Self-portrait of a “journalist”

May 20, 2013 1 Comment

Every now and then, a post practically writes itself. This is one such occasion. Today’s N&R features a front-page article about Ellen Gerber and Pearl Berlin, a lesbian couple who have been together for 45 years. But here’s the interesting aspect of the story: Cindy Hill, a “journalist” from the Wake Forest School of Documentary Studies, has produced a film about the pair, and she is quoted as follows: “For somebody trained as a journalist, I always gravitate to stories of human rights and social justice.”

Need I say more?

Charles Davenport Jr.

Filed under Editorials

Economic incentives: A beclowned merry-go-round

May 20, 2013 Leave a comment

An argument that has become increasingly deployed regarding local economic development authorities advocated by local politicos is: What about existing firms and existing households? Why should existing firms and households finance, through taxpayer dollars, the recruitment of additional firms and their associated households? Why should such attraction be orchestrated by politicos through economic development agencies via taxpayer dollars?
 

An additional argument is the absolute ridiculousness of the implicit assumption used by local politicos to justify incentives and economic development agencies: If you do it, I can do it, then we can all do it, so I have to do it because you do, and so on. It becomes circular and perpetual.
 

Add the following to the arguments: the circular and perpetual phenomena of existing firms and households, financing through taxpayer dollars, the attraction of additional firms and their associated households, orchestrated by politicos through the mechanism of government, creates an environment where it becomes necessary for the firm to receive economic incentives (your dollars aka subsidies) in order to compete with those firms who have already received economic incentives (other taxpayer dollars in exogenous locales). Ah, the unseen and the insidious!
 
Hence we find a purposeful and politically-built government privilege economy were firm A, engaged in widget production, receives taxpayer dollars from politico authority P. Firm Z, also engaged in widget production, an unsubsidized firm, is at a disadvantage as firm Z is unsubsidized in comparison to firm A. Firm A can produce widgets at a subsidized price and firm Z becomes disadvantaged. Hence firm Z is now incentivized to search for a subsidy. Oops! Z threatens to leave locale L unless a subsidy is forthcoming and/or is attracted to locale LL in order to gain subsidy to complete with existing subsidized widget maker A.
 
Is it circular and perpetual or merely a beclowned merry-go-round?

Bill Heasley, a local economist, writes an occasional column for the Guardian.

Filed under Columns Tagged with ,

Aldona Wos woos medical professionals

May 18, 2013 6 Comments

Dr. Joe GuarinoAt Forsyth County Hospital on Thursday night, North Carolina Secretary of Health and Human Services Aldona Wos spoke before a group of physicians and health care administrators on the topic of Medicaid reform.  She has been holding a series of these meetings throughout the state.  This meeting was quickly followed on Friday by Governor McCrory announcing his intent to seek a waiver from the Obama administration to allow the state to restructure its Medicaid program.

The proposal McCrory and Wos have been floating is to allow three or four private “entities” to assume responsibility and financial risk for the state’s population of Medicaid beneficiaries.  The existence of several different entities would theoretically afford some degree of choice to participants.

At prior meetings, Wos has been treated poorly by attendees.  We need to understand that some within the health care industry– including some physicians– have imbibed freely in the philosophical bromides of socialized medicine.  And these parties are quite unhappy that the state has declined to participate in the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare.

(It should be noted that, under Obama’s stimulus program that was passed during early 2009, nearly 1 million persons around the country– including North Carolina– were added to the Medicaid rolls.  We had already been through an expensive Medicaid expansion in NC.)

Wos led the meeting with poise and authority.  She seemed utterly unintimidated facing a crowd of nearly 200-300 skeptical attendees within the industry.  She had a thorough command of her subject matter.  As she fielded questions, she skillfully deconstructed them piece-by-piece to illustrate the faulty premises the questions often contained.

But this particular meeting required that attendees submit questions on index cards.  I suppose that the experience at previous meetings with attendees’ bad behavior and intemperate outbursts led to this particular change.

Wos, who was born in Poland, made one statement that was particularly meaningful.  She said that she had lived previously under communism, socialism, social democracy and democracy.  And she pointed out that, based on her ample firsthand experience, there is no such thing as a perfect health care system.   Of course, she is absolutely right about that.

The mantra Wos and McCrory trumpet are that they are seeking to adopt a “predictable, sustainable model” financially for Medicaid’s future.  The objective ostensibly is to protect the taxpayer.  But how is this going to happen?  Some hints were dropped throughout the meeting:

1. Capitation.  This would provide reimbursement from the state to the private “entities” on a per-capita basis for each covered individual.  The entity would lose money if too much costly health care was consumed; and would feel a financial incentive to ensure that care is delivered efficiently and effectively.   The objective would be that folks get the care they need– when they need it.  No more, no less.  The state would control overutilization– and underutilization– via structures and contracts to be put in place with these entities.

