There is so much "real" expertise out there and we are all basically connected to each other and to a vast array of knowledge. I wonder what a select group of a Citizens-Congress could do in enacting a budget. Go line by line through the existing one and cut out anything that is pure pork and/or doesn't make any sense. It would be interesting to have this process go on the same time the actual budget is being debated. Maybe a group of people on the Capital lawn with laptops and wifi?
I'm quite happy with all the suggested items for discussion, but for me the biggest of them all was the prologue, "Trust people". This lack of trust is a problem for both sides of the aisle. Moreover, it is manifest especially among the credentialed (aka university educated). Examples abound of how dumb, uneducated rubes just "take care of business" without any need for an enlightened manager or regulations backed up by research. Like a weather event. A less dramatic example would be home-schooling.
I don't know if this makes any sense - sure would be nice if'n I could writ gud - but I just want to say how pleased I was to see this admonition to trust people.
"I’d make sure that the Generals in charge had the right mission for the military."
First off, fire all the General and Flag Officers (GOFO). After 8 years of Obama, all the officers who came of age in his presidency are hopelessly tainted. Rebuild the military from the mid-grade officers, the O5 and O6 level. Second, we don't need anywhere NEAR the level of bureaucracy of the Pentagon; fire most of the defense program analysts, and get that work back in the military. In the Navy especially, we need to fire all the people who came up with the LCS, sometimes known as the "Little Crappy Ship", and get real sailors to design new ships. "CDR Salamander", on Twitter and Substack, has excellent ideas.
Did you know that we currently have 3 times more admirals than we have ships? This seems to not be working.
Agree with you and I am sure some military experts will weigh in behind you. I am not an expert. Not all of the Obama generals but a lot of them. The military has politics too and folks that wanted to rise might have compromised their beliefs to do it. They can get back to what they really believe in and want to do. Anyone with a woke agenda instead of the agenda of building a strong defense is gone.
You need to add a "love" button, Jeffrey, in addition to your "like" button. Key: "Have faith in people and the free market." How about mandating a hiring/budget freeze among all federal agencies? Someone retires, don't replace. Within 10 years, the physical size of government would have shrunk dramatically and no one would be the wiser.
Budget freezes are great but can come out of cold storage when power changes. Much better just to burn it all down so it doesn't come back--like a prairie fire....
Excellent assessment. I agree that big changes are needed, however it starts with the small things. My little initiative is an example. I like to play golf so I try to support and play at facilities that do not use taxpayer subsidies to lower my costs. For instance, I play at Cantigny for $90 rather than Arrowhead for $65. Mistwood for $75 rather than Downers Grove Park District for $55. Cog Hill’s Dubsdread for $85 rather than Village Links for $65. I’ll enjoy dinner and drinks at Salernos after my round rather than be served by Government employees at Lisle Park District Course. I would rather tip the Capitalists’ employees than those who will benefit from taxpayer funded pensions. Your friends who play at Medinah and Olympia Fields, for instance, are already doing their part, but trunk slammers like me have to think about where their recreational dollars are being spent. There is some pushback from taxpayers already, as reflected by those voting in Lake Bluff against spending $5M on the publicly owned course, but it’s easy, and cheaper, to just go the route of the local public facility. What’s next, Floyd’s Barber Shop in the Village Hall competing with Sports Clips? It starts with us, so #KeepItUp !
You realize that to get any of these ideas implemented would require extensive and substantive legislation? And legislation requires legislators. People who can devise and sell policy changes. Not performative bomb-throwing bullshitters. McCarthy, Greene, Boebert, Gaetz, Hawley, Cruz, Oz, Walker, Vance, Masters, et. al. aren't going to cut it. It's too bad the Rs have spent the last almost decade defenestrating people who have the skills to devise and pass policy and have not replaced them with competent successors.
Before taking on the behemoths of SS and Medicare, I’d start small and focus on education, which would be a much easier sell to most Americans. Radical change in education is possible, but support for privatizing entitlements would be more than a slog. Finding a way to educate children on the benefits of liberty, as opposed to serving the state, would make other changes more likely. Most people are scared. They desire certitude when it comes to healthcare and retirement. The government offers that. Find a way to break that dependency and we are on the road to recovery. I really enjoy reading you, Jeffrey. 😊
Part of taking a hatchet to the federal government involves asking a simple question. What is the federal government doing that can be done at a state level? If something can be done at a state level, then there should be no federal involvement. Take the Dept. Of Education. There are no federal schools, all schools are local, so eliminate any federal involvement in schools. All states are on their own to educate their own residents with their own money. We don’t have a federal Dept. Of Firehouses as they’re all local, so there’s also no need for a federal Dept. Of Education. This logic can carry on through much of the federal government. As the Founders said, there’s not many responsibilities the federal government should have, and it should remain weak.
