I’d rather have the governors.

     Now, as much as that law is based on good intentions (we all know where that leads), it is really the height of arrogance to think you can hold the government or the country hostage in order to change the law.  Last time I checked, that was what the legislative and judicial branches are for.  But hey, we can just throw everything out the window I guess.  Personally, I really do not care what political party or persuasion you are. If you cannot do what is necessary in order to ensure the government functions as smoothly as possible, then you do not deserve to be in office.I know I am taking this very personally, but I think I’m allowed.

It’s not personal, it’s just politics

 

     It has been over two months since I last put something on this blog.  I wish that I could blame my life and my schedule for my lack of posts, but I can’t.  These two months really been a struggle for me to determine when I should write and what I should write about.  On the one hand, I could go on a somewhat theological tangent.  That would be interesting to me, but I’m not sure anyone else would enjoy it.  On the other hand, I could be like so many other people and rail on about the current state of affairs in this country.  But even with that topic, there are so many possibilities.  One thing that seems to hinder me is:  by the time I finally figure out how I feel and what my true position is about a particular topic or issue (not sure if it’s paralysis by analysis, or truly trying to wade through the nuances), it’s well after the swell of emotion and discussion of that issue, and anything I put together comes off as ‘Johnny come lately’.  But, now I feel called to comment on our current mess dealing  with the economy.  So:  late, early, or on time, here goes nothing (or something, we’ll see when I’m done).  I will be up front and state that I do have a personal stake in this situation, and I am trying to keep the personal out of this post as much as possible.  It is ultimately very difficult, so if I fail at being impartial, you at least know why.

    As I write this, America seems to be on a road similar to what I mentioned with Hostess.  Both sides (and please look it up.  One side may have proposed this madness, but both sides latched on and agreed to it) signed a sort of ‘mutual suicide pact’ for the American economy.  The ‘sequester’ as it has come to be known, was supposed to be something both sides wanted to avoid at all costs.  What we have seen is that this was the case, until both parties saw the opportunity to gain a political advantage.  Now, both side are alternately trying to tell themselves this isn’t as bad as they said, or it is that bad and they’re blaming the other party for the mess.  In the meantime, the rest of the country gets to find out in an ‘up close and personal’ fashion what these arbitrary cuts will mean to both personal and federal/state/local economies (unintended consequences, anyone?) 

     I looked through all this and I have come to the following (somewhat disturbing) conclusion.  This marks (to me and I may be wrong) the first time the politicians and/or government have OVERTLY done something, either through omission or commission, not in the best interest of the country.  It’s finally gotten to the point where scoring political points with their supporters is more important than the good of the country, and they don’t care whether people know it or not.

     I believe this is something we as a country and a society need to ponder.  Now, I will say this is not a ‘throw the bums out’ type of general grumpy comment.  This is more of a ‘wow, have we really gotten/sunk to this point?’ kind of concerned response.  We as a country need to take a serious look at where things are going politically and thoughtfully consider whether or not we like it.  If we don’t, then we need to use the legitimate tools at our disposal to make it known we don’t like where things are and are going.  We also need to start trying to change who we have in government.  Let me state clearly right now, I don’t advocate overthrow or revolution.  I don’t think it’s necessary.

     There, I’ve said my piece.  Now, I’m going to stand back and see what the future holds.

economics and automobiles

This week (and today as well) we see the impending the bankruptcy of General Motors. It brings the country's focus back to the automakers and (in my opinion more importantly) how both GM and Chrysler are currently and for the foreseeable future subject to the dictates of the government. I mean this as even moreso than in the past (emission standards, safety standards, etc.), where the government will be telling these companies what kind of cars to make and maybe even how many. This is not a situation we as a country want to see. This shows the difference between the market economy of the past and the communist (government-run) economy we (by all indications) are moving towards. If anyone thinks this cannot happen hasn't been paying attention. Any automobile made today for driving in the United States needs to meet safety, emission, and fuel efficiency standards. We are being regulated more and more each day.

There may already be some indications of our government exerting its influence on the automakers. One is currently being looked at by a blogger on Redstate (just one of multiple blogs I read), as to whether or not certain Chrysler dealers were 'closed' based on which party they supported by monetary donations. Of course denials abound from Chrysler and the government that this never took place, however, when you look at which dealerships were closed, how well they were doing, and add in their political contributions, the 'appearance of impropriety' begins to show. Now if the implication is true, it's not just government influence on an industry, it's punishment for your political beliefs, and a 'back door' way to shut down opposition without directly attacking the first amendment. This should increase our vigilance, if we care about protecting our way of life.

