Insider's perspective

This piece by a 30 year veteran of Washington political life, mostly seems to reveal what happens to an individual who makes a career out of serving politicians and in the process becomes thoroughly and justifiably cynical about the whole Washington scene. This recently retired author was a staff person for GOP committees for 18 years and his bio does not reveal for whom he worked the other 12 years.  In any event he is a GOP apostate and what's more has no great love for the Democrat Party either. While he definitely identifies many of the activities and policies of both parties that over the years have frustrated true conservatives, overall he seems personally more inclined to big government solutions than the smaller government mantra of the Tea Party and bonafide conservatives. He almost comes off as a closet liberal during all those years he worked for the Republicans.  Mostly his screed reviles corporations and their supposedly negative impact on the middle class and he assails with a vengeance the marriage of the Religious Right and the Republican Party.   His anti war position sounds a lot like Norm Chomsky or maybe even Michael Moore, especially since he seems to be against every war since WWII.  Again there is not a lot of context for these positions to judge where exactly he may be coming from. What's missing in his anti-Republican, anti establishment screed is any substantive discussion of the larger political and economic thinking that motivates either or both parties.  And, he gives no due to the rise of the Tea Party, arguably a movement that surfaced precisely because of the abuses of the system he articulates.  Maybe all the oversights are because he believes nothing other than pragmatic venality is at work in Washington, or maybe because he doesn't have an underlying economic/political philosophy, or hasn't yet heard of the Tea Party.  In any case he does not provide his readers many insights in this regard.

Overall one has to wonder how someone can spend 30 years in a career,  most of it working with Republicans, suddenly experience an epiphany and then turn completely against those with whom and for whom he presumably fought the good fight all those years.  Either the guy is bi-polar or maybe he's looking for a new post retirement gig as a turncoat spokesperson on MSNBC or Huffington Post.  One also can speculate why he waited 30 years to come out of the closet as a liberal.  Oh wait, can't come out early, he's a career Washington insider who vests after 30 years with a cushy retirement plan paid for by all those dumb taxpayers who thought he might actually be doing something useful and that he believed in for his six-figure paycheck. Can't jeopardize that cushy retirement by speaking out early. A personal takeaway:  Get rid of two thirds of the useless federal programs that cause all those oversight committees this guy worked for and he and most of the rest of those Washington insiders could go out into the private sector, get real jobs creating real wealth.  This guy is a poster child for a smaller, less intrusive, less dead weight federal government.

How the liberal mind works

This is a long (57 minutes) interview of Fran Rich by Brian Lamb of C-Span.  It is particularly interesting in that it reveals quite clearly the approach to issues and events by a true blue liberal.  Rich is a product of the Washington/New York axis of media elites who don't think the rest of the country matters all that much.  Most of his opinions and views are about politics, or so it seems from this interview.  There is little or no mention of economics and capitalism and all the real stuff that makes the world go around.  Rich very much lives in the liberal cocoon of interests and thoughts reflected in the famous remark by one of the TV anchors who once said no one he knew approved of the Iraq intervention by the Bush administration.  Rich was a theatre critic before his gig as an op-ed contributor to the NYTimes, where he has been employed many years.  Interestingly he seems recently to have soured on Obama although not in this interview which took place before the election of '08.

Government Amateurs vs Government Professionals

The real problem with government spending, taxes, and the like is exposed in this post linked below.  In short, the premise of the argument is that government is an industry and those who work in this industry act and react just like workers in any other industry, say automotive, entertainment, medicine, advertising, publishing, energy, et.al.  An additional personal observation unremarked upon in this post, is the affinity liberals and democrats have for government and government work.  This affinity is one reason the vast majority of government employees are democrats and vote heavily democrat at election time.  Obviously these workers are voting for the policies that grow and expand the size of government, their industry, and mostly these programs are proposed by liberals and democrats.  Since between one in five and one in six employees in the workforce work for the government at all levels (state, local and federal) the democrats have a solid constituency for their programs ready-to-go at election time.  It's hard to see how the republicans can overcome this disadvantage.

