Politics

[Cackalacky]

Cue the Shocked face...

This mode of operation surrounding constant moral turpitude...we good to just call it Clintonian now...and everyone gets it...yes?

"CBS News' John Miller reports that according to an internal State Department Inspector General's memo, several recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off. The memo obtained by CBS News cited eight specific examples. Among them: allegations that a State Department security official in Beirut "engaged in sexual assaults" on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards and the charge and that members of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's security detail "engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries" -- a problem the report says was "endemic." "


State Department memo reveals possible cover-ups, halted investigations - CBS News

I'm sorry... call me crazy, but if I am guarding the Secretary of State 20 hours a day, I am without a doubt gonna blow off some steam with a hooker in a country that may or may not allow it. I consider it a diplomatic responsibility.

 

[BobD]

I'm sorry... call me crazy, but if I am guarding the Secretary of State 20 hours a day, I am without a doubt gonna blow off some steam with a hooker in a country that may or may not allow it. I consider it a diplomatic responsibility.

it's just helping their economy and being polite.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Found this tongue-in-cheek description of how PRISM could lead to totalitarianism in America:

So, let's assume for a second you're a totalitarian dick who has eight years to get something done that would make you a plausible dictator for life. This would mean solidifying your power and improving the US enough for populist support.
First, you blackmail Congress. That goes without saying. **** Congress, you're a totalitarian dick. Or **** Congress, we saw the last 16 years. Whatever.

Second, you use your awesome data to blackmail all the major banks and transaction processors into letting you PRISM up the financial sector. Or maybe the financial sector is already backdoored and you can skip this step. Raise your hand if you think you're going to need step two. Nobody? Ok.

Third, you go on a crusade for efficiency and equality. Empower the IRS with a supercomputer and access to all that data. Self-employed? We'll figure out who your clients are and automatically skim the taxes. Hate filing taxes? That's ok, we're going to stop asking you how much to deduct and just figure it out ourselves daily. Annual property and auto taxes are broken out per day, so no more DMV trips just to renew plates. No more tax bills, no more tax evasion, no more tax refunds, no more waiting until the end of the year for getting credit for things that the government is going to give you a tax credit for. Perfect taxation, processed constantly. Also, much improved data for tuning the tax code to make sure everyone pays their fair share without removing government incentives entirely.

Fourth, you take all the above data and administer welfare and social programs through it. Entitled to benefits? Here you go. It's automatically sent to you, and we'll keep track of changes electronically. Student aid? Automatic.

Fifth, you automate the regulatory agencies. The FCC, SEC, and big parts of the ICE and ATF turn into computer-assisted desk jobs. Law enforcement all around becomes streamlined. Did you say you stole something? Did someone say the same something was stolen? Knock knock! Warrant? The mailman can pick you up. Illegal immigrant? You're a lot easier to remove. So much easier that conditional amnesty becomes a possibility. Employed and law abiding? We'll mail you your Social Security card. Paid less than minimum wage and working in terrible conditions? We'll mail you a picture from your employer's prison and give you a couple months to find new work. Running drugs and guns? We'll mail your family about your new accommodations. Human trafficking? It might be better if your family doesn't know where you go.

Now you're a god among men. The US has improved more in three years than in the previous thirty. Your re-election campaign is a formality, and you run against the leader of some Amish community for the Republicans. Oddly enough, there's a decent third party candidate in the US's newly influential Pirate Party saying something about how you're using all that data to become a totalitarian dick, and we need a lot more transparency. Good thing we're in the US and no one takes him seriously. And it's too bad about that leak to the press about the time he tried to Google up some nude pictures of 16 year old girls.

Now that you're re-elected, you go totalitarian dick. You can't win another election, so you need to win the country. Let's start with moral panic. Do you know what sort of dirty **** people are doing on the internet? Kiddy porn is a good first step, since even that silly hippy was caught with a sticky hand in his pants. Terrorism, too. Can't have that, and do you know how many people are searching for information on bomb making, airborne pathogens, and dangerous chemicals? We'll need a new class of citizen - attempted felon. Attempted felons need to attend educational programs for correction, or they'll lose access to government benefits and be subject to more invasive investigation.

