Last Thursday night the census bureau called me. Needed to ask me a few questions. The woman on the phone then proceeded to ask me to verify every single piece of data that I had previously put on my census form. I laughed under my breath through the entire call.
Weeks ago we received a letter informing us that we would be receiving the census form.
We then received a postcard stating that our census form was on the way.
Then came the actual form.
Within a few days we received more correspondence reminding us to make sure and send back in our form.
I sent the form back in.
Then came the phone call.
Now, I have no problem with the government getting a good head count. But is this not overkill? I looked all over for some statistics to try and quantify this. Here is the best I could come up with. The government is hiring 635,000 census workers, to count 300,00,000. That's a worker hired to count 472 people. Or how about this: the census cost a little more than 60 cents per person in 1950 ($91.4 million). It is projected to cost nearly $47 per person in 2010 ($14.5 billion). That’s a whopping 7822% increase in cost per person. During the same time, the population rose by 100% (i.e., doubled) from 150 million to over 300 million. But the overall cost of counting it (the census) rose by 15,800%. When did counting become so costly?
Here is my idea. Mail everyone the census. In the packet promise to give every household who fills it out and turns it in $20. Now, all that is left is to find the few people who didn't do it. And you have more than half your budget to do it.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
June 21, 2010
March 15, 2010
You Gotta Laugh
In the past few weeks two separate, yet undoubtedly related events have brought me some supreme chuckles (laughter, not the candy.) The first is the White House deciding to commission a group of people to figure out why we have a federal budget deficit and what we can do about it. If you can't see the humor in this, then you might hurt yourself. The government, the people in charge of making the decisions for the most powerful nation in the world, need a special commission to point out that when you spend more than you bring in it leads to a deficit. Boy I am so glad these guys are in charge. But here's the rub. Pretty good chance the commission won't come to the conclusion that spending more than you bring in is the problem.
Let me offer a simple solution for our federal budget deficit. Pass a law that until the deficit is gone, the federal budget for the next year must be less than 99% of the previous years revenue. Now, that doesn't get rid of all the old debt. Nor does it determine the means for reaching that number (could be budget cuts, tax increases, whatever). It is simply the first step. It would be like cutting up the credit cards as a first step in getting your own personal finances in shape. But the government would almost never do something this simple because it would be too easy to track when the government didn't stick with it.
The second event was an article I read in the January 12 edition of Time. The point of the article is that with the economic problems that have gripped America, it has become obvious that many Americans do not understand personal finances. The article asks how we can educate our children so they do not make some of the same stupid financial mistakes of the previous generation? The answer: The government is sending out new curriculum to be used in our schools. (This is when you must fall down, lay on the ground, and laugh til it hurts.) The government, massively in debt, unable to stick to a budget, and proposing new expensive legislation in the midst of a "financial crisis", wants to teach children how to handle their money!
No matter where you stand politically, the way our national government has dealt with our money for many years goes beyond ridiculous. Yes, many families are in dire straits because of stupid financial decisions. Only, they don't have the luxury of raising taxes or borrowing from China. The gall of the government believing it is in any position to give financial advice. It is a drowning man claiming to be an expert swimmer.
Post Script: In the article about children needing financial education the word "parents" was never mentioned.
Let me offer a simple solution for our federal budget deficit. Pass a law that until the deficit is gone, the federal budget for the next year must be less than 99% of the previous years revenue. Now, that doesn't get rid of all the old debt. Nor does it determine the means for reaching that number (could be budget cuts, tax increases, whatever). It is simply the first step. It would be like cutting up the credit cards as a first step in getting your own personal finances in shape. But the government would almost never do something this simple because it would be too easy to track when the government didn't stick with it.
The second event was an article I read in the January 12 edition of Time. The point of the article is that with the economic problems that have gripped America, it has become obvious that many Americans do not understand personal finances. The article asks how we can educate our children so they do not make some of the same stupid financial mistakes of the previous generation? The answer: The government is sending out new curriculum to be used in our schools. (This is when you must fall down, lay on the ground, and laugh til it hurts.) The government, massively in debt, unable to stick to a budget, and proposing new expensive legislation in the midst of a "financial crisis", wants to teach children how to handle their money!
No matter where you stand politically, the way our national government has dealt with our money for many years goes beyond ridiculous. Yes, many families are in dire straits because of stupid financial decisions. Only, they don't have the luxury of raising taxes or borrowing from China. The gall of the government believing it is in any position to give financial advice. It is a drowning man claiming to be an expert swimmer.
Post Script: In the article about children needing financial education the word "parents" was never mentioned.
January 12, 2010
Lunacy of Language (part 1)
I care about words. It's part of my job and who I am. I wouldn't be preaching if I didn't think that just the right word, delivered in the right way, at just the right time, can make a gigantic difference in someones life. So I pay attention to words and how we use them.
Which is why I am continually frustrated by how those in governmental authority use words. Words seem to no longer mean much beyond the political/rhetorical possibilities they provide. It is not that those in power or seeking power lie (although they sometimes do). It is that they are allowed to bend language to their own ends and are rarely called on the carpet for it. Somewhere Daniel Webster is weeping.