The other indication comes in the form of oil and gas prices. We're in a down economy (recession or maybe the beginnings of depression depending on your point of view), and yet oil and gas prices are going up. You could argue it's a sign the economy's improving, but at this point nothing else indicates that. If you believe in conspiracies, you could argue the government is raising the oil and gas prices on purpose to drive people out of their current cars. What would they get? Why the 'new' fuel efficient and 'green' cars that will be made by the post-bankruptcy GM. That's if you believe in conspiracies.

I will continue to watch what goes on with interest. The automobile industry will, in this case, be a leading indicator of the future of our economy, government, and society. Admittedly, I will be watching with a certain degree of apprehension. If what we've seen so far is any indication, we can only look forward to more and more of a communist-style economy run by the government.

Do we understand there is no free lunch?

Thinking back over this last election, and what we have seen so far, one thing continuing to stick in my mind is how many people want the government to provide them services or funds for any number of reasons. Some of those reasons may seem more significant than others: failing businesses, unable to work (mental or physical), unable to make ends meet, and so forth. I'm not going to sit here and try to say whether one reason is more important than the other, as that's really not my place. No one gave me the authority or power to say 'that's a good enough reason for assistance', or 'that's not a good enough reason'.

The whole discussion reminds me of a story I read about Davy Crockett, when he served as a representative from the state of Tennessee. As it is told, in a speech he talks about making the rounds in his district in preparation for re-election. He meets up with a farmer, and after the usual discussion about crops and weather, asks the farmer if he will support his re-election. The farmer tells him no, and when asked why, the farmer explains it is because in his mind, Davy Crockett forgot the constitution and the limited powers it entailed. Where did the farmer get this idea? From Crockett's support of a bill to give money to families affected by a fire in Georgetown, Virginia. The bottom line of the speech given and the story was to serve as a reminder to Congress and the country at large that the government is not supposed to be in the business of giving money to people, charitable or not. If we cannot wrap our minds around this principle, then we have gone very far afield from the principles on which our nation was founded.

There is a second story or saying that this reminds me of. It has been attributed to many different authors, but its' message is particularly timely: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." This has been attributed to people from Benjamin Franklin to Alexander Tytler, a scottish lawyer. It really doesn't matter who spoke or wrote it. I think it casts a dark shadow on how our fallen nature can corrupt governments conceived under the best of intentions.

The title of this post refers to the concept that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch'. All the money being given to banks and other industries have to come from somewhere. Someone has to put the money up for all these programs and such. I don't believe the average American has any concept of borrowing and credit and so forth. Banks and other companies dealing in credit provide the money we 'charge' to buy all those things we think we need. Sooner or later, we need to pay them back. If we don't there are consequences. Those consequences can vary from garnishing our wages to pay the debt, to the ruination of our ability to obtain credit through collection or bankruptcy.

Proverbs 22:7 states: 'The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.' The government seems to have picked up on the principle behind this verse and we are starting to see evidence of their applying the principle to industries they have given money to: banks given money to stabilize their situation during the credit crisis last fall who don't need it anymore aren't being allowed to give it back to the government. Is it because the government wants to control the operation of the banks? We can't say right now. We saw last week General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner forced from his post by the White House. Is this the beginning of government control over the American automobile industry? It's still a little early at this point. One thing we should keep in mind is many of us have received money from the government in some way, shape or form. School lunches, welfare for the poor, farming subsidies. These are some examples of 'free' money from the government. These programs are not free, but are paid by taxes. If you think about many of these programs, there are conditions attached in order to receive the money. Those conditions are the recipients' 'payment'. The bottom line for those who receive theses 'benefits' are we are now 'servants' of the government and we must do what they say. Some of us are happy servants, some are not. But until people learn to quit borrowing we will continue to be servants to the lenders. If you accept government funding be prepared to pay, and not just in money.

I guess what I am trying to put across in my own feeble method is: when we start asking our government to provide things for us, we are in grave danger of morphing our government into something other than a democracy (which people seem to think it is) or a representative republic (which is the actual design).

Thoughts on cars

With all the news the auto industry has made this week, I thought back to some of the vehicles my parents owned during my years growing up.

