Over at HBR Amar Bhidé has written an article discussing the housing market and subsequent crash (very interesting – entire thing here) and proposes that among the causes of the crash, a sort of self restriction had taken the market from a vibrant one to one controlled by centralized authority:

The modern economy creates and spreads unprecedented prosperity by drawing on the resourcefulness and enterprise of the many, not by blindly following the dictates of a few. Individuals today make and act on their own judgments to a degree that would have been unimaginable to our forebears….

In recent times, though, a new form of centralized control has taken root—one that is the work not of old-fashioned autocrats, committees, or rule books but of statistical models and algorithms. These mechanistic decision-making technologies have value under certain circumstances, but when misused or overused they can be every bit as dysfunctional as a Muscovite politburo….

His argument is one we’ve heard from the military and other agencies as well – what they needed was more human intelligence on the ground, not more technical complexity from high.

He continues:

…Consider what has just happened in the financial sector: A host of lending officers used to make boots-on-the-ground, case-by-case examinations of borrowers’ creditworthiness. Unfortunately, those individuals were replaced by a small number of very similar statistical models created by financial wizards and disseminated by Wall Street firms, rating agencies, and government-sponsored mortgage lenders. This centralization and robotization of credit flourished as banks were freed from many regulatory limits on their activities and regulators embraced top-down, mechanistic capital requirements. The result was an epic financial crisis and the near-collapse of the global economy. Finance suffered from a judgment deficit, and all of us are paying the price….

Even going so far as to invoke Hayek to make the case:

The great twentieth-century thinker Friedrich Hayek made the classic argument for decentralized choice in his essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” The stability of the economy depends on constant adjustments to small changes, he believed—“B stepping in at once when A fails to deliver.” No single individual has the knowledge to make those adjustments; rather, it is widely dispersed across many individuals. But information about “the circumstances of the fleeting moment” cannot be quickly and accurately communicated to a central planner. Therefore, individuals who have on-the-spot knowledge must be allowed to figure out what to do….

Adaptation to changes—the focus of Hayek’s article—is only part of the story. The success of the modern economy also depends on innovation. As it happens, decentralization beats central planning here, too. Innovations are unprecedented, one-of-a-kind developments. Even incremental ones require imagination. An innovator cannot simply rely on historical patterns in placing bets on future opportunities. Knowing what has worked before and what hasn’t is but a starting point. Innovation also requires considerable trial and error. Unforeseen technical problems—or customers not doing what they had told market researchers they would—demand recalibrations that combine on-the-spot observations and historical knowledge with leaps of imagination….

Of course like most writers who seem to espouse the virtues of decentralization, he still thinks some things need centralized control which don’t:

Technologically advanced societies couldn’t function without some centralized control, of course. Governments need to regulate how businesses drill for oil, develop genetically modified crops, and pick the paints they use in toys, for instance….

Either way, he goes on to argue that the financial industry, using mathematical formulas and statistical models, embraced a sort of top-down control giving rise to “Mechanistic Decision Making” & “Robotic Finance”.

This basic line of reasoning isn’t exactly new.  Wired had an article in February of 2009 (here) about the risk formula which killed Wall Street.  The formula worked well for 5 years as investors used it as a way to measure pooled risk in MBSs (mortgage backed securities), but the formula:

…still hadn’t solved all the problems of mortgage-pool risk. Some things, like falling house prices, affect a large number of people at once. If home values in your neighborhood decline and you lose some of your equity, there’s a good chance your neighbors will lose theirs as well. If, as a result, you default on your mortgage, there’s a higher probability they will default, too….

Now while both articles point to specific issues which helped the collapse, like most they conveniently left out all discussion in reference to the government’s role in perverting the incentives, but together I think they present an interesting challenge to those of us who believe in decentralization as a good (DA post on decentralization here).

& that is – can there be mechanisms put into place which actually help foster decentralized control since our history, both long term and recent, seems to indicate humans have a tendency towards centralized control at certain levels of complexity.

We see this through various disciplines such as anthropology, archeology, and history, that over the past 10,000 years or so, humans made a mass migration from the nomadic lifestyle which was practiced for nearly 200,0000 years, to villages, towns, and cities.

Using agricultural knowledge to help spur this transition, humans also started growing in population.  As more land became developed and could support more people, villages and towns grew into large cities & states.