So let me start with a simple example: "Too big to fail." Read this from the New York times in 2008: “Some institutions really are too big to fail, and that’s the way it is,” said Douglas W. Elmendorf, a former Treasury and Federal Reserve Board economist who is now at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
This phrase has been used over the past year and a half by economists and politicians from various political leanings. In that parlance it means that some companies are so vital to the U.S. economy that they cannot be allowed to go under. For instance GM is just too big and important to allow it to crumble, so we must spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money to make sure it survives.
First, look at the language. It logically makes no sense. Can something honestly be "too big to fail". Does a fourth grade teacher turn in her grades and say, "You know, Jimmy didn't do the work, and he can't read, but he's just so large I can't fail him." If this were an actual truth, then there would be no show like "The Biggest Loser." Being big would be the goal in life. But logically we know this makes no sense. So the politicians and economists begin with an illogical statement. But it doesn't end there.
Once the illogical grammar is accepted, then the real insanity can begin as the phrase can now be used as "reasoning" for all sorts of stupidity. So a car company is "too big to fail". Using that logic means that if any business gets large enough, it doesn't have to worry about turning a profit, producing quality goods, or satisfying customers. It simply needs to be really big.
If "too big to fail" is true, then even if today I invent a means of beaming people from one place to another (think Star Trek) and pull it off in a way that is affordable for everyone, we would still need to support GM. Think of all the companies and businesses that have disappeared over time because something better came along. Imagine if we kept dragging them with us because they are "too big to fail." We would still have companies producing stagecoaches, milkmen running around every morning, and blacksmith shoppes.
And what about all the companies that are not too big to fail. Imagine trying to compete with a business that is much larger, has more resources, and can't lose. You could make a better product that people wanted more and was cheaper. All the "too big to fail" company would need to do is drop their price so low and drive you out of the market. They can do it because even if they lose so much money they should be bankrupt, the government will save them.
So in reality, "too big to fail" makes no sense. And that should be obvious. So it must be rhetoric to cover up the true motive for wanting to bail out these companies.
Why not just tell the truth? "We are afraid of the backlash of this many unionized workers losing their jobs," might be what some politicians are thinking. Or perhaps they just feel real sympathy for all the families who would be effected by the massive job losses that would come from the demise of a large company like GM.
Who knows what the real motives are. And we will never know as long as we allow those in authority to use this kind of language. Just give us the straight dope please.
Which is why I am continually frustrated by how those in governmental authority use words. Words seem to no longer mean much beyond the political/rhetorical possibilities they provide. It is not that those in power or seeking power lie (although they sometimes do). It is that they are allowed to bend language to their own ends and are rarely called on the carpet for it. Somewhere Daniel Webster is weeping.
So let me start with a simple example: "Too big to fail." Read this from the New York times in 2008: “Some institutions really are too big to fail, and that’s the way it is,” said Douglas W. Elmendorf, a former Treasury and Federal Reserve Board economist who is now at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
This phrase has been used over the past year and a half by economists and politicians from various political leanings. In that parlance it means that some companies are so vital to the U.S. economy that they cannot be allowed to go under. For instance GM is just too big and important to allow it to crumble, so we must spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money to make sure it survives.
First, look at the language. It logically makes no sense. Can something honestly be "too big to fail". Does a fourth grade teacher turn in her grades and say, "You know, Jimmy didn't do the work, and he can't read, but he's just so large I can't fail him." If this were an actual truth, then there would be no show like "The Biggest Loser." Being big would be the goal in life. But logically we know this makes no sense. So the politicians and economists begin with an illogical statement. But it doesn't end there.
Once the illogical grammar is accepted, then the real insanity can begin as the phrase can now be used as "reasoning" for all sorts of stupidity. So a car company is "too big to fail". Using that logic means that if any business gets large enough, it doesn't have to worry about turning a profit, producing quality goods, or satisfying customers. It simply needs to be really big.
If "too big to fail" is true, then even if today I invent a means of beaming people from one place to another (think Star Trek) and pull it off in a way that is affordable for everyone, we would still need to support GM. Think of all the companies and businesses that have disappeared over time because something better came along. Imagine if we kept dragging them with us because they are "too big to fail." We would still have companies producing stagecoaches, milkmen running around every morning, and blacksmith shoppes.
And what about all the companies that are not too big to fail. Imagine trying to compete with a business that is much larger, has more resources, and can't lose. You could make a better product that people wanted more and was cheaper. All the "too big to fail" company would need to do is drop their price so low and drive you out of the market. They can do it because even if they lose so much money they should be bankrupt, the government will save them.
So in reality, "too big to fail" makes no sense. And that should be obvious. So it must be rhetoric to cover up the true motive for wanting to bail out these companies.
Why not just tell the truth? "We are afraid of the backlash of this many unionized workers losing their jobs," might be what some politicians are thinking. Or perhaps they just feel real sympathy for all the families who would be effected by the massive job losses that would come from the demise of a large company like GM.
