Trillions in the Twilight Zone

The nonpartisan United States General Accounting Office has compiled a report card confirming that we're now over $14 trillion in debt, and nobody knows exactly where all that money has gone. Fourteen trillion -- that’s at least a thousand times more dollar bills than the supposed cosmological age of the universe. "We don't know what we're doing," quipped senator Tom Coburn.

Bernie Madoff, a guy who should know, recently told reporters that the U.S. government is a Ponzi scheme. This GAO report card is proof of that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Looking at federal agencies, the GAO found overlap, duplication, and fragmentation in dozens of areas. There are, for just one small example, 20 different federal programs for the homeless administered by seven different agencies, amounting to an overlap of $2.9 billion. Three different federal agencies administer 18 different food assistance programs to the poor resulting in $62.5 billion in overlap and duplication.

Out of 47 different federal job training and employment programs, 44 of them overlap with other programs, amounting to another $18 billion in waste. Several different federal agencies, and numerous presidential appointees, share activities’ relating to the nation’s biodefense, but none of them has any authority, or owes any responsibility or accountability for the billions they consume.

Meanwhile, over at the Pentagon, the Department of Defense claims that it is just way too big for an accounting audit now; but the secretary of defense is working on the problem so that it might be audit-ready by 2017, six years from now. The GAO report found that the Pentagon has no tracking mechanism for the use of "urgent need" funds, resulting in an estimated $77 billion in overlap waste in just 6 years.

According to CNN, the Defense Department military budget is larger than most countries' entire economy; the Pentagon is the largest office building in the world; and it consumes a gargantuan average of $2 billion to $3 billion taxpayer dollars every business day. Last year, the GAO cited "serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense that made its financial statements un-auditable." "They don't know if they've paid contractors once, twice or not at all. They don't know if they've spent more than they were appropriated."

Contractors engaged in fraudulent dealings and misuse of taxpayer funds received $285 billion over a three-year period; 100’s of millions were overspent in a fund paying benefits to Army service members; and more than a trillion dollars has been spent to purchase weapons systems without a method to determine the full cost breakdown of materials and equipment for the systems. So the Pentagon is unable to manage and control operating and support costs for major weapons systems, including repair and maintenance costs.

If this were just government stupidity and waste, that would be bad enough, but this is not really what I would call stupid or waste. Waste is like leaving good food on your plate to be thrown out in the garbage; it’s leaving the lights on when you go out; contributing to political campaigns. Stupid does not know better.

Someone is getting this money. It’s not going down the toilet. All those billions and trillions are going straight into the pockets of the “political beneficiaries.” There are people driving around in brand new BMW’s because of this graft, and these politicians not only know all about it; they perpetrated it.  

The GAO report: "will make us all look like jackasses," senator Coburn concluded.

Not exactly, I’d say.

In my mind it makes you all look like criminals.

Fetal Defense Syndrome

Anti-abortion forces are still hard at it in South Dakota. A proposed new law there would define a homicide as justifiable if committed in the defense of an unborn child.

Opponents say the measure would provide a license to kill abortion providers, especially after language was added to the original bill extending the self defense justification to the pregnant woman’s relatives. So an enraged brother, or even crazy Uncle Goober, could shoot the doctor and his nurse for “endangering the life” of the unborn, in South Dakota, and claim justifiable homicide by self defense.

Proponents of this transparent legislative con insist that the law would not shield killers of abortion providers, but if that’s so, then there is simply no reason to propose it in the first place. A pregnant woman already has the right of self defense against someone attacking her. Relatives, or anyone else, for that matter; even strangers, are likewise entitled to come to her aid using lethal force if necessary to protect her from imminent harm. That’s already the law in most states

So what’s going on here? Who do you suppose is most likely to “endanger the life of an unborn,” if not someone who already has permission from the owner, and thus the legal right to do so? Who attempts to “endanger an unborn” without intending to endanger its owner also?

That’s right; your friendly neighborhood abortion provider is the real target of this law. Social conservatives in South Dakota want open season declared on them; and personhood status for the unborn while they’re at it.

Meanwhile down in Georgia, state Rep. Bobby Franklin, an even more ambitious religionist lawmaker, has reintroduced, for the umpteenth time, a bill that would make miscarriages a felony if the mother can’t prove there was no "human involvement." All abortions are defined as "prenatal murder" under this law, and anyone convicted would face the death penalty or life behind bars.

You can’t say I didn’t warn you.

These folks don’t give up easily.

The Enemy is Us

Officials are scrambling to come up with a response to revelations that several U.S. senators, including John McCain, and a few congressmen, were subjected to specialized "psychological operations" manipulation tactics by Army “psy-ops” officers in an effort to persuade the lawmakers to increase the number of soldiers, and funding for the Afghan war. Admiral Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was also a target of the clandestine operation. (msnbc.com)

One officer, who balked when ordered to conduct the scheme, was reportedly severely reprimanded by his superior officers. "My job in psy-ops is to play with people's heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," he’s quoted as saying. "I'm prohibited from doing that to our own people… When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you're crossing a line."