With the advent of these new societal structures, came new power structures.  In nomadic communities, authority is handled from a tribal point of view.

This means that people don’t really have positions of authority which is spelled out by any specific power structure.  Their authority comes from their ability to influence.  So elders with specific knowledge are sought after for wisdom and help, without a formal power structure of say a judicial system.

With the growth of society, came the growth of power structures as they became necessary to handle the population explosion.  Things such as basic sanitation and clean water were large public work projects which required the control of enough resources (labor mostly) which heretofore had been impossible.

These beginning power structures, would eventually evolve into the world in which most of us find ourselves today: a world in which more of our daily lives are coming under scrutiny from centralized power structures.

& we’ve seen what these power structures are capable of doing, both good and bad.  While it allowed for greater sharing of knowledge through vibrant cities which pooled resources in denser areas, it also allowed for the pooling of resources for war.

Either way, in this case the centralized authority we can normally blame was there in multiple areas, but for this specific factor it was self imposed.

Indeed in looking at human history, it seems given some level of complexity we seek out centralized forms of control.  It might seem today as if humans would never pick governments and politicians as idiotic and with as much power as they have today, but these were gradual changes over generations.

Taken with the most recent example of self selected centralization, it may be we need to consider the possibility that humans tend towards this direction with or without institutions directly promoting centralized control.

More thoughts on complexity here

It the state of MO, like other states with large cities, St. Louis & Kansas City both have local earnings taxes.  Meaning, in St. Louis at least, by merely working inside the city limits of St. Louis, you have an additional 1% income tax.

Enter the voter initiative (whole thing here via ):

…Proposition A wouldn’t repeal the tax, but it would give residents in the two cities a chance to vote every five years starting in 2011 on whether to continue the tax. If voters approved a repeal of the tax, it would be phased out over 10 years, at one-tenth of a percent each year.

The measure also bans any other cities from enacting an earnings tax….

Seems pretty benign, though I’m sure legal challenges will surface if Prop A passes…. assuming of course Missourians are allowed to vote at all.

Enter Kansas City government with union backing:

KANSAS CITY (AP) — Kansas City’s city attorney has filed a lawsuit seeking to block a November ballot measure that would allow residents of Kansas City and St. Louis decide whether to keep their cities’ earnings tax….

A group called Let Voters Decide submitted the ballot measure after the petition drive. The suit was filed on behalf of acting Kansas City city manager Troy Schulte and Pat Dujakovich, president of the Greater Kansas City AFL-CIO, both as private citizens….

What’s their main complaint?

…The lawsuit argues that the required elections would cost both St. Louis and Kansas City about $500,000, and neither city would be compensated for the cost.

According to the suit, Proposition A “becomes a de facto appropriation by voters statewide on Kansas City funds for the purpose of this (local) election.”…

But…

…Let Voters Decide spokesman Marc Ellinger said the measure wouldn’t require either city to pay for a local election if they just wanted to skip the vote and let the tax phase out automatically….

Please don’t get me wrong here, Kansas City might have a good legal basis for their arguments, but I’m unsure we should be living in a government which chooses to sue the state in order to specifically prevent voters from casting their ballots.

Maybe I’m off here, but I always thought for a law to be challenged it had to exist first, then harm would have to exist to give any client standing.

Of course don’t tell that to the President or Arizona either, but I’m digressing.

The point is only that when the government seeks to actively prevent your voice from being heard through ballot initiatives, people should be concerned.

Over @ Concuring Opinions, Nate Oman has an interesting post about the defenses of a free market (whole thing here):

Broadly speaking, I think that there are three families of arguments that can be made in defense of markets. Most commonly within the legal academy markets are defended on the basis of efficiency….

The second defense of markets is libertarian. This looks a lot of like the efficiency argument but is actually quite different, notwithstanding the fact that libertarians frequently confuse the two. In the libertarian argument what matters is not welfare but freedom. Freedom is taken as a good in and of itself, even if choices might result in reductions of welfare for the chooser….

The third argument is a defense of markets as markets.

Both the efficiency and the libertarian defenses of markets are reductionist in the sense that they see the good of markets in a unitary way. Markets are good because — properly constructed — they move resources around to maximize welfare….