I bet if you got all the sitting congress critters in a room and swore them to secrecy, a majority would agree that this all makes sense. Publicly you wouldn't get 20% to agree on ALL of this, and the majority on each item would likely say no. The problem is that the incentives for congress critters are diametrically opposed to pretty much all of this. There is a reason things have gotten to where the are (and similar things have happened to other societies around the world and throughout history). It'll take a cataclysmic event to make the kinds of changes you outline here, to allow us to basically start from scratch and build our society and institutions back up with the correct incentives in place. The key problem that has never been solved is how to keep future politicians from mucking it up (slowly but surely). Eventually it gets so mucked up that a war is required to "fix" it, which is where that old quote about watering the tree of liberty comes in...
I bet you wouldn't. You'd be surprised how many of these people are what I coined as "True Believers" at my blog years ago. I know so many in Chicago that actually believe this bullshit.
Politics starts out as a labor of love. Many local politicians start out with a belief system that motivates them to "fix the world."
I believe that the system itself breaks them and many will either drop out or just "join in" the graft. When it becomes a sport is when they are lost. I've known a few local politicians of whose company I enjoyed early on, and then after a number of years they became insufferably miserable and cynical. I barely recognized them and just stop interacting.
The incentives for politicians are aligned wrong, what you are describing is directly caused by the structure of the system. But how do you fix that? And how do you make that fix stick? The primary problem as I see it is the inevitability of graft, and the system constantly being ratcheted towards more graft opportunities for whoever controls the seats of power. The federal level is where it is most prevalent because there is no real limit to the money available. At this point there is zero accountability for the trillions spent year. Many departments don't even know what they are spending the money on, or where it goes. How many years has it been since the Department of Defense passed an audit? They are far from the only ones. We have treaded very close to allowing the Executive branch to just spend money on whatever without congressional approval (like this student debt loan forgiveness plan, though I have some hope the courts will put a stop to it).
Oh, and a limit on running for office once elected. Say you were a state senator and want bigger, you have to drop out one year before you run again...
I used to think that as well, but I'm not so sure anymore. Using real-world evidence, where has this demonstrated success? I look at places like New York, where the mayors are term-limited, and I don't see much difference.
I'm open-minded on it, but not sure that it's a panacea. I believe it will just mean musical chairs between all the same people, but in different position. They won't leave, because the fixings are too good -- all they have to do is find a chair.
Jeff Carter for President!!!!
There is so much "real" expertise out there and we are all basically connected to each other and to a vast array of knowledge. I wonder what a select group of a Citizens-Congress could do in enacting a budget. Go line by line through the existing one and cut out anything that is pure pork and/or doesn't make any sense. It would be interesting to have this process go on the same time the actual budget is being debated. Maybe a group of people on the Capital lawn with laptops and wifi?
I'm quite happy with all the suggested items for discussion, but for me the biggest of them all was the prologue, "Trust people". This lack of trust is a problem for both sides of the aisle. Moreover, it is manifest especially among the credentialed (aka university educated). Examples abound of how dumb, uneducated rubes just "take care of business" without any need for an enlightened manager or regulations backed up by research. Like a weather event. A less dramatic example would be home-schooling.
I don't know if this makes any sense - sure would be nice if'n I could writ gud - but I just want to say how pleased I was to see this admonition to trust people.
"I’d make sure that the Generals in charge had the right mission for the military."
First off, fire all the General and Flag Officers (GOFO). After 8 years of Obama, all the officers who came of age in his presidency are hopelessly tainted. Rebuild the military from the mid-grade officers, the O5 and O6 level. Second, we don't need anywhere NEAR the level of bureaucracy of the Pentagon; fire most of the defense program analysts, and get that work back in the military. In the Navy especially, we need to fire all the people who came up with the LCS, sometimes known as the "Little Crappy Ship", and get real sailors to design new ships. "CDR Salamander", on Twitter and Substack, has excellent ideas.
Did you know that we currently have 3 times more admirals than we have ships? This seems to not be working.
Agree with you and I am sure some military experts will weigh in behind you. I am not an expert. Not all of the Obama generals but a lot of them. The military has politics too and folks that wanted to rise might have compromised their beliefs to do it. They can get back to what they really believe in and want to do. Anyone with a woke agenda instead of the agenda of building a strong defense is gone.
You need to add a "love" button, Jeffrey, in addition to your "like" button. Key: "Have faith in people and the free market." How about mandating a hiring/budget freeze among all federal agencies? Someone retires, don't replace. Within 10 years, the physical size of government would have shrunk dramatically and no one would be the wiser.
Budget freezes are great but can come out of cold storage when power changes. Much better just to burn it all down so it doesn't come back--like a prairie fire....