2.  “Medical Home”.  Wos referred to the private “entity” as the “medical home” for patients.  But one bandwagon developing within the industry is the concept of the “patient-centered medical home”– essentially a primary care practice that has certain attributes.

3. Moving away from fee-for-service medicine.  Yet another bandwagon developing within the industry is the concept of “pay-for-performance”.  But Wos spoke specifically of paying “value-added providers”.

But she also dealt with some concerns posed by attendees.  For instance, she asserted that the “entities” would not necessarily have to be for-profit, and would not necessarily have to be from out-of-state.  She welcomed the possibility that these entities could be in-state and/or not-for-profit institutions.

She also made sure to point out that Governor McCrory had not assigned this task to her as a budget exercise.  That is, he had not asked her to find budget reductions of a certain percentage.

She also attempted to dispel the perception that the money would go to the private entities’ administrative waste and/or excessive profit.  Instead, she asserted that contracts developed would assure that the money goes primarily to services delivered. 

She also reassured attendees that the overall concept is not intended to reduce reimbursements to providers.  Wos openly recognized the need to maintain an adequate network of providers willing to see Medicaid patients.

A couple of other points she made were fairly interesting.  She indicated that the approach outlined is fairly consistent with the mindset developing in other states; and the Obama administration overall has been agreeable to this approach.  She also expressed being open to the concept of incorporating rewards for recipients to adopt certain behaviors– or other creative methods to get them to reduce overutilization.

What do I think about all of this?

First, I am having difficulty understanding all the outrage about applying managed care concepts to the Medicaid program.  The fact is that many hard-working citizens who earn their insurance have been subject to managed care for many years– thanks in part to folks like Ted Kennedy who pushed the idea of the HMO.  The premise that charity recipients should not be subject to managed care is patently absurd because many covered by private insurance have been dealing with it for nearly two decades.

Second, I am not sure what impact the proposals will have– on patients, providers or the taxpayer.  The proposal has the potential to moderate the rate of increase in Medicaid costs the state will face in the future.  But the “entities” being proposed are analogous to the “accountable care organizations” developing under Obamacare.  Remain mindful that some bandwagons that develop in the field of health care ultimately turn out to be discredited.

Third, the proposal is notable for what it lacks.  Republicans in Raleigh are on the receiving end of some vitriolic criticism and demonstrations on the part of the media/ left complex– and even from some within the health care industry.  But in spite of all this criticism, we are not really seeing many deep cuts thus far.  There has been plenty of abusive behavior on the part of the opposition; but true cuts have been very limited.  If you are going to be the object of so much vitriol anyway, you might as well move more decisively toward limited government.

Fourth, it is not clear what flexibility the state might have to pursue more creative means of reducing Medicaid costs.  Why not reduce eligibility for benefits?  Scale down covered services?  Employ greater use of co-payments and deductibles?  Incorporate medical savings accounts?  Structure the program so that it does not cause and perpetuate family breakdown; and so that it does not cause families to fail to form in the first place?

We need to restore the concept that individuals and families are primarily responsible for providing their own health care.  Let’s understand that the key generators of health care inflation have been the existence of governmental health care entitlements; and the proliferation of first-dollar, third party coverage. 

If we want to get health care costs in line, and make them more affordable, there is a simple solution– patients and families making open, transparent exchanges of value with providers using primarily their own money.  And dismantling, piece-by-piece, the regulatory state that has swallowed up the industry. 

I believe the McCrory/ Wos proposal is well-intentioned.  Secretary Wos is still soliciting input.  But the broad outline she related ultimately falls short of what is truly needed.

At the conclusion of the meeting Thursday night, an executive with the Novant Health System took the podium and made some closing remarks.   He expressed the belief that the providers and administrators assembled within the room could effectively tackle this task of managing the state’s Medicaid burden.  And then, one day, it will be more possible for the state of North Carolina to expand Medicaid under Obamacare.

At that point, I think I nearly lost my dinner. 

But his comments certainly raised the likelihood in my mind that the state’s hospital systems will compete to be among the three or four “entities” managing the state’s Medicaid program.

Dr. Joe Guarino is the Guardian’s senior columnist.

Filed under Columns Tagged with , , , ,

Gosnell, baby-killer and coward, dodges death penalty

May 16, 2013 Leave a comment

DavenportThe conviction of Kermit Gosnell on multiple counts of first-degree murder reminds us of society’s foremost responsibility: protection of the innocent and defenseless. Only in a deeply flawed, perhaps mortally wounded culture can a “doctor” murder newborn infants and avoid capital punishment. (Let us remember that Joseph Mengele, Hitler’s “Angel of Death” at Auschwitz, was also a “doctor.”)