Markets are good because they provide cooperation in the face of disagreement over the definition of the good and “social stability.”…

It’s a very decent article, though as a non-card carrying libertarian, I need to disagree with some of his minor points.  Namely, that libertarians are by group interested in freedom alone.  In fact, libertarians, just like other demographic groups get to the same answers through different paths and all three paths are prevalent in the current party.

For some libertarians, it is an…. intellectual/efficiency argument alone.  They believe markets aren’t necessarily moral or perfect at rationing, but they firmly believe that a free market leads to the best possible solution for the most people.

For me, I take the freedom approach.  To maximize individual welfare means one must maximize individual choices.  This might seem as too moralistic or philosophical for some as to be practical or useful, but it seems logical that reducing one mans’ freedom is antithetical to maximizing welfare.

& to be thoroughish, lots of libertarians are just tired of all the other parties and joined that cool one with that goofy, “Who is Ron Paul” stuff.  In reality, like most organizations, libertarians are not absolutists either way using a combination of thoughts to form their basis for their beliefs, but I digress.

The author continues about the third way:

On this view, traders are not cowardly, greedy, souless parasites (see, e.g., Shylock) constantly tempting the virtuous away from the path of justice with filthy lucre. Rather, commerce encourages courage, honesty, and fidelity. It encourages cooperation rather than predation. It allows people with widely disparate views of the ultimate ends and purposes of life to peacefully cooperate with one another. Commerce rewards the frugal and the farsighted, while punishing the wastrel and the spendthrift…..

But he tells us….

The third, pluralist view of the good of markets gets scant attention…

While this maybe a true statement, but the reality is that all three defenses coexist to form both a cohesive political and philosophical framework (though I do have issues with libertarians on foreign policy).

If we can start with the idea that maximizing welfare includes maximizing freedom, efficiency, freedom, & moral markets work together.

When starting with the paramount of freedom in economics, one also gets into the land of (un)intended consequences and perverted incentives.  Hayek talked about this a great deal – the fact that due to the shear size and complexity of the market, any attempted centralized interference will change incentives and unlikely for the better.  Unlikely, because the “status quo” we all question exists through millions and millions of individual transactions.

For lack of a better term, a collective wisdom emerges, order out of chaos.  An answer, that we might not like, but something for which a centralized system is (highly) unlikely to do better than free individuals.  The result is the most efficient use of resources we can hope to achieve while maintaining the most individual freedoms we can.

What about the morals? Well….it’s not as if we don’t have recent examples to help us out.  Leaving out the current mess of a tax code, take the recent financial crisis.

Predatory lenders?  Sure.  Fraudulent and speculative borrowers? Sure.  The reason why it worked so well?  Government incentives pushed quasi-government agencies to purchase loans without much oversight.

Why no oversight?  No skin in the game.  They couldn’t fail.  The market believed it & they believed it.  & in the end, the government proved them right.  Do the wrong thing, over and over and over and over again until it finally collapses and someone else ends up paying the bill….

So while the author is probably correct that we don’t use a moral market argument much, especially in an atmosphere of language such as “fat-cats”, he’s incorrect that this moral option is a “third” argument.  It is indeed part and parcel of the framework that markets are more efficient, better at maximizing freedom, and yes, even better at incenting moral behavior as well.

More on market morals here

As ABC News reports, parts of Arizona’s recently enacted immigration statutes have been suspended by a federal judge (whole thing here):

Arizona’s tough new immigration law was just hours away from taking effect when a federal judge issued an injunction today blocking key portions of the law from being enforced.

Among the provisions U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put on hold are the “reasonable suspicion” section that would allow police to arrest and detain suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant and a provision making it illegal for undocumented day laborers to solicit or perform work.

Bolton also stayed part of the Arizona law requiring immigrants to carry federal immigration documents.

Based upon the likelihood that these provisions could be used by officers to wrongly detain legal residents.

Next steps? Arizona will likely appeal and lose that appeal at the 9th Circuit Court.  The final arbiter of course being SCOTUS if they decide to take the case upon any further appeals.

Legally speaking, it’s an interesting question.  Basically, one of the powers the federal government holds is over immigration status and therefore it can be legally argued that Arizona has overstepped its authority (regardless of whether legal citizens will be wrongly detained).  However, does this mean a state has no resource against illegal aliens if the federal government is doing a poor job at the very responsibility they are stating they have absolute authority over.