Release statistics that say the attempted felon program slashed violent and sexual crimes substantially, and look, no terrorism! (Or, look, if we had expanded the program, we could have caught that terrorist!) Expand the program. Implement a national firewall that filters out information that is contrary to public safety. Also, un-American sentiments. Criticism of the government. You know, the stuff that gets in the way of being a totalitarian dick.

Now, the coup de grace. Totalitarian dick + populism. For life, yo. The income gap between rich and poor is growing too large. Nationalize everything, standardize incomes, and make the American dream possible for the bottom 50%. Don't worry, the media says everyone approves, and no one can hear any complaining.

Despite the levity, it touches on some reasons why these capabilities are too dangerous for any government to enjoy.

 

[chicago51]

I think real question is to the those of us upset over the privacy debate is what are we going to do about it? Complaining only goes so far.

Is voting for a candidate that rolls back anti-privacy policies going to be our top priority?

I have been asking myself that question.

Would I vote for say Rand Paul (or Ron Paul for that matter) if he was willing to end these attacks on my privacy, even though I think his policies for flat taxes and preferential treatment of the wealthy makes Paul Ryan look like an economic liberal? I would at this point probably would not because I think he'd be an economic disaster whose policies would only benefit the richest Americans. So despite his stance I national security I still wouldn't vote for him. So in way I may end being an enabler and in a way that is part of the problem.

The thing is though if this something people are concerned about then we have to make it a priority in voting, and contacting are representives and letting them know what we think.

 

[Cackalacky]

I think real question is to the those of us upset over the privacy debate is what are we going to do about it? Complaining only goes so far.

Is voting for a candidate that rolls back anti-privacy policies going to be our top priority?

I have been asking myself that question.

Would I vote for say Rand Paul (or Ron Paul for that matter) if he was willing to end these attacks on my privacy, even though I think his policies for flat taxes and preferential treatment of the wealthy makes Paul Ryan look like an economic liberal? I would at this point probably would not because I think he'd be an economic disaster whose policies would only benefit the richest Americans. So despite his stance I national security I still wouldn't vote for him. So in way I may end being an enabler and in a way that is part of the problem.

The thing is though if this something people are concerned about then we have to make it a priority in voting, and contacting are representives and letting them know what we think.

I personally don't think it matters who is in the white house. We have got to reform campaign finance, restrict corporate influence and lobbyists on both sides, end Wall Street's hold on the government, then elect some people into congress who actually represent their constituents, not pork projects, to enact line item type legislation to attack and fix very specific problems. That is the basis of fundamental change that has to happen. Nothing will change until at a minimum those are achieved. Pretty tall order.

 

[chicago51]

I personally don't think it matters who is in the white house. We have got to reform campaign finance, restrict corporate influence and lobbyists on both sides, end Wall Street's hold on the government, then elect some people into congress who actually represent their constituents, not pork projects, to enact line item type legislation to attack and fix very specific problems. That is the basis of fundamental change that has to happen. Nothing will change until at a minimum those are achieved. Pretty tall order.

That is my top issue and I would vote that over all other issues at this point. That is part of the security/privacy issue as well. As companies like Booz Allen Hamiliton that are being contract by the NSA and/or CIA are actually turning around and are now lobying for the government to pass laws that allow for more surveillance, spying, and such because it is more money for them.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I personally don't think it matters who is in the white house. We have got to reform campaign finance, restrict corporate influence and lobbyists on both sides, end Wall Street's hold on the government, then elect some people into congress who actually represent their constituents, not pork projects, to enact line item type legislation to attack and fix very specific problems. That is the basis of fundamental change that has to happen. Nothing will change until at a minimum those are achieved. Pretty tall order.

These are mostly bi-partisan talking points and have been for years. Yet these problems only seem to get worse.

The current size of our Federal government and the scope of its powers virtually guarantees corporatism, regulatory capture, and general corruption. The incentive to gain a competitive advantage through lobbying is overwhelming, which becomes easier as power is increasingly centralized in Washington.