Gosnell, a former abortion provider in Philadelphia, was found guilty Monday on three counts of first-degree murder and several other charges, including infanticide and manslaughter. By what means did the “health care provider” snuff out the lives of newborns? He stabbed them in the neck and severed their spines.

It stands to reason that a man who butchered infants lacks the courage to face death himself. In order to avoid the death penalty, Gosnell, 72, agreed to waive his right to appeal. He will spend the rest of his life in prison. But this “deal” is a grave injustice that never should have been on the table. Gosnell should have been executed—not 15 or 20 years from now, but immediately.  

When discussion turns to the death penalty, many among us—including some conservatives—urge compassion, forgiveness, and mercy. They dismiss capital punishment as nothing more than vengeance–an outdated, barbaric practice that has no place in a civilized society.    

But a “civilization” worthy of the name establishes and preserves ordered liberty by every means necessary, including capital punishment. Some crimes are simply unforgiveable, and men who slaughter infants are not worthy of mercy. Our empathy and compassion, withheld from perpetrators, are rightly bestowed upon victims’ families.

And the “vengeance” charge? Sorry, but I don’t recoil from the term (or the concept). Although I use another word for it: justice. The difference is merely a matter of semantics. If denouncing capital punishment as “vengeance” enhances the forgiveness enthusiast’s bloated sense of self-righteousness, so be it. Vengeance it is.  

In a just world, offenses of incomprehensible cruelty and viciousness incur the wrath of a “vengeful” society, which demands that the perpetrator be put to death. Alas, ours is not a just world.

Charles Davenport Jr.

Filed under Editorials Tagged with , , , ,

Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!

May 14, 2013 20 Comments

nch_7463The past week has been amazing for American political observers, and it probably has many Americans longing for the good ol’ days of government transparency and impartiality that we saw during the Nixon administration.  Though it has been long simmering, the scandals pot on the Obama administration’s stovetop is finally starting to boil over, and there’s little now that anyone in the executive branch can do about it.  After many long months (and in some cases, years), the people of this nation are finally seeing the dirty laundry, the web of deceit, that Obama and his underlings have been hiding.  For many conservatives in the “alternative” media and the blogosphere, there has to be a sense of vindication in the air, as their yeoman’s work of keeping the various Obama scandals before their readers and not letting them be swept into the mainstream media’s memory hole has finally paid off, and people are starting to realize that these conservative media sources were right all along. 

Many Americans – often apolitical, or perhaps even leaning towards Obama and his ideology – are finally starting to see the Obama administration for what it really is: the most corrupt, deceitful, scandal-ridden presidential administration since Harding’s.  I’m sure, however, that the more radical and partisan Democrats and left-wingers out there will try to argue that it’s much ado about nothing, that the Rethuglicans are just trying to stir up a tempest in a Teapot Dome. 

Regardless of what the left-wing fringe thinks, recent revelations – as well as things that some of us have known about for years but which the media kept hidden from the general public – clearly indicate that the current administration, from top to bottom, cannot be allowed to continue in office.  The level of corruption is astounding, even beyond what most conservative opponents of Obama thought would be possible.  The only solution to what we’re seeing in Washington DC is to impeach.  Impeach Obama, impeach Hillary Clinton, impeach Tim Geithner, impeach Eric Holder, and from there, work down the food chain.

In American history there have only been two Presidents who were impeached by the US House – Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton (Richard Nixon was technically not impeached, since he resigned before the House could finish articles of impeachment against him).  In both cases, they were acquitted by the U.S. Senate.  Andrew Johnson was impeached, essentially, for working against Radical Republican efforts to make Reconstruction more painful for the defeated South after the Civil War.  Richard Nixon, as we know, was going to be impeached for his part in covering up the break-in at the Watergate Hotel in which GOP operatives tried to spy on Democrat planners.  Bill Clinton, for his part, was impeached for having sex…wait, that’s not it, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice (things that would have gotten any of us thrown in jail if we had done them). 

The magnitude of the scandalous and illegal behavior of the Obama administration makes all of these prior impeachments, as well as the many other scandals that have plagued the American government of the last two and a quarter centuries, look like child’s play. 

Now that the lid has been blown off, I get a sense that the average low-information voter is even starting to become informed about what the executive branch has been doing, and is getting angry about it.  At the end of last week, I had something unusual happen at work.  One of my co-workers, an almost stereotypical “twenty-something” – unmarried, doesn’t follow politics very much, socially liberal, supports gay marriage, probably voted for Obama, and so forth – started a completely unsolicited conversation with me about Benghazi.  He was very angry about the way the administration allowed four Americans to die, about how they could have come to their rescue but didn’t, and that they then tried to downplay, minimize, and cover it up.  In fact, my co-worker had been listening to the Benghazi hearings live-streamed from C-Span – something I wouldn’t have even thought of doing.  I think he knew more about the scandal than I did.  The coverage was having a very definite and negative effect on his opinions about the Obama administration.