More interesting I think will be the upcoming round of debates on a continuing question:  What is judicial activism and who is and isn’t exactly against it?

& the question isn’t an easy one.   Two fairly recent decisions can illustrate the complexity.  For most of recent memory, conservatives have been leading the charge against judicial activism.  But take a case like Kelo v New London where conservative outrage notwithstanding, the court followed the restraint pattern by enforcing prior precedence.

Move forward to McDonald v the City of Chicago and whether conservatives think so or not, a federal decision has invalidated a law the citizens of Chicago seemed to agree (based upon the fact they have recourse through voting)…. this would be judicial activism.

In most people’s minds it seems judicial activism is only wrong when a law your side has passed met its end through the legal system, otherwise it’s always wise restraint or cautious interference.

But let’s call it what it is:  judicial activism is when the court system invalidates the will of the voters.  This is true whether they invalidate gun laws, marriage statutes or amendments, immigration laws, sodomy laws, marijuana laws, and on and on and on.

Let’s further assume no one is really against all judicial activism.  I think most reasonable people can agree that say if judges were to invalidate the intermittent of Japanese-Americans during WWII, it would’ve been both activist and morally correct.  Even if most people couldn’t agree on that, we can all envision unjust laws which should not stand.

If we can allow for that definition, the maybe we can change the question as well.  Instead of – are you for or against judicial activism – to – how and when should judges be activist; we might begin to move towards a more reasoned debate.

So let’s call this one what it is – judicial activism and ask, should it have been used?  Why/why not?

I for one want to see judicial activism to always err on the side of individual rights and freedoms, not collections, groups, NOGs, nor government agencies.  This case gives me pause either as I am supporting of Arizona’s rights, the freedom of those individual voters to enact the laws they wish, but also am against current immigration policy.  For now, the voters spoke and I would err on the side of those individuals.

Others of course will draw the line in different places.

What’s important however is that we understand the line exists, instead of continuing to pretend it moves based upon our wishes.

more here on the debate: Reason’s July Cover Story Conservatives v. Libertarians

Friday last week, I posted random links including a short story about the current Senate race between Carly Fiorina & Barbara Boxer (here):

…In what has to be either a sign of the end times or a sign of our bright future, Senator Barbara Boxer is in a tight race against former HP CEO Carly Fiorina…

While the true impact of the 2010 midterm elections is still ultimately up to a vote which hasn’t happened, the signs seem to all be pointing to good news based upon selectorate theory (DA post here):

..the theory is also powerful due to its simplicity.  It states that leaders will pay back those people that helped them become leaders in order to stay leaders.  This seems fairly intuitive and agrees with most understanding of incentives, but from here they can make predictions based upon the ration between what they call W, the Winning Coalition, and S,the selectorate or those who can affect who the leader is….

…The corollary with W/S is that when W is small as compared to S, the revenues spent will be mainly private and conversely if W is large compared to S, expenditures will be mostly public….

The basic idea is that the leader will use their power to pay back those who helped them get elected and the larger that coalition is, the less likely that money can come in the form of direct payoffs.

Now theoretically, in a free election system, W is 1/2 of S + 1.  IE – in order to get elected I need 50% of the votes plus one.

What happens however, if the voters through their actions artificially limit W?

How can they you ask?  Easily actually.

Every 10 years post census, each state will redraw district boundary lines based upon population numbers.  The problem is this “redrawing” isn’t done based on some objective science or even just basic math, but based on politics.  The way it currently works is the party in power redraws the districts.

Typically, the only ones who argue against these plans are the parties out of power.  Historically, the minority party would go to court, but courts have answered these challenges by stating that unless specific acts of discrimination or such can be proven, political redistricting is not something the court will actively change.

The reasoning is that voters have recourse already so the court is not necessary.  Their recourse is to elect those who redraw the district boundaries.

Now in states that change majority party from time to time, there are incentives for politicians to not gerymander individual districts too bad, least they be on the receiving end next time.

However, in states like CA or TX, where one party dominates, there are no incentives for the party in power to do anything but draw district boundaries in such a way as to ensure they can maintain power.

This is how we end up with politicians like Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi, who win their individual districts in landslide elections, but whose national approval rating is slightly higher than the IQ of a prune.