Using such tactics on U.S. citizens is (theoretically) against regulations and not to be done under any circumstances.

Serves these politicians right, doesn’t it? After all, they’re the ones who trained and set the goons loose in the first place, and now they’ve apparently gone right around full circle on their masters. Not to worry, though. Our brave politicians get the same tactics from lobbyists and special interest groups all the time. As long as there is some quid pro quo, I’m sure they can handle a few attempts at manipulation; something they too use every chance they get.

Politicians and “psy-ops” professionals are all trained to work against the enemy, and the enemy turns out to be us.

Baby Crimes and Misdemeanors

Let’s see if I have this right:

An 11 year-old Colorado grade school kid suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder is counseled by his therapist to draw pictures instead of disrupting class when he becomes agitated and upset. He does exactly as he’s told, drawing stick figures of him with a gun, pointed at four other figures, with the words: "teachers must die" to purge his angry emotions.

The school, knowing about the boy’s therapy, determines there is no threat; notify his parents and send him back to class. Later that night, however, the cops show up at the boy’s home, arrest, handcuff, and haul him off to the jail, where he’s put in a cell, fingerprinted and his mug shot taken. The kid thinks he’s never going to go home again. Then he's charged with misdemeanor interfering with staff and students at an educational facility:

Officials insist they are doing what's in the best interest of this child.

But this little kid was just minding his own business; he wasn’t interfering with anyone. He simply drew some stick figures with a caption, as his therapist instructed him to do, to calm his nerves, and it seemed to be working. No one was threatened. No weapons were involved. He went back to class and then home, hours passing without further incident.

Man, it’s a good thing those same officials aren’t riding in the car with me when some moron pulls out in front almost causing an accident. I can think of a million profane ways to kill such people, love to discus all of them with myself out loud, and I don’t even have ADD; I’m just pissed off; much better to talk about it than do it in that state of mind. Maybe I’d feel better if I drew some pictures. But, if that’s a crime, then in my best interests, I deserve a life term in Leavenworth; maybe even the death penalty.

What’s a kid supposed to do when he’s pissed off? Have these officials ever heard of the First Amendment? Have they any concept at all of the right to freedom of expression? What official in his right mind would think this totally unnecessary show of force is in the best interests of a child? 

What judge in his right mind would issue an arrest warrant for an 11 year-old boy under these facts? What policeman in his right mind would put an 11 year-old kid in handcuffs, and process him at the jail, like a hardened criminal, for a petty misdemeanor like this one, even if he did commit a misdemeanor?  I don’t think he did.

It sure doesn’t sound like a crime to me -- interfering with staff and students at an educational facility – you could get charged with that for bumping into someone accidentally in the school hallway. Your kid could be arrested for raising her hand in class to ask to go to the bathroom under that statute.

Yes, the prosecutor and all those “officials” had to dig pretty deep into the statist statute books to find that monstrosity.

No Wonder California is Broke

Daily Tech News Flash: An Anaheim California School District has been awarded $18,000 from a state grant to fund a six-week test program seeking to reduce unexcused absences by equipping 75 recalcitrant seventh and eighth grade student volunteers with handheld GPS devices at a cost of $300-$400 each.

Reducing the number of absences reportedly saves the school district $35 it otherwise would lose every time a student misses class. The students are sent an automated phone call every school day to remind them to get up and go to school. Then they must enter a code five times a day, and a coach is assigned to each student in order to make sure that they are where they're supposed to be doing what they're supposed to do.

Never-mind all the ominously statist collectivist implications of this unbelievably bizarre scenario; $18,000, it seems to me, is an awful lot of dough for a lousy 6 weeks of playing kiddie telephone tag games with a bunch of bored teenagers. I suppose the District can’t be blamed though, if they really do get $35 from the state government tit each time one junior high school kid shows up at class. That’s huge money: it’s like $250 for a movie ticket; $10 for a soda pop. I thought California was broke. How can they keep doing like this? It’s worse than outrageous; it’s obscene.

If only education in America were administered to kids like hamburgers at McDonald's, parents could get far better value, at far less cost, and many more of their kids would grow up to be PhD’s. That’s because private education would cater only to students who wanted to learn, and the focus would be on education – not socialization.

There is no good reason to force a small minority of kids to go to school every day, who aren’t even interested in a free education, much less a private pay as you go plan. Many good kids are just not suited for formal education beyond a basic level. They don’t like it; they don’t want it; and it’s not right for them anyway. They should get jobs, go to work, and contribute to the economy instead of wasting it.

California is a beautiful state. What a pity it has to come down because of nonsense like this.  

Wrestling with Public Education

Which do you suppose is worse from the perspective of a talented teenaged male athlete: beating a girl, or getting beaten by a girl?

Let me admit right up front that I’m not a big fan of wrestling; and even less so of compulsory public schools with their expensive public school sports programs.