During that time, which seems somewhat ironic at this time, my parents owned a car made by a company that no longer exists as an independent car company. The car was an AMC Hornet Sportabout station wagon. It was one of the first cars I remember, so it made an impression. The car and how it performed overall seemed fine, at least by my small child standards. I don't remember the car ever breaking down, or having any major mechanical defects (although the rear passenger door didn't like to unlock sometimes). I think my parents owned it for 5-6 years.

I think they would have owned it longer, but at the time my parents had bought a towed camper and the car couldn't tow it, so they traded it in for one of the first GMC Suburbans (first model year anyway). I found out later the vehicle was slightly unusual (the engine they put in was too small – at least for that size), but it served the purpose my parents wanted it for. I hardly noticed at the time the gradual disappearance of the AMC brand, but I thought about it more as I got older and looked back.

I recently did some looking around about the life and demise of the AMC brand. They were actually a fairly popular brand in the 1970's, making vehicles people wanted and being 'ahead of their time' regarding safety and fuel efficiency. What did them in was some poor choices (AMC Pacer), and not having enough capital to deal with economic difficulties. They partnered with Renault in the 1980's and were eventually absorbed by Chrysler. Apparently they were the last 'independent' automobile company (in other words, outside of the 'big 3' in Detroit).

As I got older, the vehicles my parents owned seemed to change with the times (by that I mean they didn't let cars get more than 7-8 years old), and my parents pretty much stayed with American automobiles, Chrysler products to be specific, although there was one import that my brother bought and my parents got from him, a Toyota.

I look back at my own car ownership history (as short as it is) and it's much more eclectic. There's been a mix of domestic and import cars, depending on needs, wants, and availability. Today, I've got two 'used' vehicles – one domestic van and one import car. I'm happy with what I have, since my purchasing criteria has more to do with how they perform than a particular company.

Brand loyalty used to be an important part of our culture and buying process. Today, I guess brand loyalty doesn't matter much anymore, but then again why give money to companies who either can't or won't change with the times and operate without assistance?

Why I’m opposed to the stimulus

It’s not for the reason you might think. I mean there are many surface reasons for opposing the legislation recently signed into law. Just listing a few off the top of my head, there is the way the legislation was pushed through, how quickly it was moved through (I’m a fairly good reader and I can’t imagine getting through the 1300+ page document in that short of a time), and how partisan it ended up being in the end (don’t tell me about the three republicans voting for it in the senate, most people in the republican party don’t count them anyway). All of these things smack of what passes as normal politics these days. It’s not so much that it’s something new, it’s just that those in our capital are more brazen about it than they have in the past.

If you’ve noticed, I didn’t mention anything about the amount of money itself or how it’s being spent. I’m far beyond having any hope of the professional politicians spending the money they’ve been entrusted with wisely. I believe what we are seeing is the apex, zenith, whatever phrase you want to use of the quote (I believe it’s been attributed to both Benjamin Franklin and Alexis de Toqueville) “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

I’m primarily opposed to the basic idea of this law because of the mindset it produces. We have basically turned ourselves into a ‘no consequences’ society. You can mess up in your financial choices, you can basically fulfill all your fleshly desires, and we’re not supposed to have anything bad happen to us. I may not be very old, and I may not have seen ‘everything’ (although there are some days I say to myself ‘I can die a happy man, I’ve seen everything’) but the one thing I’ve learned from walking this planet is: there are always consequences. There’s no way around it. But, apparently we are certainly going to try. At least for those who have acted foolishly (at least with their money).

What I’m really getting at is: this particular bill has shown to me that we as a country and we as a people have fallen very far from the ideals this country was based on. As far as I can tell, the government this country started with is not the one we have now, and I’m not referring to amendments either. What I am referring to is the mindset of the people. We have more wealth and more resources available to us as a society than in any other time period, yet we are poor. The reason for this is: people in general are beholden to the state for their needs and wants as opposed to taking care of these things as individuals or as family units. More people today seem to be almost more than willing to give over things Americans fought wars about around a century ago. Why do we have people so willing to give everything, including those things our forefathers held so dear, over to the government? I think this quote from Teddy Roosevelt says it best: “The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.”

Is it too late for our country? I’m not smart enough to say for sure, and I don’t have any better ideas than anyone else. But what I have seen so far, and seeing where we’ve come from in getting where we are today does not make me feel better.