Unintended Consequence of Bailouts? More say its OK to Cheat on Taxes

DEMCAD asks, “If you knew someone was cheating on taxes, would you turn them in?”

DEMCAD mentions an IRS oversight board poll in which 13 percent of those surveyed believed cheating on taxes is acceptable, which is up from 9 percent the year before. Then DEMCAD questions if one of the unintended consequence of the big bailouts may be justification to cheat on taxes.

The IRS Oversight Board is independent from the IRS. The board has seven members appointed by the President of the United States. Of the seven, one must be a full-time federal employee or a representative of IRS employees. I’d provide a link to the boards site, but my shrewish fear of government has kicked in.

Even though the board is independent from the IRS, its not independent from the government and that makes its polling suspect. I think its safe to say even though its a government poll showing an increase in acceptance to cheat on taxes, that there really has been an increase because there is so much disappointment with DC.

I can’t say for certain the cause for the increase is the bailouts, but I think it’s probably one of many things the government has done that has weakened the public’s perception that it acts responsibly when spending tax dollars. The Air Force One flyover of New York still pops into my mind each time the subject of irresponsible spending comes up. The flyover was a grand public display of wasting tax dollars, or what government should not be doing.

The cheating the cheaters attitude has increased, and the don’t give money to addicts attitude is increasing also.

Share Button

Somalis too Skinny for Libertarians

When the subject of smaller government comes up, it is often met with the love it or leave attitude. If you think the government is spending too much or invading individual liberty, then you’re told to move to Somalia where they have basically no government and live in a fantasy paradise of no government.

Wanting a smaller and less powerful government does not equal wanting to live in Somalia. Its just another “love it or leave it” argument. Wanting to change something shows you care about it. If you didn’t care about this country you would move away or just not say anything. Asking a family member to stop drinking too much doesn’t mean you hate them; it shows you care.

Shrinking government is far from wanting no government. Taking away the government’s power to decide what constitutes victimless crime or power to appropriate away more wealth is not calling for the destruction of government. The if government isn’t big, it will be like Somalia argument sounds like someone overweight saying if they don’t eat donuts, they will become anorexic.

Political partisans can agree the government is too big and powerful, but they don’t see the government as a whole body and instead focus on individual body parts. Listening to pundits speak about how “the right side of the body is fat,” countered with  “no it’s the left side of the body that’s fat” is like listening to firemen argue which side of a building needs water while the building burns down.

The huge federal budget is an example of a gluttonous government. Forty-three cents out of every dollar that it spends is borrowed. The solution to the deficit isn’t giving the government more donuts–it’s telling it to eat less. The government wanting to raise taxes is like a fat guy saying, “If I was 10 feet tall, I wouldn’t be considered fat.” The problem is when the government gets bigger, its appetite also grows; it will only turn into a fat giant if it grows any larger.

The gluttonous power of the government needs to be reigned in also. Their hunger of power is that of eating Chinese food: soon after they have the power, they hunger for even more. Taking away victimless crime laws won’t leave the government as skin-and-bones any more than drinking diet pop will suddenly make you skinny. It won’t be anarchy, as in Somalia; there will just be fewer things for which the government needs to be fed.

Don’t starve the government to death. Just see it has a healthier tax and power index.

Share Button

In Everyone’s Best Interest


When is “in everyone’s best interest” just an excuse to have it your way?

Here are some of examples from U.S. history where individuals suffered “in everyone’s best interest:”

  • Sedition Act – censoring malicious writing against the government was in everyone’s best interest.
  • Slavery- keeping the country united was in everyone’s best interest.
  • Japanese, German, and Italian internment camps – national security was everyone’s best interest.
  • Americanization of Native Americans – “civilizing” or a standard set of cultural values was in everyone’s best interest.
  • Racial segregation – keeping races separate protected all races and therefore was in everyone’s best interest.
  • Women’s suffrage – keeping a women in her separate, domestic sphere was in everyone’s best interest.

Its easy to look back on these and see the underlying dynamic of the majority rationalizing control of the minority. Keep in mind at some point, the majority passionately defended and protected all the above laws as being in everyone’s best interest.

Here are some current issues which claim to be in everyone’s best interest that ignore the impact on individuals and minorities:

  • Gun Control Laws
  • Defense of Marriage Act
  • Bailouts for banks and auto industry
  • Mandatory Health Insurance
  • Sin taxes
  • Illicit drug laws
  • Deficit spending

If you can’t figure out who is, has been, or will be harmed by any of the items above, then you have fallen for the benefit of all argument. You have been blinded by the ends if you can’t see the harm of the means.

If are having trouble figuring out who has been harmed, ask yourself these questions:

  • When is it OK for you specifically to be forced to do something against your will by the government?
  • Where do taxes come from?
  • Has someone ever threatened your life?
  • Is there anything you do that is considered immoral by others?
  • Should the majority do anything it likes?