So it's not enough to just rattle off that list; presidential candidates from both parties have been promising to fix this sh!t for years. These problems are symptomatic of a larger problem, which is the growth and centralization of government.

 

[Cackalacky]

How would you decentralize our current federal government and still hold the states together?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

How would you decentralize our current federal government and still hold the states together?

We obviously can't decentralize the Federal government itself, as centrality is one of its defining features. But we can devolve as much power as possible back to the states, which would make lobbying (and the corporatism it generates) much less efficient.

 

[Rack Em]

How would you decentralize our current federal government and still hold the states together?

Come join the Federalist Society with me!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Come join the Federalist Society with me!

 

[Cackalacky]

We obviously can't decentralize the Federal government itself, as centrality is one of its defining features. But we can devolve as much power as possible back to the states, which would make lobbying (and the corporatism it generates) much less efficient.

You don't think the corps would focus on the states? They already are getting into bidding wars with companies (ie Boeing, Mercedes) for factories. I would only think that would increase.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

You don't think the corps would focus on the states? They already are getting into bidding wars with companies (ie Boeing, Mercedes) for factories. I would only think that would increase.

I think they'd be much less effective that way. Concentrating all the power and decision-making in Washington makes is super easy for corporations to buy influence; fewer lobbyists to pay, fewer congressmen to lobby, fewer laws to change, etc.

If they had to do that for 50 different legislatures, each with a unique set of priorities, political make-up, culture, etc., it becomes prohibitively difficult. Not to mention that those political bodies are closer, more responsive, and more accountable to their constituents than those in Washington. So pushing through legislation that nakedly benefits a corporate interest is harder, as the lobbyists have to make a case for how it benefits the citizens of each individual state.

The singular genius of our Founding Fathers wasn't republicanism (which had been tried many times before), but the separation of powers between the Feds and the states, and within the Federal government itself. Technological advancement, interstate commerce, and the rise of the welfare state have all undermined federalism in predictable ways, but it needs to be revived. I don't see any other realistic way to mitigate the corporatism and corruption that's ruining our politics.

And it should be a pretty easy sell. Why should New Yorkers be voting on what happens in Mississippi? Or North Dakotans on what happens in California? If you live in a deep blue state and want a robust welfare apparatus, do it! But pay for itself yourselves. If you prefer a more libertarian approach, try to Texas route. Or simply move to a state that reflects your preferences. To quote Justice Brandeis:

"[A] state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

One size fits all government simply cannot work well in a country as large and diverse as America.

 

[BobD]

So Californians wouldn't have to pay federal tax? We could keep it all here in the state?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So Californians wouldn't have to pay federal tax? We could keep it all here in the state?

You'd still have to pay Federal tax for things the each state can't effectively provide for itself-- national defense, some interstate regulation, etc. But it could be far less than what we pay today.

 

[ACamp1900]

So Californians wouldn't have to pay federal tax? We could keep it all here in the state?

You'd still have to pay Federal tax for things the each state can't effectively provide for itself-- national defense, some interstate regulation, etc. But it could be far less than what we pay today.

California would just vote to hike the state tax and blow more money to make up the difference...

 

[Cackalacky]

I think they'd be much less effective that way. Concentrating all the power and decision-making in Washington makes is super easy for corporations to buy influence; fewer lobbyists to pay, fewer congressmen to lobby, fewer laws to change, etc.

If they had to do that for 50 different legislatures, each with a unique set of priorities, political make-up, culture, etc., it becomes prohibitively difficult. Not to mention that those political bodies are closer, more responsive, and more accountable to their constituents than those in Washington. So pushing through legislation that nakedly benefits a corporate interest is harder, as the lobbyists have to make a case for how it benefits the citizens of each individual state.

The singular genius of our Founding Fathers wasn't republicanism (which had been tried many times before), but the separation of powers between the Feds and the states, and within the Federal government itself. Technological advancement, interstate commerce, and the rise of the welfare state have all undermined federalism in predictable ways, but it needs to be revived. I don't see any other realistic way to mitigate the corporatism and corruption that's ruining our politics.