Government Amateurs vs Government Professionals

Virginia as a model

Virginia has a balanced budget and is a forward looking state with a lot to offer its citizens.  Mostly it offers minimal state government and taxes and much more personal freedom.  Sounds like the right formula.  Of particular note is the interesting fact that, like New Hampshire, the Virginia state legislature only meets for 45-60 days (on alternate years) to conduct its business, and also only allows one subject per bill (therefore bills are usually one page long), requires the bills to be on line for public review (three days before voting) and does not allow fund raising while the legislature is in session.  I't obvious the longer legislative bodies are in session, the more damage they can do.  Richard Rahn's article lays out the model for all states, and the federal government as well.

Christie Phenomenon

Chris Christie of New Jersey has cut a wide swath through the political landscape this year by taking on the public service unions, in particular the teachers union.  He has done this through a series of town hall meetings in NJ in which he uses blunt talk and sarcasm like a scalpel to skewer his opponents.  His popularity has been rising and he is talked about as a presidential candidate frequently.  Here we have a NYTimes piece on the governor that demonstrates the confusion of the liberal media when it comes to dealing with issues that they are uncomfortable with, like runaway unions and huge deficits.  What's refreshing about this guy is, although a politician, he does not give in to the constant pandering to special interests we see among liberal pols and too often conservatives as well.  He seems to be saying let's just get this problem solved and move on and if you don't like the way I'm proposing to do this, let yourself be heard at the polls next time around.  This attitude reflects what many feel is the approach the founders had in mind that we should be governed by citizen politicians not professional ones who make the job a career.  No question careerists are always looking for individuals but especially groups to pander to in their non stop vote seeking.  It's a divide and conquer philosophy of governing which the liberals, as professional politicians, have long subscribed to and even perfected.  Ruin has a way of changing things, however, and we are in deep trouble these days.

The Meaning of the Wisconsin Debacle

To fully understand the events in Wisconsin today, one has to understand the roots of the problem of runaway public union benefits over time.  The crises did not happen over night, and is not wholly the result of the latest recession.  Truth is, as Steve Malanga tells us in this in depth explanation in the Autumn of 2005 issue of the indispensable City Journal, over 5 years ago, things were out of control even back then and have obviously only gotten worse.  In the modern economy, unions eventually destroy all industries and businesses once they come to dominate.  The classic example is the auto industry decimated by union rules and excessive pay for many years and now just a shell of its former self. In the public arena it all started once  unions got their tentacles into governments at all levels after they were allowed to collective bargain by the vote seeking, union friendly Kennedy Administration of the early 1960's. The result is what is now unfolding in Wisconsin and around the country.  Governments at all levels are broke, can't raise taxes anymore, and are in the process of imploding.  Overtaxed workers in the private sector, those who pay for the lush salaries and benefits of the government workers, have had it and are finally pushing back with a vengeance.  It was just a matter of time before the unions destroyed the public sector.  That time has finally arrived.  Here, in the words of a union representative speaking to a meeting of NEA members and union workers, is their unvarnished philosophy.  Since it's clear from the views expressed here that collective bargaining is the Holy Grail of their movement, the reason for the militancy of their stand in Wisconsin and elsewhere becomes obvious.

This column by Jonah Goldberg provides a succinct history of how and why public unions were enabled to bargain collectively.  A very big mistake that we've been paying a big price for many years.

ADDED: Here we have yet another perspective on the problem with collective bargaining and the cost of government.  As pointed out here the average government employee's compensation is now double that of the private sector.

ADDED: And here is a piece by Paul Greenberg in which he quotes the work of a U of Arkansas economist who does the math and shows how the public service employees in Wisconsin now receive fringe benefits valued at 75% of their wages as compared to 25% in the private sector.  Is there any reason why the Governor Walker wouldn't try to limit collective bargaining to just wages?

ADDED:  Back to Steve Malanga who points out here how unions successfully circumvented local town councils and school board oversight and budget controls by getting the state legislatures to pass arbitration laws favorable to unionized workforce.