The phrase in everyone’s best interest is often a red flag for bad legislation; because there is little government can do that is beneficial to all without bringing harm to at least one person. Its easy to rationalize just about any action for the benefit of all, as long as you completely ignore those harmed by the benefit.

Share Button

Shaping the Next Generation

Overweight children is only one area where American parents are failing their children. With parents doing such a poor job of raising children, I think it’s time for others to follow Washington D.C.’s example and step up to the plate to help. Bastions of self control and discipline–like Washington D.C.–can’t shape the next generation alone.

Here are some suggestions where others can follow DC’s example and pitch in to help parents raise their children.

  • John Edwards, Tiger Woods and Mark Sanford could tour schools together and explain the importance of fidelity.
  • Bernie Madoff could teach the importance of sharing.
  • John Stewart and Stephen Colbert could explain the harm caused by teasing.
  • Mary Kay Letourneau and Debra Lafave could warn children about sexual abuse.
  • Lindsay Lohan should scold children about underage drinking.
  • John Mayer and Mel Gibson could teach racial sensitivity.
  • Bristol Palin and Jamie Lynn Spears could explain the dangers of underage sex.
  • Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner can teach the importance of savings accounts.
  • A bipartisan group of Democrats and Republicans could let children know the damage done by name calling.
  • Andy Dick could explain good touch/bad touch.
  • President Obama could speak about the importance of keeping promises.
  • Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity could explain logical fallacies, such as the Straw Man and Appeal to Popularity.
  • Kanye West could talk about the importance of waiting your turn to speak.
Share Button

Distractions for Washington DC Cause Increase in Productivity

Each time the economy slows down, it leads to micromanagement at work. When a company is making money, the people at the top are either taking it easy or looking for new ways to make money. When the money isn’t coming in as fast as they’d like, they start looking inside their company for savings and efficiency. It turns into a living hell for the people at the bottom because everything they do ends up being micromanaged.

Many workers are hoping and praying for the economy to turn around just because they are tired of explaining how and why they do some of the simplest tasks. A slow economy leads to the annoying time-sheets detailing every minute of the day. Pointing out the loss of productivity to management caused by keeping track of work rather than doing work falls on deaf ears. Workers catch on to being micromanaged and learn to fake time-sheets so they can get back to being productive.

In some work situations, the micromanaging turns into having a supervisor watching over the shoulder of workers. Having someone watching everything you do doesn’t mean you are going to do it any faster, because it’s a distraction from doing the job at hand. Pointing out the loss of productivity from excessive monitoring will once again fall on deaf ears. Workers also learn how to play this game by finding things to keep their managers busy. Workers start complaining about how other departments are run and how much the “defective” departments are making their jobs more difficult. With any luck, the managers will all be busy in meetings fighting with one another so you can get back to work.

The same workplace dynamic of the people at the top needing to do something is taking place in Washington DC. Just as workplace management can’t acknowledge the harm they do by interfering with the job at hand, the government can’t see the harm they are doing to the economy. Reforming health care and new regulations for business are examples of the government micromanaging the economy, and when the loss of productivity is pointing out, it falls on deaf ears.

Politicians have no qualms distracting the public so we aren’t focused on the job they are doing, so I have no guilt in suggesting we distract the government so we can do our jobs. The Obama administration is starting to look at the Bowl Championship Series and that’s a good thing; as long as you aren’t part of the BCS. We need to come up with more innocuous distractions like college bowl games to keep them busy. I’m calling on my fellow American’s that when they are involved in any polling to pick the least intrusive option. If asked which of the following is most important – the economy – heath care – sexting by teenagers, for the sake of our future please pick “sexting.”

Businesses can’t use the same tactics workers use with faking their time-sheets. Faking time-sheets might get a worker fired, faking the governments time-sheets can lead to big fines or prison terms. Businesses can fight back by lobbying congress with useful distractions such as, coming up with a way to keep copiers from copying genitalia or convincing congress businesses would be more productive if congress could tell them the absolute value of pi.

If we all put our heads together we can come up with some new distractions for Washington DC. Here are a few ideas–not exactly good ideas, but something to get the creative juices flowing:

Demand all of congress visit every site in the world impacted by global warming before taking any action. It’s expensive, but trust me–it’s worth it.

If enough people film street lights and email them to their representative, we can convince congress there is an imminent alien invasion.

Protest anything from France.

Start a rumor terrorists are secretly sending commands to operatives through 4chan.

Ask congress to find out how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood (stressing how important woodchucks are to the economy).

The number of sex scandals by elected officials is destroying our faith in government and should be investigated by congress.

Share Button

Fleeing from Advanced Modern Democracy?

German homeschoolers granted US political asylum (volunteertv.com)

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A German couple who fled to Tennessee so they could homeschool their children have been granted political asylum by a U.S. immigration judge.