And it should be a pretty easy sell. Why should New Yorkers be voting on what happens in Mississippi? Or North Dakotans on what happens in California? If you live in a deep blue state and want a robust welfare apparatus, do it! But pay for itself yourselves. If you prefer a more libertarian approach, try to Texas route. Or simply move to a state that reflects your preferences. To quote Justice Brandeis:



One size fits all government simply cannot work well in a country as large and diverse as America.

It would certainly make import/export harder and other things like that for multinational corps. . Some states on the coast might yield more power too, than say Iowa because imports have to go through any number of states.

 

[chicago51]

One issue about the states is they really can't run deficit because they don't use their own currency. So that means less programs for poverty and social mobility.

The Eurozone is falling about because of this. If we gave states more power and there was an economic downturn states would be force to cut dratiscally or pay crazy high interest rates. The European debt crisis came about because of the crazy high interest rates countries has to pay when the loss the ability to issue their own currency.

Every single year Mississippi a poor state takes in more money than its citizens pay in taxes. If we had a bunch of sovreign states and a weak cental government that wouldn't happen. So poor states like Mississippi could end up like Greece.

 

[BobD]

You'd still have to pay Federal tax for things the each state can't effectively provide for itself-- national defense, some interstate regulation, etc. But it could be far less than what we pay today.

For something like that to work, wouldn't we need fewer states? Basically dividing the population more evenly?

 

[chicago51]

If you want a bunch of sovereign states with a lose central association, the same currency, and free trade within states you have the European Union. The countries by giving up their currency became sovereign states as opposed to fully independent nations.

The reason Greece and Spain pay a crazy interest rate over 20 percent and the United States pays one percent is they lost control over their own currency. The EU is going up in flames.

The debate: Has the European experiment failed? - The Globe and Mail

 

[phgreek]

We obviously can't decentralize the Federal government itself, as centrality is one of its defining features. But we can devolve as much power as possible back to the states, which would make lobbying (and the corporatism it generates) much less efficient.

Amen!

 

[phgreek]

So Californians wouldn't have to pay federal tax? We could keep it all here in the state?

if you could promise to keep Californians from moving to Utah an spreading fiscal stupidity...I'd cede that...keep it (the money), and them (those coming to Utah).

 

[Whiskeyjack]

One issue about the states is they really can't run deficit because they don't use their own currency. So that means less programs for poverty and social mobility.

Not necessarily; it just requires better fiscal discipline. For instance, Germany passed a law in 2009 mandating balanced budgets at both the federal and state level. I'd say they're doing OK.

The Eurozone is falling about because of this. If we gave states more power and there was an economic downturn states would be force to cut dratiscally or pay crazy high interest rates. The European debt crisis came about because of the crazy high interest rates countries has to pay when the loss the ability to issue their own currency.

The EU is in trouble because it has a common monetary policy but no common fiscal policy.
I'm not suggesting anything so radical. The Feds would still collect taxes and provide all sorts of services that individual states can't provide for themselves. But these days the Feds also force a whole lot of bullsh!t on the States that they're perfectly capable of handling themselves. That's where I'd like to see them devolve power.

Every single year Mississippi a poor state takes in more money than its citizens pay in taxes. If we had a bunch of sovreign states and a weak cental government that wouldn't happen. So poor states like Mississippi could end up like Greece.

Again, I'm not suggesting a return to the Articles of Confederation. Yes, "taker" states would have to make some changes were this to happen, but since most (all?) of them are deep red, they'd undoubtedly appreciate the increased sovereignty as well.

For something like that to work, wouldn't we need fewer states? Basically dividing the population more evenly?

Why? The structure of the Federal government would remain unchanged. It would just do less.

If you want a bunch of sovereign states with a lose central association, the same currency, and free trade within states you have the European Union. The countries by giving up their currency became sovereign states as opposed to fully independent nations.