Wrestling involves an intense, physically violent, aggressive, combative, in-your-face confrontation of raw strength and stamina at close quarters with the sweaty body of an equally motivated opponent. Kids can get hurt wrestling. Wrestling is fighting; body to body, hand to hand combat; violence. I hate violence.

And, taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to support the elite sporting opportunities of a tiny privileged minority of athletically inclined public school kids. The private sector would do much better and fairer for all concerned.

All bias aside, though, I’ll try to stay logical and objective with this one.

An Iowa high school wrestler recently became the first girl to win a state tournament match when her male opponent balked and forfeited the match at the prospect of competing with her. He cited religious objections, but I think he had plenty of other good reasons. Any gentleman would have forfeited that match.

To her credit this girl is obviously one of those exceedingly rare females who can compete with boys her size in a physically demanding contact sport. The fact that she made it to the state tournament at all says that she is good at wrestling and has probably beaten many boys already at lesser contests along the way. After all, boys are probably her only source of competition. So I sympathize with her for wanting to participate, and understand her right to be treated equally at public school.

But since when has it become appropriate behavior for boys to be fighting physically in organized blood sporting contests with girls? Is there no longer any appreciation at all of the differences in sex between boys and girls in public school sports programs? If wrestling is OK should girls be boxing with the boys next?

Good boys should be taught never to strike, use force upon, or manhandle girls under any circumstances. This poor lad had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by fighting a girl and trying to pin her to the floor. There is something unseemly about high school boys and girls aggressively pawing and grappling with each other in a public wrestling match.

If the boy wins such a contest, he’s automatically a cad. There is no honor or glory in beating up a girl, even if she asked for it. If he loses, he suffers the eternal humiliation and ridicule of his peers having been beaten by a girl in a state wide contest of masculinity. No teenaged boy should be forced to consider that horrible choice.

All ended quickly here when the girl was eliminated from the tournament by losing her first match with a real opponent. So she really didn’t win anything, but managed to spoil a young man’s chance to participate at a high level in a sporting activity which is traditionally and rightly meant for the testing of men.

That’s just another of the many problems with public education: differences and individuality among human beings is hardly recognized much less celebrated in a collective.

Tort Reform: Blame the Lawyers

Here’s an economics question for you: Which do you think contributes most to the rising costs of health care: medical malpractice lawsuits, or medical mistakes? If you guessed lawsuits, you had better guess again. Medical mistakes cause enormous personal and financial damage. Lawsuits don’t recover a fraction of it.

Recently, a 2-year-old girl with a critical strep infection had to have both her feet and one hand amputated because of a five hours wait for proper treatment at a hospital emergency room. This kind of thing happens more frequently than you want to know.

Most medical malpractice passes right by without any recourse. Medical professionals, more than most of us, hate to admit their mistakes. So patients are led to believe that the bad result was not caused by a mistake. Most injured patients never even think of talking to a lawyer much less filing a lawsuit. They just endure their pain and pay the price without complaint. 

“Tort reform” is touted repeatedly today by many pundits and politicians on both the right and left as a wonderful way to cut outrageously rising health care costs. But their idea of “tort reform” has nothing to do with curbing torts, i.e. preventing medical mistakes; but a whole lot to do with curbing the rights of injured patients to seek redress for medical mistakes. “Tort reform” is a buzz label for laws which focus on lawyers instead of doctors. The plain fact, however, is that lawyers don’t make medical mistakes, doctors do.

Tort reform is a good idea, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of the victims of torts. There is plenty of room for reform in all areas of the law, but the focus of “tort reform” should involve prevention of and fair compensation for torts – not the relationship between lawyer and client. It is the tort which causes the damage, not the lawyers’ fees. Making it impossible for most people to seek redress for medical mistakes in a court of law would cut health care costs alright, but squarely on the backs of the hapless victims.

Any good lawyer will tell you that medical malpractice cases are the hardest civil cases of all to win, anyway, no matter how much merit in them. People don’t like their doctors getting sued. They love their doctors and local hospitals. For good reason, the medical profession is still held in very high esteem; much higher, in fact, than the legal profession. So blaming the lawyers is just as popular today as always.

Without big damages and an airtight case on the merits, though, supported by top notch experts with superior qualifications, few lawyers are foolish enough to take on a medical malpractice case. Lawyers won’t find many top notch experts willing to testify against their own colleagues unless they have a very good case.

Frivolous malpractice suits don’t stand a chance in court. A judge throws them out long before any jury is involved. Even when a malpractice case is proved by clear and convincing evidence, juries are just as likely to find no cause for action. Litigation is no cheap picnic for either side.

There are scores of legal and evidentiary barriers to maintaining medical malpractice cases in most states; obstacles which don’t apply to other kinds of torts. It is far easier to prove automobile negligence, for example, than medical negligence, though both occur with frighteningly equal frequency.

Look closely at the specific proposals of “tort reform” advocates and you will see that they care little to nothing about medical mistakes and what to do about them. “Tort reform” is just their way of saying with a nudge and a wink: We want more legal immunity from medical mistakes for our doctors.

It’s not lawyers who create problems; it’s laws.