Excellent assessment. I agree that big changes are needed, however it starts with the small things. My little initiative is an example. I like to play golf so I try to support and play at facilities that do not use taxpayer subsidies to lower my costs. For instance, I play at Cantigny for $90 rather than Arrowhead for $65. Mistwood for $75 rather than Downers Grove Park District for $55. Cog Hill’s Dubsdread for $85 rather than Village Links for $65. I’ll enjoy dinner and drinks at Salernos after my round rather than be served by Government employees at Lisle Park District Course. I would rather tip the Capitalists’ employees than those who will benefit from taxpayer funded pensions. Your friends who play at Medinah and Olympia Fields, for instance, are already doing their part, but trunk slammers like me have to think about where their recreational dollars are being spent. There is some pushback from taxpayers already, as reflected by those voting in Lake Bluff against spending $5M on the publicly owned course, but it’s easy, and cheaper, to just go the route of the local public facility. What’s next, Floyd’s Barber Shop in the Village Hall competing with Sports Clips? It starts with us, so #KeepItUp !
You realize that to get any of these ideas implemented would require extensive and substantive legislation? And legislation requires legislators. People who can devise and sell policy changes. Not performative bomb-throwing bullshitters. McCarthy, Greene, Boebert, Gaetz, Hawley, Cruz, Oz, Walker, Vance, Masters, et. al. aren't going to cut it. It's too bad the Rs have spent the last almost decade defenestrating people who have the skills to devise and pass policy and have not replaced them with competent successors.
Jeff what is the first office you are running for and where do we donate ?
Before taking on the behemoths of SS and Medicare, I’d start small and focus on education, which would be a much easier sell to most Americans. Radical change in education is possible, but support for privatizing entitlements would be more than a slog. Finding a way to educate children on the benefits of liberty, as opposed to serving the state, would make other changes more likely. Most people are scared. They desire certitude when it comes to healthcare and retirement. The government offers that. Find a way to break that dependency and we are on the road to recovery. I really enjoy reading you, Jeffrey. 😊
Part of taking a hatchet to the federal government involves asking a simple question. What is the federal government doing that can be done at a state level? If something can be done at a state level, then there should be no federal involvement. Take the Dept. Of Education. There are no federal schools, all schools are local, so eliminate any federal involvement in schools. All states are on their own to educate their own residents with their own money. We don’t have a federal Dept. Of Firehouses as they’re all local, so there’s also no need for a federal Dept. Of Education. This logic can carry on through much of the federal government. As the Founders said, there’s not many responsibilities the federal government should have, and it should remain weak.
I bet if you got all the sitting congress critters in a room and swore them to secrecy, a majority would agree that this all makes sense. Publicly you wouldn't get 20% to agree on ALL of this, and the majority on each item would likely say no. The problem is that the incentives for congress critters are diametrically opposed to pretty much all of this. There is a reason things have gotten to where the are (and similar things have happened to other societies around the world and throughout history). It'll take a cataclysmic event to make the kinds of changes you outline here, to allow us to basically start from scratch and build our society and institutions back up with the correct incentives in place. The key problem that has never been solved is how to keep future politicians from mucking it up (slowly but surely). Eventually it gets so mucked up that a war is required to "fix" it, which is where that old quote about watering the tree of liberty comes in...
I bet you wouldn't. You'd be surprised how many of these people are what I coined as "True Believers" at my blog years ago. I know so many in Chicago that actually believe this bullshit.
You may be right! Possibly not a majority but you'd have more agree in secret than you would in public :).
Politics starts out as a labor of love. Many local politicians start out with a belief system that motivates them to "fix the world."
I believe that the system itself breaks them and many will either drop out or just "join in" the graft. When it becomes a sport is when they are lost. I've known a few local politicians of whose company I enjoyed early on, and then after a number of years they became insufferably miserable and cynical. I barely recognized them and just stop interacting.
The incentives for politicians are aligned wrong, what you are describing is directly caused by the structure of the system. But how do you fix that? And how do you make that fix stick? The primary problem as I see it is the inevitability of graft, and the system constantly being ratcheted towards more graft opportunities for whoever controls the seats of power. The federal level is where it is most prevalent because there is no real limit to the money available. At this point there is zero accountability for the trillions spent year. Many departments don't even know what they are spending the money on, or where it goes. How many years has it been since the Department of Defense passed an audit? They are far from the only ones. We have treaded very close to allowing the Executive branch to just spend money on whatever without congressional approval (like this student debt loan forgiveness plan, though I have some hope the courts will put a stop to it).
Oh, and a limit on running for office once elected. Say you were a state senator and want bigger, you have to drop out one year before you run again...
Term limits. Ends a lot of the career politician path.
I used to think that as well, but I'm not so sure anymore. Using real-world evidence, where has this demonstrated success? I look at places like New York, where the mayors are term-limited, and I don't see much difference.
I'm open-minded on it, but not sure that it's a panacea. I believe it will just mean musical chairs between all the same people, but in different position. They won't leave, because the fixings are too good -- all they have to do is find a chair.