Maybe Mike Huckabee was right when he said a couple of weeks ago that the Obama scandals were about to explode on the scene, and would result in impeachment.  At the time, I sort of shrugged it off, figuring that the media was just going to keep covering up and word would never get out.  Yet, it’s starting to look like this might happen.  I’m definitely hoping that it will. 

So what are all the scandals that are finally seeing the light?

The most obvious one if Benghazi.  Obama and his minions knew that our embassy was under attack by an organized terrorist group, they even watched the assault, and they stood by and did nothing as our ambassador, one of his aides, and two Navy SEALs were murdered by the terrorists.  A rapid-reaction force was ready, and told to stand down.  The general in charge of the units involved was relieved, apparently because he disagreed with the administration’s decision.  Obama and his lackies tried to claim that the assault was done by an unorganized crowd protesting some penny ante Youtube movie about Islam, and that there was nothing they could do.  An innocent man who did nothing illegal – the guy who made the Youtube movie – was nevertheless jailed (and remains that way) so he could serve as a fall guy for the President and his crew.  When called to account earlier, Hillary Clinton – the pinched, shrewish hag that she is – brushed it all off and asked, “What difference does it make?”  To add insult to injury, the families of those lost have been condescended to by the administration, their questions about what really happened the day they lost their loved ones ignored by heartless hacks from the State Department. 

Then, of course, there is the recent revelation that from as far back as late 2010, the IRS was targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups, as well as Jewish pro-Israel groups.  In essence, the administration was sicking the IRS on its political opponents, subjecting them to special scrutiny and dispreferential treatment in their applications for tax-exempt status.  Keep in mind that one of the articles of impeachment that was being prepared for Nixon before he resigned was for using the IRS against his political opponents – so there’s definitely precedent for going after Obama on this.  This is a big deal – it cuts at the very heart of free speech, free association, and free thought.  It’s government overreach on a massive scale – using its own power to specifically attempt to limit and hinder the free ability of its opponents to participate in the political process.  The fact that it was not just confined to “low level employees” in Cincinnati, but in fact goes all the way to “top officials” in Washington DC indicates that this was coming straight from the top.  Some of these top officials even lied to Congress when asked if this type of activity was going on in 2011.  Obama and the officials involved need to be removed from office.

Indeed, this IRS scandal further casts doubt on the legitimacy of Obama’s election in November 2012.  As I’ve pointed out previously, there are strong reasons to consider the results of last November’s election to be fraudulent and illegitimate.  The IRS scandal makes that case even further.  Consider this – by systematically preventing or delaying Tea Party and other conservative groups from obtaining the same sort of tax exempt status that left-wing groups routinely obtain, the IRS was essentially helping to hinder the ability of these groups to participate and to deter donors from contributing to these groups.  By doing so, the IRS was helping to depress the vote for Romney and Republicans, while commensurately tipping the field in favor of Obama and Democrats.  That could certainly have helped to swing thousands of votes to the Democrats and away from Republicans in swing states that were especially competitive.  Could these actions by the IRS have resulted in Obama winning states that he might otherwise not have won, had Tea Party and other conservative groups been able to direct more money, time, and organization into these states, but which they could not because of IRS hobbling?

But now it turns out that this isn’t all there is to the scandal.  It seems that one left-wing media “watchdog” group, ProPublica, was given confidential information regarding the applications for tax-exempt status of several Tea Party groups.  This is, of course, quite illegal.  It’s also part of a disturbing trend on the part of the Left toward using left-wing organizations as legitimized bullies for harassing and attacking their political opponents, much the same way the US Department of Justice uses the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and other far-Left supporters of domestic terrorism as tools for attacking conservative groups. 

Also not surprising are the revelations that other government agencies besides the IRS appear to have been involved in the official intimidation of conservative opponents of the government, including the FBI and BATFE. 

There are other scandals that are not as generally well-known, but hopefully will be exposed to greater scrutiny as the heat is turned up on Obama and his cronies.  For instance, you have Katherine Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, essentially shaking down health care companies for funds, using the tremendous discretionary powers that she has been granted under ObamaCare to lean on them to “do the right thing,” thus attempting to circumvent the funding limitations that Congress has imposed via its constitutional budgetary powers.