Who knows what the real motives are. And we will never know as long as we allow those in authority to use this kind of language. Just give us the straight dope please.
March 11, 2009
The Circus of the Greedy and Moronic
The news media is saturated with coverage of the birth of octuplets in California. Rightfully so, as already these eight children have, as a complete group, survived longer than any other group of octuplets born in America. Yet most of the coverage is no longer about this amazing birth. Rather it is focused on the mother and her right to have these children.
By now some of the basic facts are well known. The mother, Nadya Suleman, already was a single mother with six kids. All of her children have been conceived through IVF (). She spent the past six years on disability. She currently does not hold a job.
All of this has created outrage across the country. Shouts of “How could she” and “She must be nuts” echo the landscape. I watched on television as person after person griped vociferously about taxpayers being forced to shoulder the financial burden for these children.
I too am outraged. I find this situation to be close to reprehensible. But I am equally outraged by the overwhelming response condemning this mother. Not because it isn’t warranted, but because it is hypocritical.
This case only stands out because of the number of children. But single women constantly conceive children in this country that they cannot possibly provide for financially. In fact, some young girls attempt to achieve pregnancy knowing it will lead them to be emancipated from their guardians and provide them with numerous government services including housing and food.
We live in a country where you can smoke for fifty years and then Medicaid and Medicare help pay for your cancer treatments. You can buy a 500,000 dollar home you can’t possibly afford, and then declare bankruptcy when the inevitable happens. Even now the government is contemplating spending nearly a trillion dollars (an amount incomprehensible) of taxpayer money to bail out industries and individuals, many of whom are in financial straits because of their own greed.
All of these are by-products of the same problem. A huge chunk of Americans, from the government, to the wealthy, to the poor seem to believe it is okay to live beyond your means. We no longer seem to be a people who can delay gratification. We must have it, and we must have it now. Do whatever you want, and someone will come bail you out. In fact we have come up with ingenious words to make it all sound palatable.
Instead we should call these things what they really are. To go into debt never planning to pay it back is not bankruptcy, it’s stealing. To expect your neighbors and fellow citizens to take care of you no matter how you treat your body is gluttonous and greedy. To reward citizens for making horrible moral and ethical choices by providing them increased government services is incestuous. And for an individual, business and especially a government to recklessly spend beyond its’ income is absolute moral failure.
I’m not saying I have the answer to these problems. I just wish we would talk about them more honestly and consistently. So if we are going to complain about taxpayers having to foot the bill for one mother and her fourteen children, we should complain anytime the government foots the bill for greedy and moronic choices. That would at least be consistent. Problem is most of us don’t have the kind of time it would take since the government tends to be the ringmaster in the circus of the greedy and moronic.
By now some of the basic facts are well known. The mother, Nadya Suleman, already was a single mother with six kids. All of her children have been conceived through IVF (). She spent the past six years on disability. She currently does not hold a job.
All of this has created outrage across the country. Shouts of “How could she” and “She must be nuts” echo the landscape. I watched on television as person after person griped vociferously about taxpayers being forced to shoulder the financial burden for these children.
I too am outraged. I find this situation to be close to reprehensible. But I am equally outraged by the overwhelming response condemning this mother. Not because it isn’t warranted, but because it is hypocritical.
This case only stands out because of the number of children. But single women constantly conceive children in this country that they cannot possibly provide for financially. In fact, some young girls attempt to achieve pregnancy knowing it will lead them to be emancipated from their guardians and provide them with numerous government services including housing and food.
We live in a country where you can smoke for fifty years and then Medicaid and Medicare help pay for your cancer treatments. You can buy a 500,000 dollar home you can’t possibly afford, and then declare bankruptcy when the inevitable happens. Even now the government is contemplating spending nearly a trillion dollars (an amount incomprehensible) of taxpayer money to bail out industries and individuals, many of whom are in financial straits because of their own greed.
All of these are by-products of the same problem. A huge chunk of Americans, from the government, to the wealthy, to the poor seem to believe it is okay to live beyond your means. We no longer seem to be a people who can delay gratification. We must have it, and we must have it now. Do whatever you want, and someone will come bail you out. In fact we have come up with ingenious words to make it all sound palatable.
Instead we should call these things what they really are. To go into debt never planning to pay it back is not bankruptcy, it’s stealing. To expect your neighbors and fellow citizens to take care of you no matter how you treat your body is gluttonous and greedy. To reward citizens for making horrible moral and ethical choices by providing them increased government services is incestuous. And for an individual, business and especially a government to recklessly spend beyond its’ income is absolute moral failure.
I’m not saying I have the answer to these problems. I just wish we would talk about them more honestly and consistently. So if we are going to complain about taxpayers having to foot the bill for one mother and her fourteen children, we should complain anytime the government foots the bill for greedy and moronic choices. That would at least be consistent. Problem is most of us don’t have the kind of time it would take since the government tends to be the ringmaster in the circus of the greedy and moronic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