Here is another example of what life might be like living in an advanced, modern democracy. In the modern democracy of tomorrow, we won’t have to worry about the best way to raise children; there will be a department to handle those difficult decisions for parents.

The guilt parents sometimes feel because their children didn’t turn out as they had hoped will be gone. There will be no reason to take responsibility for a child’s behavior, since a state agency will have already made sure your child is well-adjusted. Parents will be mercifully spared from ungrateful children, because children will have nothing to be grateful for.

What could possibly motivate people to flee from a life lived under the worlds oldest universal health care system? Why would anyone give up all the wonderful security of Germany’s advanced modern democracy?

Its that old-fashioned, outdated notion called freedom raising its ugly head again. The sooner the United States does away with outmoded concepts of liberty, the sooner we can move on to become an advanced modern democracy– just like Germany.

Share Button

NASA will miss Congressional Deadline for Asteroid Tracking – no Funding Provided from Congress

NASA won’t meet Congressional orders to track most city-smashing-sized asteroids in Earth’s neighborhood by 2020, an expert panel concluded Friday, because the government didn’t provide the money to detect such Near-Earth Objects.

“because for the past 5 years the administration requested no funds, and the Congress appropriated none, for this purpose.” (blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair)

This issue is not a possibility, its a probability. Sooner or later Earth will be hit by another asteroid that will cause massive amounts of damage.

Bundle up all the things Washington protects us from into one giant cataclysmic ball and it still wouldn’t equal the damage a large asteroid will do.

The mistake is that asteroids are still legal. If asteroids were illegal then there would be ample funding to track and destroy them.

To that end, please help spread one of these rumors about asteroids –

Illegal aliens use asteroids to sneak into America.

Disaster capitalist are plotting to steer asteroids at Earth for profit.

Drug traffickers use asteroids to smuggle narcotics into America.

Global warming is caused from the friction asteroids create entering the atmosphere.

Al-Qaeda is secretly plotting to steer an asteroid into the White House.

Teenagers are getting stoned on Meteorites.

Share Button

Parked Car Ticketed by Speed Camera

Just another story from the UK of what life might be like living in an advanced modern democracy. Driver parked in front of speed camera gets tickets. (telegraph.co.uk)

A driver was twice sent speeding tickets after parking in front of a camera because police officers failed to notice his vehicle was stationary, it has emerged. Jeff Buck parks in front of the camera outside his home on Watnall Road, Nottingham, because he does not have a drive or a garage.

I hope every ticket generated from this camera will be contested.

Share Button

Gasoline Meet Fire, Fire Meet Gasoline – Government Conspiracy to Fight Conspiracy Theories


“Conspiracy Theories” by Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule is making the blog controversy rounds.

Background – Cass R. Sunstein is Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. The paper was written two years ago, before Sunstein became the Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator. It’s unknown if Sunstein still holds the views in this paper, but it’s fair to ask if Sunstein still holds these views.

The two lines in the paper that have set people off: (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. The paper discusses these options, but does not conclude to follow either of these options.

The paper does, however, conclude the way to combat groups formed from conspiracy theories is by the government infiltrating the groups to break them up–In other words, a government conspiracy to fight conspiracy theories.

Half the paper dives into the psychology behind conspiracy theories, or as Ric Romero would say “people hold beliefs that are not based in fact.”

The other half of the paper weighs how governments should deal with conspiracy theories, and some of those suggestions are just like pouring gasoline on conspiracy theory fires.

Excerpts from the paper –

Our ultimate goal is to explore how public officials might undermine such theories, and as a general rule, true accounts should not be undermined.

When civil rights and civil liberties are absent, people lack multiple information sources, and they are more likely to accept conspiracy theories.

Our principal claim here involves the potential value of cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, designed to introduce informational diversity into such groups and to expose indefensible conspiracy theories as such.

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.

(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.

(2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.

(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories.

(4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech.

(5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.

Conclusion – Our goal here has been to understand the sources of conspiracy theories and to examine potential government responses.

Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its efforts might be counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them.

We have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and informationally isolated social networks.

The underlying argument in the conclusion is akin to declaring war on war, but not calling it a war. To support fighting the cognitive dissonance of conspiracy theories with cognitive infiltration requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

My favorite part of the paper – What causes such theories to arise and spread?

Share Button

Poll – Which Science Fiction Evil Computer Best Represents Washington DC?

What would things be like if congress were replaced with liberty-minded people? Would it do any good? It seems the bureaucracy has achieved a consciousness of its own, like a computer run amok in a Science Fiction story. Is anyone in Washington still in control? Can anyone pull the plug?

[poll id=”2″]

The list isn’t complete because computers controlling humanity is a common theme in Science Fiction. Please add any evil computers or thoughts on which computer best represents Washington DC in the comments section below.

Share Button