This is also the reason (here) “polls showing voter disgust, such as the dismally low congressional approval ratings, only show feelings.  The reality is even with rates of congressional approval as low as 16%, the rate for the election of incumbents is well over 90%.”

But his only works through voter ignorance.  The reality is voters are free to vote for whom they want.  Just because a district is redrawn to include mostly Democrat supporters, doesn’t mean those voters must vote for the Democrat.

We know the truth however for many voters is party loyalty and party identification are much stronger forces in their life than political analysis.

There are reasons for this as well, including the sheer complexity of the government itself.  This level of complexity means for a voter to be truly informed, a good deal of time is needed to sort through the information.  Time most people would rather spend with their families after work.  But I digress…. (read more about The Myth of the Rational Voter here via Cato)

The point is that while voters don’t have to vote party loyalty, the evidence is very strong to suggest they do.

Therefore - back to W/S as a ratio – if voters allow a district to always put a Democrat (or Republican) in that seat, they are effectively making the general election a formality whereas the real election is during the primaries.

This combined with the facts that primary voters represent a very small percentage of total voters & primary voters tend to be true believers, results is an artificial reduction of W in our ratio of W/S, ultimately reducing voter power.

While I tend to stay away from any predictions, the current trending of certain national Senate and Congressional races is showing a promising sign of reversing this trend for at least one election cycle.

Of course for now, these are only polls.  They only tell us what people think during a given time period and nothing more.  The true test for voters will be on election day:

Will voters stand up against incumbents?  Or will they do what they’ve done for the past couple of decades; complain about the worthless government while simultaneously voting to keep the same government?

More bad news for Obama & the Democrats for 2010 elections.  Via The Atlantic here:

Chris Cillizza’s Morning Fix reports new data from Gallup showing that independents now favor a generic Republican candidate for Congress over a generic Democrat by 12 points….

& as is continually the case with this congress, more bad news for freedom.  Via The Hill here:

The 30-second campaign ad could become a thing of the past for third-party groups if the Democrats’ campaign finance legislation becomes law.

Media strategists argue the new disclosure requirements would eat into the majority of their ad time….

& while we’re talking about lack of freedom…. what might Kagan do about this “disclose” act?  Via Reason.com here:

As solicitor general of the United States, Elena Kagan argued in front of the Supreme Court that the federal government had the constitutional authority to ban certain political pamphlets. She also strongly implied that some political books, if they were partisan enough, could also be censored…..

Does is matter that she’s against free political speech?  Unlikely…. via Yahoo News here:

…Kagan’s performance in the Judiciary Committee drew praise from Democrats and compliments even from some critics, putting her on a path to confirmation by the full Senate sometime in July.

“She will be confirmed. I believe she will be confirmed,” said Republican Orrin Hatch, a member of the Judiciary Committee, predicting there would be at least some Republican support…..

& least we forgot, there’s still an oil spill…. which is being screwed up by the same government that is promising to “fix” healthcare….  Via The Heritage Foundation here, all kinds of people are offering help, but we’re still considering it:

In total, there have been 27 countries and 5 international organizations offering boom, dispersants, skimmers, vessels, bird rehabilitation equipment as well expertise. Along with the other important action items for the administration to undertake, accepting international assistance must be a more urgent priority. The Department of State has a chart that lists the equipment and expertise sitting on the sidelines with most of the status orders “under consideration.” Owners of the equipment have been rapid in their response to government queries but the equipment remains idle. It simply needs to be better….

Not to mention the economic killing impact the asinine moratorium is having:

Meanwhile, the Gulf continues to suffer. It’s not just government incompetence when it comes to the environmental cleanup; the administration’s policy decisions are making the economic harm much worse – especially the offshore drilling moratorium. Although the ban was only meant to affect those rigs operating in water 500 feet or deeper, it has led to a de facto ban on shallow water drilling….

Butler said that only one of his four drill rigs are operating; all four were drilling before the spill. Spartan has six contracts that would put his entire fleet back to work, but he can’t get going until the permits come through, he added. The week before last, Butler said he had to lay off 72 employees. Come Tuesday he’ll have to let another 140 go. “That’s 140 families, is how I look at it,” Butler said….