Then, there is the Fast and Furious / Operation Gunwalker scandal that the media have been able to largely hide so far.  This one involves the Obama administration leaning on gun store owners to sell weapons to government straw purchasers, guns that were then transported into Mexico and given to drug gangs.  These drug gangs have subsequently committed over 500 murders – including a US Border Patrol agent – using these guns.  The purpose for all this?  To give the Obama administration a “legitimate” reason to “crack down” on guns and call for more gun control legislation to solve the “problem” of gun violence in Mexico caused by guns purchased in America (this took place before the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings gave him more convenient excuses to push for gun control). 

There is, of course, the scandal over the Pigford Settlements – another one that hardly anyone has heard about, but which involves the misuse and misappropriation of public monies.  Ostensibly these settlements were intended to be monetary remedies to black farmers who had supposedly been discriminated against in the allocation of government farm loans between 1983 and 1997, a result of a class action lawsuit filed against the US Department of Agriculture, Pigford v. Glickman.  However, it has since been found that many of those who claimed “discrimination” and were collecting their $50,000 shares of the settlement were not farmers and had no actual claim on the money, but were apparently being encouraged to fraudulently claim discrimination in the giving of the loans.  Multiple claims were often filed in the same handwriting, many of the addresses listed were in urban areas nowhere near farmland, and in several counties across several southern states, more discrimination claims were made than there were actual farms in the counties.  In essence, it turned into a great big trough of government money that many black Americans, apparently encouraged and assisted by elements within the Obama administration, could use as a nozzle for tapping free government cash, using the charge of “racism” as a cover for their activities. 

Now, we find out that the Justice Department illegally seized several months worth of telephone and other communication records from the Associated Press, even though there was no specific investigation that any of these applied to (which would normally be required to obtain the warrant necessary to grant access to these records).  While there have been some claims that the government is investigating supposed media leaks of information regarding a foiled terrorist plot about a year ago, the use of subpoena’s to obtain such a wide range of communications has been enough to even make the normally Obama-friendly ACLU call foul.  In essence, the Justice Department overstepped its constitutional investigative powers and strong-armed information for which it had no legitimate need.  While I think we can see the irony in a media outlet that has continually played the patsy for Obama finding itself on the receiving end of Obama administration overreach, the danger that this sort of behavior presents to anyone who might investigate the actions of or write against the Obama administration surely ought to bother us greatly.   This is doubly so as we now have a reporter in St. Louis alleging that after he asked Obama some difficult questions last year, the IRS suddenly began pressuring him. 

We’ve also found out, just today, that the EPA has made a routine practice out of charging prohibitively expensive fees to conservative groups that requested information from the agency, while waiving these same fees for “friendly” environmentalist groups.  This is yet another example of politically-motivated disparate treatment by government (which is supposed to be neutral and impartial) designed to both hinder its political opponents while at the same time providing to itself the cover of bureaucratic opacity. 

So much corruption from the administration of a President who once claimed he’d have the most transparent government ever.  It’s a good thing – a very good thing – that this is all coming out into the light of day, finally.  I’m sure that Obama and his administration will always have its bevy of supporters, partisan hacks who will ignore even the most egregious misuse of government power if it provides them even the most transient political benefit, who will claim that Republican investigations into the many misdeeds of Obama and his underlings are just racist “witch hunts” designed to go after America’s First Black President™.  Regardless, anyone who actually cares about good government needs to support turning this entire crew – Obama, Holder, Sebelius, Clinton, Giethner, and the rest – out on their ears, and possibly into a federal penitentiary.  Dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, abuse of government power, conflict of interest, lying to Congress – these are all high crimes that can and should result in impeachment.  It’s time to direct the river of truth through the Augean stables of Washington, D.C.

Tim Dunkin is a Guardian columnist.

Filed under Columns Tagged with , , ,

Voter Freedom Act: It’s time

May 14, 2013 3 Comments

Dr. Joe GuarinoOne piece of legislation in which I have acute interest is HB 794– the Voter Freedom Act.  And there is some good news to report.  The bill just passed its third reading in the North Carolina House of Representatives.  That means it beat the “crossover deadline,” and is headed over to the North Carolina Senate for consideration.

The Voter Freedom Act would begin the process of fixing a longstanding inequity in the state of North Carolina.  Currently, our state has enormous legal barriers erected that are designed to prevent participation by third parties in the political process.  The legislation passed this week by the House would mandate the study of ballot access reform, and ultimately lead to recommendations for the General Assembly to adopt.  (The language in the bill, however, is a bit muddy.)

Yes, this is a gradual process.  But it is apparently what was politically achievable this year.

Disclosure: I happen to be affiliated with the Constitution Party of North Carolina.  A number of other third parties, however, also have an interest in seeing such legislation adopted.

It will now be very important for the North Carolina Senate to consider this legislation in good faith, and allow a vote.