The reason Greece and Spain pay a crazy interest rate over 20 percent and the United States pays one percent is they lost control over their own currency. The EU is going up in flames.

The debate: Has the European experiment failed? - The Globe and Mail

I don't really understand this argument. We've always been a federal republic of sovereign states with a common currency. California doesn't have the freedom to devalue its currency, and it's a fiscal mess, but it's not flirting with a Greek-style catastrophe. There's no reason to believe devolving some power from the Feds to states over things that should be within their control anyway will suddenly turn us into the EU.

 

[BobD]

Why? The structure of the Federal government would remain unchanged. It would just do less.


I don't really understand this argument. We've always been a federal republic of sovereign states with a common currency. California doesn't have the freedom to devalue its currency, and it's a fiscal mess, but it's not flirting with a Greek-style catastrophe. There's no reason to believe devolving some power from the Feds to states over things that should be within their control anyway will suddenly turn us into the EU.

Because I feel the only thing really uniting the state's might be a powerful Fed. If they do less, states like California (12% of the US population) and Texas may decide they don't need them at all. We also have primarily agricultural states that probably wouldn't be able to stand on there own without federal subsidies??

You might want to look into California's current economic condition btw.

 

[DSully1995]

Not necessarily; it just requires better fiscal discipline. For instance, Germany passed a law in 2009 mandating balanced budgets at both the federal and state level. I'd say they're doing OK.



The EU is in trouble because it has a common monetary policy but no common fiscal policy.
I'm not suggesting anything so radical. The Feds would still collect taxes and provide all sorts of services that individual states can't provide for themselves. But these days the Feds also force a whole lot of bullsh!t on the States that they're perfectly capable of handling themselves. That's where I'd like to see them devolve power.

Boomerang by Michael Lewis shows this. The greeks spent without a care and evaded taxes like the plague.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Because I feel the only thing really uniting the state's might be a powerful Fed.

The stuff that divides us as Americans is relatively insignificant-- we share language, currency, culture, history, etc. And the Union was never in danger between the end of the Civil War and the start of the New Deal, despite a much more limited scope of Federal power.

If they do less, states like California (12% of the US population) and Texas may decide they don't need them at all.

Threats of secession are just political stunts. Other nations wouldn't recognize Texas if it broke off, it would have no way of handling commerce with the 49 remaining states, etc. Costs hugely outweigh the benefits.

We also have primarily agricultural states that probably wouldn't be able to stand on there own without federal subsidies??

I thought it was pretty well accepted around here that such subsidies are arguably the worst Federal program in existence. Regardless, despite the existence of "taker" states that receive more Federal dollars than they pay in taxes (mostly for welfare programs), I don't believe there's any state that would simply collapse without Federal assistance. Not even Mississippi is in that bad of shape.

You might want to look into California's current economic condition btw.

I'm aware of how bad it is. It's still no where near Greece, mainly because investors believe the Feds won't let it default on all its municipal and state debt. In any case, that's not really relevant to my argument. Cali wouldn't implode if the Feds taxed them less and allowed them to set up their own welfare programs. Hell, a strong dose of subsidiarity could go a long way toward solving the state's political gridlock.

 

[chicago51]

Not necessarily; it just requires better fiscal discipline. For instance, Germany passed a law in 2009 mandating balanced budgets at both the federal and state level. I'd say they're doing OK.



The EU is in trouble because it has a common monetary policy but no common fiscal policy.
I'm not suggesting anything so radical. The Feds would still collect taxes and provide all sorts of services that individual states can't provide for themselves. But these days the Feds also force a whole lot of bullsh!t on the States that they're perfectly capable of handling themselves. That's where I'd like to see them devolve power.



Again, I'm not suggesting a return to the Articles of Confederation. Yes, "taker" states would have to make some changes were this to happen, but since most (all?) of them are deep red, they'd undoubtedly appreciate the increased sovereignty as well.



Why? The structure of the Federal government would remain unchanged. It would just do less.



