Read Part I

How can the citizenry combat the entrenched power of the Bureaucracy? A couple of ways come to mind: insurrection and civil disobedience. But these are so 20th century. I think a new take is needed. I call it ideological disobedience. And we must strike while they still may not have us re-educated or liquidated down the memory hole.

Does anyone think that people slogging away in drab government work pens would be there if they absolutely didn’t need the J. O. B.? I don’t. What power would the tax man have if the fifty women that work at the county tax office didn’t need to work because one earner in the family was sufficient? If a person didn’t need to work, but wanted to work anyway, do you think they would choose slogging as a clerk at the tax office? Do you think they would choose to slog from place to place, submitting their curricula vitae to morons who always seem to get stuck in middle management on the Principle of Peter--the ones who always make it suck for everyone else—explaining to said morons in detail what they want to be doing in five years and describing their biggest weakness? I hardly think so.

Maybe they would prefer to pursue a personal interest for intrinsic reward, such as higher education or politics. Or perhaps excel at an interest that used to just be an occasional hobby, like painting, photography, or writing. Maybe they might choose to start a business or adopt a child. Maybe volunteer to teach in areas that need it the most; or be a mother and housewife. You never know, there might even be that one in a million who will clerk at the tax office. One in a million adds up to about 300 people in America to work at the tax office. Can I suggest a tax plan that is simple to administer?

People don’t choose to work at the water, drainage and sewage office collecting the monthly water bill unless that is the best option from the available choices. Its just that simple.

How many percentage points of the electorate do you think are composed of those who always vote for their job, i.e. big government? Of those, what percentage do you suppose make up the core Democrat constituency? The job voting non-left left, if you will. Blue Dog Democrats, many union members, and bureaucrats. Ten percent? Would a minus ten percent of core constituency change the political landscape? You just got to know these job-voting Democrats hate for the most part being associated with the other core constituency of the Democrat party anyway. You know the ones; the gay rights activists, people-hating tree huggers, animal rights wackos, and feminazis (tip o’ the hat to Rush-- Best wishes, my friend.) Even if you did support these guys’ agenda, I couldn’t imagine ever wanting to hang out with any of them.

Here is where the government mucks everything up, either by design or because they are incredibly stupid. They try to solve a problem by attacking all the contributing factors to the problem across the board. For example in California the government has set a goal of reducing 1,200 tons of pollution from the air in the area around Los Angeles by 2010. How do they propose to accomplish that? According to the Washington Post, the smog fighting bureaucracy proposes putting in the infrared sensors and cameras to ticket those driving, or more accurately owning, cars that make too much pollution. In California the state already requires everyone who owns a car to check in with them every two years for the state’s approval. Oh, and to give them $50.

Here is the kicker. Their whole plan with the “lasers” is to reduce auto related emissions by 16 tons by the year 2010. Sixteen tons out of 1200. Get outta town. That’s only 1%, folks. Barely over two tons a year. A single huge corporation throws away more paper in a year. What cost should citizens be asked to pay for a 1% reduction in a problem that wouldn’t even exist if so many of those same citizens didn’t have to drive back and forth to and from a job they don’t even want. Does anyone think a decent person would actually choose to cause pollution related illnesses to the elderly and children if they had a choice? We didn’t need everybody in the house working back in the fifties and sixties, why do we need it now? June Cleaver stayed at home and vacuumed the floor in pearls waiting for Ward to get home for supper with the family. June had a choice. Most today do not.

All the finger pointing and blaming between the political parties is at best counter-productive to solving complicated social problems, such as smog. At worst, it is a just a good ole fashioned parlor trick. A waste of time. It is time to quit asking who was in charge when such and such happened and start asking what was in charge. All the same old “but I wasn’t in charge, I can do better” political campaigning is a bunch of bravo sierra. It is like the lyrics from popular 70’s song “Wont Get Fooled Again” by the Who, “meet the new boss / same as the old boss.”

Elected politicians, for all their bluster, are but whispers in the cacophony of political machinery. Politicians come and politicians go. The staffers and aides of all the various departments and offices, agencies and bureaus, commissions and panels… they endure. Is real political power obtained on the wave of passing popular fancy of 4, 12, or even 20 years? Of course, but that power passes as the fancy passes. Enduring power however emanates in its purest form from those running the fancy machines. Those entrenched in the machine have the long hall mentality. Deus ex Machina.

Make things back like it was when the government was more concerned with general welfare as opposed to being concerned with its own views of fairness. Make it so a single earner can again support a household. Almost overnight the people commuting to work will be reduced by probably half of the two-earner families and a good number of single folk who would choose to no longer commute from the suburbs to the urban areas just to maximize earning potential. People might actually get married and stay married. Is it any surprise that money is the one thing that people say they argue about most in marriage, followed by children (Stanley & Markman, 1997). Right off the bat, the elimination of the largest problem leading to divorce is realized as a secondary benefit.

Call me heartless if you want, but everyone knows what “make it back like it was when one earner could support a household” means: Drastic cuts to welfare. Only those most in need receive a fish. Everyone else gets fishing lessons. My wild assed guess is about 98% of the current money spent on welfare would no longer be needed. If I were in charge, I would spend half of the 98% on nothing but schools-- Colleges, elementary schools, magnate schools (whatever those are), vocational schools, technical schools, grants to private schools, every kind of school out there. And I would make it all free for eight years. That’s enough time for a couple of generations to get a mulligan; a do-over. Get it while you can people, soup kitchen’s closing in 8 years.

The rest of the 98% I would give back to the rightful owners. Then with all the money saved on the now moot issues of road maintenance and smog fighting, I would give some more money back to the people.

Not only is it unfair to make one family responsible for several other families, its just not right either. Lets say I prepare and work hard and make a decent living. I take care of my family pretty much how I see fit, even if a little short on the long term education planning. The government comes along and says wait, before you go buy anything else, you have to pitch in and help some needy folk make it by. Some of my money will probably go to some people I don’t even like. Besides, who among us is qualified to say when I have enough and I should give my excess earnings to someone else of the government’s choosing?

What we have is a basic disagreement between what I think is sufficient before the government gets the rest, and what the government thinks is sufficient before I get the rest. Otherwise, I wouldn’t need two workers to get additional stuff for my family. What kind of stuff I deem fit and necessary for my family is none of your business; just as your stuff is none of mine.

Back to the pollution solution. Then there is the percentage Many would settle for less salary in exchange to be rid of the long, traffic snarled, stress filled, peril ridden commute. The problems that routinely result from both parent’s daily separation from the home and family-- such as divorce, infidelity, and estrangement from children-- create an enormous financial burden on society. But don’t worry; with a little more revenue in the coffers, the government can fix those problems.

And not to worry about your children, the government will educate them and help care for them too.

No documents found