My understanding is that some Republicans in Raleigh are concerned this type of legislation would represent a threat to the Republican Party.  Perhaps that is why the Voter Freedom Act is only a “study bill.”  But improved ballot access would also help third parties on the left side of the political spectrum–not just the right.

Political liberty is inconsistent with North Carolina’s status quo that allows only two political parties to possess a near-stranglehold on ballot access.  Voters ought to be free to choose from a wider range of options across the political spectrum.  And third parties should be free to compete.

North Carolina Senate– it’s your turn!

Dr. Joe Guarino is the Guardian‘s senior columnist.

Filed under Columns Tagged with , , ,

The taxman cometh

May 13, 2013 1 Comment

“On Friday, a top IRS official said the agency was ‘apologetic’ for what she termed ‘absolutely inappropriate’ actions by lower-level workers in selecting some conservative groups for extra scrutiny to determine whether their applications should be approved.

“The new details suggest that agency workers also were examining statements in the groups’ applications to determine whether they had a political leaning.

“Tax-exempt groups organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code are allowed to engage in some political activity, but the primary focus of their efforts must remain promoting ‘social welfare.’

“IRS officials said last week that the focused review of conservative groups was initiated by lower-level civil servants in the IRS Cincinnati office, not by political appointees in Washington, and was not politically motivated. Instead, they say it stemmed from a misguided effort to centralize review of a growing number of applications for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status.” – “IRS Scrutiny Was Deeper Than Thought,” Wall Street Journal, 05/12/2013 (1)
　

Think about the argument being put forth:
 
(1) Johnny and Janie Taxman,

(2) low level taxmen in the taxmen pyramid,

(3) decide to create extra work for themselves by becoming extra and especially concerned with “…a growing number of applications for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status.”

Argument points 1-3 become the basis for the conclusion put forth: “….not by political appointees in Washington, and was not politically motivated.”

Yes, it’s a plausible argument. However, the plausibility seems rather shallow:

(1) Johnny and Janie, low level taxmen, in a vast, vast bureaucracy, where time is one’s best promotion avenue [towing the line and eventually, over time, making six figures -and- along the way many benefits and a nice retirement accruing] decide individually and acting individually (a non-bureaucratic attribute),

(2) act individually by adding extra work (yet another non-bureaucratic attribute),

(3) the creation of aforementioned extra uncompensated work based upon a heightened concern over the phenomena of a growing number of applications for 501(c) subsection four status,

(4) the growing number of applications, a phenomena much more akin to concerns/stratagem of management (upper level taxmen), not low level taxmen,

(5) somehow [go figure] all ends in a misguided quest with no political motivation nor Washington political appointees involved.

Yes, it was merely a case of over-altruism and the process of the non-self-interested public employee attempting to dispense the public good. It is a 1955 political science argument of the altruistic dispensers of the public good somehow getting off path ever so slightly.

We have a problem, Houston. It is not 1955, we have the entire works of James M. Buchanan, we have public choice theory, and there isn’t such an animal known as the non-self-interested altruistic dispenser of the public good. Yes, the self-interest of the supposed non-self-interested exists! Oops! 
 

“[Peter] Stillman … points out that those who see ‘a strong central government or a strong ruler’ as a solution implicitly assume that ‘the ruler will be a wise and ecologically aware altruist,’ even though these same theorists presume that the users of CPRs [common-pool resources] will be myopic, self-interested, and ecologically unaware hedonists.” – Governing the Commons, Elinor Ostrom, page 218

Hence someone’s self-interest lurks and it is very, very likely such self-interest is not some bottom-up emergent order in a top-down organization. More like top-down self-interest in a top down organization.
 
Notes:
 
(1) IRS Scrutiny Was Deeper Than Thought, Wall Street Journal, 05/12/2013
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578478851998004528.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

Bill Heasley, a local economist, writes an occasional column for the Guardian.

Filed under Columns Tagged with ,

Rove at NC GOP Convention: The Week, 05/11/13

May 12, 2013 5 Comments

Dr. Joe GuarinoThe announcement that Karl Rove will be giving the keynote address at the NC GOP state convention was a stunner.  Rove was part of a group of national party insiders who anointed Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee last year; and who proceeded to engineer the party’s epic defeat at the polls in November.  Rove represents the establishment/moderate wing of the party; and his feelings regarding consistent conservatives have been quite evident.  Some among the party’s rank-and-file are doubtless seething over this announcement.

Pittman vs. Tillis

An interesting drama unfolded when conservative Rep. Larry Pittman openly questioned whether House Speaker Thom Tillis is screening bills to be considered by the General Assembly according to whether they will help or harm his anticipated U.S. Senate candidacy.  The Daily Haymaker reminds us that Tillis was initially recruited to run for the state legislature by Richard Morgan– a man who undermined the interests of conservatives in Raleigh over an extended period of time. 