Not only incompetence in the clean-up, idiocy in quickly implemented, but poorly thought out regulations (DA post here), The Atlantic takes all this and poses an interesting moral question here:

In this video from Climate Desk partner Need to Know, Atlantic correspondent and oil expert Lisa Margonelli talks to Jon Meacham about halting drilling in the Gulf. She explains her view that Americans don’t have a right to drive cars and use gasoline unless we’re willing to drill for it in our own backyard….

For good news – research conducted on parents and children in reference to video games demonstrates that most parents actually don’t need government help.  Via The Technology Liberation Front (here):

• 93% of the time parents are present at the time games are purchased or rented
• 64% of parents believe games are a positive part of their children’s lives
• 86% of the time children receive their parents’ permission before purchasing or renting a game
• 48% of parents play computer and video games with their children at least weekly
• 97% of parents report always or sometimes monitoring the games their children play
• 76% of parents believe that the parental controls available in all new video game consoles are useful

It might be scary to those in government who are continuing to try to push more laws concerning how parents raise their children as it discounts the need for those laws, but for us normal folk – it gives us what we see everyday:

Once again, these findings illustrate that parents are parenting!

For some, it might be very disconcerting news to learn that internal documents from the Obama administration predicted the exact opposite of what they were publicly selling (here):

Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare….

Publicly however…. in speech after speech we were told things like, you won’t have to give up your existing coverage even while internal documents predicted:

…The “midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013,” according to the document.

In the worst-case scenario, 69% of employers — 80% of smaller firms — would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health law….

I’m unsure what the machinations coming will be from the White House – something along of the lines of this was only one report taken out of context – likely enough to allow true believers to sigh and continue to support this president.

Either way – this really doesn’t change much in the way of the facts pertaining to health care reform.  The bill is going to be a disaster for the US & if these policies are allowed to fully mature, this will go down in history as a major mistake that the public should’ve prevented.

It wasn’t all that difficult to see what they were selling couldn’t possibly contend with reality.  When people were told by their leaders that this reform would increase demand, increase regulations, and yet still decrease costs they could’ve easily spotted it for the scam it was.

Instead, the average citizen plodded along and by default told their leaders not to stop this.  They told them in polls they hated it, but didn’t want it prevented.  They tell them in polls today they hate it, but don’t want it repealed.  They told them when few wrote – please stop this.

No – the only thing this “new” information tells us is that the government’s own reports confirmed what many independent sources were saying & this administration, cloaked in the mantle of transparency, hide this information from the public and told a completely different story about the legislation when asked.

Maybe this will move some fence sitters against Obamacare and maybe this can be used as motivation to push back some of the legislation, but the truth is we the people failed the day the law was signed.

This is one of those cases where it’s almost as if the planets aligned perfectly to show anyone willing to see the complete idiocy of our current economic policies.  In the midst of a recovery that is anything other than certain, a time when the US government, its citizens, and indeed larges swaths of the world are simply broke, yet we keep on spending.

The Federal Reserve Chairman has stated directly (here via Reason.com):

Today may be terrible, but tomorrow is going to be much worse, at least as measured by such metrics as deficits, debt, and entitlement spending. In an April speech, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke laid out the misery that awaits us. “The arithmetic is, unfortunately, quite clear,” he said. “To avoid large and unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above.”…

Yet just yesterday, the committee to reduce budget deficits is joining a long line of other government employees in asking for more.  Over @ Cato (here):

It’s rather symbolic of what’s wrong with Washington that a commission ostensibly created to promote deficit reduction is seeking a bigger budget….

Yep, that’s correct.  As private businesses have continued to contract to meet decreased demands, the federal government continues to grow.  This happens when the federal government is allowed to print money, but that’s a side note.

Simple fact is, we have no money, yet we are still spending like drunken sailors and it seems we don’t understand.  When the governor of New Jersey is forced to tell people directly:  unlike the US government, the state of New Jersey can’t print money, we’ve run into a major problem.

& like most problems, the federal government will not help.  They are the enemy of spending policy as we can easily see, but for those that think maybe they can help here… please watch their latest commercials for the census count and ask yourself what is they underlying theme?  On the government’s own website propoganda, what is the underlying theme?

What is the main thing they want you to take away from this?  That government is the answer.  Our leaders are telling us, in no uncertain terms the same unsustainable and morally questionable hypothesis:  Make sure you get counted…. so you too can get paid.

Maybe it’s time to start asking:  exactly where are they leading us?