I don't really understand this argument. We've always been a federal republic of sovereign states with a common currency. California doesn't have the freedom to devalue its currency, and it's a fiscal mess, but it's not flirting with a Greek-style catastrophe. There's no reason to believe devolving some power from the Feds to states over things that should be within their control anyway will suddenly turn us into the EU.

Some good points.

I could see the federal government running things like unemployment, food stamps, and Medicaid which are unpredictable based on the economic cycle. I actually am in favor balancing budgets within a 10 year window, and I certainly don't like deficits of recent year. My point was the federal government running a mild deficit during a bad economic is not a bad thing but is probably helpful as government debt is effectively private surplus.

Then leave things like energy education commerce transportation etc which have predictable annual expenses to the states.

I'm a big believer in block grants for non means tested programs like say food stamps.
It is a Republican idea that Nixon was big on but I support it. I think the federal government should do more block grants and let states take matter into their own hands. If we were to want to incentive things improving like healthcare we could do that. through incentives in the block grant program.

I do agree with your point on corporate influence being harder on a decentralized government.

 

[Black Irish]

Many state governments are a lot like many U.S. citizens and corporations. They talk a good "get out of my business, federal government" game but when the fecal matter hits the fan they line up for federal cash and assistance like hogs at a trough.

 

[chicago51]

Many state governments are a lot like many U.S. citizens and corporations. They talk a good "get out of my business, federal government" game but when the fecal matter hits the fan they line up for federal cash and assistance like hogs at a trough.

You can actually have both ways though.

The federal government can collect the taxes then issue the money to the state through grants and such. The federal government because it can borrow if necessary at a low interest rates, there are certain advantages of it being the source of revenue. However the idea behind block grants is the federal government instead of running things themselves should be giving funds for states to one the programs in a way that would best suit the residents of that state, and would probably be more efficent as well.

The only area I'm really not in favor of block grants is for means tested programs like unemployment insurance. Things like unemployment insurance, and food stamps will change with the business cycle. Ideally we should be able to balance budget in good economic times, in fact there is no reason why we shouldn't. However lets say you are doing the right thing and you have a balance budget and the economy takes a down turn. Well unemployment is going up, and tax collections are going to go down. So moderate deficits are inevitable even if your budget was balanced previously. However state governments really can't run deficits because they get charge really high interest rates.

So I say leave things that have predictable set spending levels like education to the states, while leaving unpredictable things that will changes as the business cycle changes to the federal government.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Don't want to spend much time on this, so just a comment or two:

1). Anyone who believes that the states are less "owned" by corporations than the federal government is hasn't spent much time trying to get state politicians to move on anything. In my experience, the states are FAR more dominated by their big economic "residents" at all levels of involvement [right down to whether I can get credit for making my own energy or growing my own almond trees].

2). Severe change in leveling the field for candidates to run for office without fear of being monumentally outspent is far and away the first "domino" which has to fall if anyone seriously wants government to be more citizen-responsive.

3). All states and all cities are economically like micro-nations. Left entirely to their own devices, it will be entirely the "product out" vs "product in" equation which determines their affluent vs depressed status. If America wants to engage in absolutely no "redistribution of wealth", then we need to clearly face the consequences of that. Going "hard-a$$" is the Social Darwinist approach. Other citizens don't want to do it that way.

4). Because we insist on a transportation dependent // regional product specialization model of "The Good Economy", there arises endless [and unexamined in this thread] aspects of modern American life, which even affluent conservatives demand [conveniently forgetting that individual states cannot easily oversee all these pieces of the mindblurring complexity of interstate and international commerce. Health and Product Safety demands are the crude tip of the Iceberg.]

5). What we have here is failure to communicate. That phrase when applied to these issues means that everything about this interstate and international economy is long ago grown lightyears beyond humanscale and the abilities of actual people to concert together and do something which might take everyone into account. We have a MASSIVE "BIG" problem. There is no MASSIVE ORGANIZATIONAL way to solve it and stop bloodletting of the little guys [like citizens, villages, small businesses, small farms]. The only even mild hope is to try to give the smaller candidate a chance to win, so that candidate can really talk with his human constituents.