And now there is a question as to whether Pittman is being disciplined and targeted for defeat from within his own party.  There is apparently a price to be paid for verbalizing what many others are thinking.  Tillis justifies his screening of legislation by suggesting that he needs to protect Republicans from swing districts that lean Democratic.  Is this really what needs to drive conservative legislating in the House?

Conservatives and U.S. Senate Race

The prospect of Tillis running for Senate must be taken seriously.  Conservatives need to learn from the horrendous 2012 Republican presidential primary sequence.  If numerous conservatives run for the Senate seat– and conservative voters split among these candidates– it is a surefire recipe to nominate a moderate.  Tea Party and conservative groups throughout the state need to coordinate, and together get behind a viable conservative relatively early in the primary season.  And other conservative candidates need to drop out at that point.  Otherwise, the splintered conservative vote might produce a moderate nominee like Tillis.  And we can be sure establishment forces within the NC GOP might try to anoint one of their own.

We will need a strong conservative senate candidate who offers a clear contrast to Kay Hagan.  Remember, she has much of the state’s mainstream media working for her as her de facto press secretary.  She will benefit mightily if the Republican nominee does not represent a real choice for conservative voters.

Adams, Watt and Sex-Selective Abortion

Rep. Mel Watt, the Democratic socialist who represents part of Greensboro in the U.S. House, has been nominated by President Obama to direct the US Housing Finance Agency.  This is a classic case of the fox being nominated to guard the hen house because Watt was responsible, in part, for the governmental encouragement of loose lending standards and the phenomenon of “moral hazard” at Fannie and Freddie.  In addition, Watt has made various impolitic statements over the years.  His nomination has generated considerable controversy at the national level.

Meanwhile, N.C. Rep. Alma Adams from Greensboro has announced her intent to run for Watt’s U.S House seat.  Only last week, Ms. Adams had argued strenuously against the bill that would make illegal the practice of abortion to select a baby’s gender.

In our local media, these stances are utterly uncontroversial.  Greensboro residents who rely on our local media are completely unaware of the issues surrounding Watt’s nomination.  And they are left uneducated regarding the amoral nature of Adams’ position on sex-selective abortion.

Apparently, there is no such thing as a left-wing extremist in the eyes of our local media.

County Commissioners and the Budget

All eyes need to be on the five RepublicanGuilfordCounty commissioners.  Over the next month, each one of them has the power to undermine attempts to reduce county expenditures and deliver property owners a tax cut.  Concerned citizens need to follow these events closely.  These five commissioners all need to understand that we expect them to score a victory for limited government.  That means they must be willing to set aside personal agendas to make the overall effort succeed.

Vaughan vs. Perkins

The Greensboro mayoral race between Robbie Perkins and Nancy Vaughan is shaping up to be a choice between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.  These two politicians will be attempting to differentiate themselves from each other.  But the reality of their respective voting records and alliances suggests they are nearly indistinguishable on the merits.

I found a recent incident to be fairly chilling, however. George Hartzman raised appropriate ethical questions at a council meeting as to whether folks like Vaughan and Perkins can vote on downtown issues.  After some discussion, Vaughan contemptuously pronounced, “This conversation is really done.”  By what authority does she get to make such a declaration?

Pro- Breakdown-of-the-Family

It has not been uncommon for supporters of gay marriage to point out the mess that heterosexuals have made of the institution of marriage.  Fair enough.  But we need to remember that some of the biggest supporters of gay marriage have also tended to support policies that cause the breakdown of the family; and have oft been aligned politically with forces that engineered that change in our society.

Last week, the News and Record featured prominently a column on the front page of its Sunday Ideas section.  It was written by Dr. Jeff Paschal, the pastor of a local Presbyterian USA church.  It was written in opposition to a General Assembly bill that would increase the waiting period for divorce to two years.

The liberal mainline church bears enormous responsibility for the dissolution of the family in our culture.  From that standpoint, Paschal’s column was rather unsurprising.  But perhaps it is time for the proponents of gay marriage to stop using the collapse of heterosexual marriage– which they themselves helped engineer– to rationalize making the situation worse.

“Subsidiarity”

The media/left complex in our state has expressed concerns about the Republican majority in the state legislature intervening in matters that are traditionally the province of local government.  They invoke the principle of subsidiarity, which suggests that decisions should be made closest to the people. 

It is interesting, however, that they tend not to invoke that principle when we consider unconstitutional usurpations by the federal government.  That, after all, is different.

The Plight of the Young

The New York Times had an article this past week that highlighted the difficulties young Americans face finding good jobs.  The article cited the fact that the same problem has existed in Europe; but the situation in the United States has now become worse than it is in Europe.

