Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
""""Attention Obozo: You're Fucked! Another "Mainstream" Newspaper Explains Why The 'RATs Lost The Sequester Battle (snicker)
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Johnny Asia
May 1, 2013, 5:18:31 PM5/1/13
to
Attention Obozo: You're Fucked!
Another "Mainstream" Newspaper Explains Why The 'RATs Lost The
Sequester Battle
USA Today: Democrats lose sequester battle: Column
Problem was, when the spending cuts came, nobody noticed.
President Obama ought to propose more across-the-board cuts.
Whatever politicians control, they will use against you to get what
they want.
To the political class, government programs aren't tools for improving
the country.
The whole sequestration gambit has failed, to the point where even the
Washington Post's Ezra Klein admits that "the Democrats have lost on
sequestration." The idea was that even the comparatively minor cuts in
spending caused by the sequester would be so painful that voters would
demand higher taxes rather than endure cuts in spending.
Problem was, when the spending cuts came, nobody noticed. This led the
Obama administration to try to up the pain by focusing cuts in places
where people might feel the pain: canceling White House tours for
schoolchildren, or furloughing air traffic controllers.
That didn't work either. The tour-canceling just looked mean, and the
problem with targeting air travel is that members of Congress, and
their top donors, fly a lot. Huge bipartisan majorities in Congress
thus quickly passed legislation forcing the FAA to make cuts elsewhere
instead.
The whole thing was a bust, and has me thinking that someone in
Congress -- or, if he's smart, President Obama -- ought to propose
more across-the-board cuts as a means of addressing our swollen
deficit and national debt. Critics of across-the-board cuts always say
that we should make "smart cuts" instead of using a "meat axe." But
the reason why we have a ballooning national debt is that our
politicians are clearly incapable of making "smart cuts."
When my own state, Tennessee, was facing budget difficulties a few
years ago, our then-governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, ordered across-
the-board cuts. Nobody liked it, but it brought things under control.
Many other states have responded to budget difficulties in similar
fashion. So why not try more of it at the national level?
But there's another lesson in the FAA furlough fiasco: Whatever
politicians control, they will use against you to get what they want.
The furloughs weren't a reasoned effort to save money: They were an
attempt to punish voters for not approving tax increases. If the
politicians could have shut down ESPN and blamed insufficient revenue,
they would have done that, too.
But they don't control ESPN. And, really, there's no reason why they
should control the air traffic control system, either. Why not
privatize it?
The idea of privatizing air traffic control has been around for
decades. Other countries, including Canada, have done it. Their
systems are generally regarded as well-run and efficient, which should
come as no surprise. There's no particular reason why you need
government employees to tell planes not to run into each other.
But while efficiency and cost-saving are good ideas, they're not the
most important part. If the FAA's air traffic control operation had
been privatized, then bureaucrats out to punish voters wouldn't have
been able to abuse their power to do so. Privatizing air traffic
control wouldn't just save money in the narrow sense, it would also
remove one arrow from the political class's quiver.
To the political class, whatever the rhetoric, government programs
aren't tools for improving the country. They're tools for acquiring
the main goal of the political class: more power, which leads to more
patronage, more graft (legal and otherwise) and a boost to their all-
encompassing sense of self-importance.
The abuse of federal power over air traffic control is just another
example of this problem. The best response to such abuse is to punish
them by privatizing air traffic control so that they can't do it
again. That it will also produce better service at lower cost is just
a bonus.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/29/democrats-lose-sequester-column/2119369/
+
Pucker your butt for the Apocalypse!
Johnny Asia, Asshole from the Future
http://johnnyasia.com/
Another "Mainstream" Newspaper Explains Why The 'RATs Lost The
Sequester Battle
USA Today: Democrats lose sequester battle: Column
Problem was, when the spending cuts came, nobody noticed.
President Obama ought to propose more across-the-board cuts.
Whatever politicians control, they will use against you to get what
they want.
To the political class, government programs aren't tools for improving
the country.
The whole sequestration gambit has failed, to the point where even the
Washington Post's Ezra Klein admits that "the Democrats have lost on
sequestration." The idea was that even the comparatively minor cuts in
spending caused by the sequester would be so painful that voters would
demand higher taxes rather than endure cuts in spending.
Problem was, when the spending cuts came, nobody noticed. This led the
Obama administration to try to up the pain by focusing cuts in places
where people might feel the pain: canceling White House tours for
schoolchildren, or furloughing air traffic controllers.
That didn't work either. The tour-canceling just looked mean, and the
problem with targeting air travel is that members of Congress, and
their top donors, fly a lot. Huge bipartisan majorities in Congress
thus quickly passed legislation forcing the FAA to make cuts elsewhere
instead.
The whole thing was a bust, and has me thinking that someone in
Congress -- or, if he's smart, President Obama -- ought to propose
more across-the-board cuts as a means of addressing our swollen
deficit and national debt. Critics of across-the-board cuts always say
that we should make "smart cuts" instead of using a "meat axe." But
the reason why we have a ballooning national debt is that our
politicians are clearly incapable of making "smart cuts."
When my own state, Tennessee, was facing budget difficulties a few
years ago, our then-governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, ordered across-
the-board cuts. Nobody liked it, but it brought things under control.
Many other states have responded to budget difficulties in similar
fashion. So why not try more of it at the national level?
But there's another lesson in the FAA furlough fiasco: Whatever
politicians control, they will use against you to get what they want.
The furloughs weren't a reasoned effort to save money: They were an
attempt to punish voters for not approving tax increases. If the
politicians could have shut down ESPN and blamed insufficient revenue,
they would have done that, too.
But they don't control ESPN. And, really, there's no reason why they
should control the air traffic control system, either. Why not
privatize it?
The idea of privatizing air traffic control has been around for
decades. Other countries, including Canada, have done it. Their
systems are generally regarded as well-run and efficient, which should
come as no surprise. There's no particular reason why you need
government employees to tell planes not to run into each other.
But while efficiency and cost-saving are good ideas, they're not the
most important part. If the FAA's air traffic control operation had
been privatized, then bureaucrats out to punish voters wouldn't have
been able to abuse their power to do so. Privatizing air traffic
control wouldn't just save money in the narrow sense, it would also
remove one arrow from the political class's quiver.
To the political class, whatever the rhetoric, government programs
aren't tools for improving the country. They're tools for acquiring
the main goal of the political class: more power, which leads to more
patronage, more graft (legal and otherwise) and a boost to their all-
encompassing sense of self-importance.
The abuse of federal power over air traffic control is just another
example of this problem. The best response to such abuse is to punish
them by privatizing air traffic control so that they can't do it
again. That it will also produce better service at lower cost is just
a bonus.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/29/democrats-lose-sequester-column/2119369/
+
Pucker your butt for the Apocalypse!
Johnny Asia, Asshole from the Future
http://johnnyasia.com/
0 new messages