The article claims that “the root causes remain elusive.”  But the author does not even entertain the possibility that Eurosocialism– in Europe and now in the US– is a key contributor.

It is always surprising when those who master the technical art of writing lack insight and wisdom.  But the state of denial among those on the left is getting profoundly silly.

Dr. Joe Guarino is a Guardian columnist.

Filed under Editorials Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Give me literature, or give me death

May 11, 2013 1 Comment

DavenportApproximately 20 percent of North Carolina’s adults are “functionally illiterate,” which means they struggle to perform such fundamental tasks as reading a newspaper or filling out a job application. They are “Level 1” or “Level 2” readers. According to the Educational Testing Service, this means they do not have “the skills…to gain access to high-wage jobs or to actively participate in civic and political life.” And it gets worse: The functionally illiterate are three times more likely to be on food stamps (75% of food stamp recipients read at the lowest two levels), and ten times more likely to live in poverty.

Researching the matter is quite depressing. One learns, for instance, that nearly one-third of American adults don’t read well enough to understand a newspaper article written at an eighth-grade level; that 14% of American adults read at a fifth-grade level or lower; and that the nation’s literacy rate has declined from 97% in 1950, to 80% today. We can bicker about the statistics (which vary, depending upon the source), but the fact of the matter is this: Even if only one American citizen were illiterate, it would be a national disgrace.

Illiteracy is, of course, more common among the poor, and among minorities. Studies suggest that only one-third of low-income parents read to their children every day (the actual fraction, I’ll wager, is much lower than that); the comparable figure among affluent parents is two-thirds. You don’t need to be a social scientist to predict which children are likely to fare better.    

Those of us who have built much of our lives around the written word can only with difficulty imagine life without it. Scribblers of the loftiest rank–George Gissing, Russell Kirk, and Bill Buckley among them—have shaped my philosophy and led me down enchanted paths I never would have discovered otherwise. I dare say it is debatable whether a life free of literature–one of life’s simple, yet exquisite pleasures—is worth living at all.

Charles Davenport Jr.      

Filed under Editorials Tagged with ,

Straight, proud, and unapologetic

May 9, 2013 13 Comments

Ada FisherOkay now I’m confessing to a poorly kept secret — I am a heterosexual black female who loves men and has achieved some modicum of success.  So, now will President Obama, Bill Clinton and others give me a call for coming out and openly expressing my sexual preference?

Though I haven’t been asked and no sensible inquiring minds particularly want to know, suddenly everyone wants to tell that they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or of some other sexual preference.  Who truly cares?

My scientific brain has always appreciated that there are some who may come into the world with much sexual ambiguity such as the more than 10,000 hermaphrodites born annually.  Whether homosexuality is genetic, a choice, or a trend is still debated in some scientific circles.                                                                                  

The thing which is most unsettling is the desire to overturn social policy based on so little outcome data but instituted simply because these are things people may want to do–from gay marriage, to their adoption of children, or making babies through often inconceivable measures with unclear legal ramifications.  Is this not what is also being done on the legalization move for marijuana?  This attitude follows the no-harm, no-foul logic.  

There have been few reliable longitudinal studies to determine the negatives for others such as children who are brought into these situations.  Appreciating that gays who adopt usually get older kids, hard to place infants, and those usually last picked, their willingness to engage in parenthood is often applauded.  None the less are we looking at the evolution of childhood thinking and future choices which will be impacted by this move?

My psychological side of this brain is disturbed by the further negative impact of changing gender roles in undermining already fragile black families.  With Lyndon Johnson’s push for a “Great Society” came the requirement that families not live as a unit with a man in the house if they were to receive public assistance.  This has had a disproportionately negative effect on black families.  With prison populations hitting black males hard, another segment of consorts is thereby again removed.  The infiltration of drugs and that alternative, misogynist “gangsta” culture, which degrades women and uses them as pawns, further distances black men from black women.  And now, the secret as well as black men in the closet are coming out, or remaining on the down-low, which may be perceived as another blow to viable relationships with these men, at the expense of black women.  So where are the companions to be found for black women looking for a good straight man?

I have learned to accept that there are people in the world who don’t share my values, including some in my own family; but on this issue, I’m still sticking with the Torah and commandments handed down by God.

Dr. Ada M. Fisher is a physician, licensed teacher in secondary education—Mathematics and Science, former School Board Member and as well as the NC Republican National Committee Woman. Her book, Common Sense Conservative Prescriptions Solutions for What Ails Us, Book I may be ordered through any bookstore or purchased on line through Amazon.com or thecreatespaceStore.com or on Kindle. Contact her at P. O. Box 777; Salisbury, NC 28145; DrFisher@GETADOCTORINTHEHOUSE.com

Filed under Columns Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 75 other followers

%d bloggers like this: