What's wrong with government in the U.S. (1 Viewer)

[mad sweeney]

How about a no party system.

No parties and no lawyers.

And especially no God.

Move to North Korea. You'll get exactly what you want.

Interesting, but not sure I follow how moving to a Communist dictatorship = what I want. Seems to be yet another example of you not actually knowing what you're talking about.

 

[simey]

The two party system

 

[Ilov80s]

The two party system

Along with an incredibly lazy, misinformed voting contingent.

This.I know way too many co-workers, family members who are afraid to vote 3rd party because they think it's a "wasted" vote.

Also, people make a big deal about President and Governor. However, many couldn't name their Reps or Senators. Many people couldn't explain to you what all the local Proposals are really about. Most people don't vote for school board. The difference starts with local politics, but that is the level of politics that most people ignore.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

How about a no party system.

No parties and no lawyers.

any party would be better with no lawyers.

 

[The Commish]

How about a no party system.

I'm telling you: conscripted voters. It's like jury duty, except for 2 years. If your name comes up, boom, you're a US Representative. There's no lobbying and no campaigning and no lifelong politicians. We just get a cross-section of America figuring #### out. Hey. It's not like it could be worse.

We can get rid of the "career politicians" by not paying them these ridiculous salaries. Our ROI is brutal if you look at what they produce vs what we pay them to produce it. I've long said that when being a politician became a job is probably where things started going downhill VERY quickly.

 

[Ilov80s]

How about a no party system.

I'm telling you: conscripted voters. It's like jury duty, except for 2 years. If your name comes up, boom, you're a US Representative. There's no lobbying and no campaigning and no lifelong politicians. We just get a cross-section of America figuring #### out. Hey. It's not like it could be worse.

We can get rid of the "career politicians" by not paying them these ridiculous salaries. Our ROI is brutal if you look at what they produce vs what we pay them to produce it. I've long said that when being a politician became a job is probably where things started going downhill VERY quickly.

Regularly in November there are opportunities to remove career politicians and young politicians. It is called an election. Jefferson, Adams, Monroe, and Madison were career politicians so it seems that we were downhill from day 1.

 

[Slapdash]

2. I get the idea of conflict of interest with someone that once ran Citigroup and is now Treasury Secretary. However, isn't their a benefit to having someone with major banking/economic/financial experience serve in the position? If we preclude anyone with private financial experience, then we are essentially blocking out anyone with recent relevant private experience.

I think having experience as an executive in a large financial institution should be a strong negative for a candidate for the Treasury Secretary. It is like putting the former head of BP in charge of the EPA.

 

[Ilov80s]

How about a no party system.

I'm telling you: conscripted voters. It's like jury duty, except for 2 years. If your name comes up, boom, you're a US Representative. There's no lobbying and no campaigning and no lifelong politicians. We just get a cross-section of America figuring #### out. Hey. It's not like it could be worse.

We can get rid of the "career politicians" by not paying them these ridiculous salaries. Our ROI is brutal if you look at what they produce vs what we pay them to produce it. I've long said that when being a politician became a job is probably where things started going downhill VERY quickly.

Bah.I would rather pay politicians 10x what we do than 1/10. Making them even more dependant on getting money from somewhere else would be a very, very bad idea. Love or hate Bloomberg but at least he advances ideas that he thinks is right not the causes of a special interest or donor. He has $25 billion. WTF are you going to bribe him with?

There is more than money that can turn a man dishonest. Power, image, etc. Bloomberg rigging the New York standardized tests to show that he had improved schools before his re-election can't possibly be about doing what he thinks is right.

 

[Ilov80s]

2. I get the idea of conflict of interest with someone that once ran Citigroup and is now Treasury Secretary. However, isn't their a benefit to having someone with major banking/economic/financial experience serve in the position? If we preclude anyone with private financial experience, then we are essentially blocking out anyone with recent relevant private experience.

I think having experience as an executive in a large financial institution should be a strong negative for a candidate for the Treasury Secretary. It is like putting the former head of BP in charge of the EPA.

Why is that person going to be more beholden to their old job as opposed to their new job? Do you think real world high level financial experience could help someone working in the treasury? I just don't think you make these wide generalizations as may be blocking out as many bad candidates as you are good. Each person should be judged individually for each position.

 

[Apple Jack]

It just occurred to me that I overheard somebody say recently that you no longer have to stand for a filibuster? Is that true?

Absolutely

Not only do you not need to stand, under current rules, you don't even have to BE THERE. Google "Silent Filibuster".

Okay, I want a do-over on my answer and I'm going to put this at #1, as it seems like legislation that could actually be fixed and fixed quickly. Gonna need to dig out my protesting goggles and hit the mall this weekend.

 

[Apple Jack]

The two party system

Along with an incredibly lazy, misinformed voting contingent.

This.I know way too many co-workers, family members who are afraid to vote 3rd party because they think it's a "wasted" vote.

It is a wasted vote in some states. And until we all get that third eye winking in unison, that third party thing ain't happenin', Ralph.

 

[Ilov80s]

It just occurred to me that I overheard somebody say recently that you no longer have to stand for a filibuster? Is that true?

Absolutely

Not only do you not need to stand, under current rules, you don't even have to BE THERE. Google "Silent Filibuster".

Okay, I want a do-over on my answer and I'm going to put this at #1, as it seems like legislation that could actually be fixed and fixed quickly. Gonna need to dig out my protesting goggles and hit the mall this weekend.

I would just write your local Congressman. I am positive he will read the letter and take it into serious consideration.

 

[Foosball God]

How about a no party system.

No parties and no lawyers.

any party would be better with no lawyers.

You've never partied with Idiot Boxer

 

[Leroy Hoard]

How about a no party system.

No parties and no lawyers.

any party would be better with no lawyers.

You've never partied with Idiot Boxer

I guess there is an exception to every rule.

 

[Apple Jack]

It just occurred to me that I overheard somebody say recently that you no longer have to stand for a filibuster? Is that true?

Absolutely

Not only do you not need to stand, under current rules, you don't even have to BE THERE. Google "Silent Filibuster".

Okay, I want a do-over on my answer and I'm going to put this at #1, as it seems like legislation that could actually be fixed and fixed quickly. Gonna need to dig out my protesting goggles and hit the mall this weekend.

I would just write your local Congressman. I am positive he will read the letter and take it into serious consideration.

I'm on it. I will also show physical demonstrations of my objection via yelling at his office building and being extra freaky with the hill staffer I've been playing some hide the salami with lately.

 

[Slapdash]

2. I get the idea of conflict of interest with someone that once ran Citigroup and is now Treasury Secretary. However, isn't their a benefit to having someone with major banking/economic/financial experience serve in the position? If we preclude anyone with private financial experience, then we are essentially blocking out anyone with recent relevant private experience.

I think having experience as an executive in a large financial institution should be a strong negative for a candidate for the Treasury Secretary. It is like putting the former head of BP in charge of the EPA.

Why is that person going to be more beholden to their old job as opposed to their new job? Do you think real world high level financial experience could help someone working in the treasury? I just don't think you make these wide generalizations as may be blocking out as many bad candidates as you are good. Each person should be judged individually for each position.

I don't know why they are more beholden to their old jobs, but it just takes one look at the tenure of Henry Paulson to see how dangerous that is. High level experience COULD help out a Treasury Secretary, but it seems more likely to help them figure out ways to bail out their former colleagues and water down regulatory rules. Being under the Treasury is probably the biggest reason the OCC is always winning the regulatory race to the bottom.Putting someone who has been in senior management of one of these large financial firms is putting a fox in charge of the hen house. It would be much better to draw from the ranks of academics or other people with private sector experience outside of Wall Street.

 

[17seconds]

Lack of common sense

If you mean the people in government have no common sense, that is a simplistic and incorrect criticism.It only appears the government has no common sense when you look at the result. The result comes from a number of factors: money, power, re-election, perception, timing, special interests, etc... The system yields results that don't align with common sense.

 

[Ryan99]

1.IWe have an issue with elected officials spending more time running for re-election than serving their governmental purpose. So, we put in term limits. That will reduce incentive for politicians to serve their constituency. You can't run for re-election, so who cares what they think? It gives them even more reason to be selfish while in office. Instead of planning for re-election, they will plan for their next government position or private position. To get these positions, they will have to do a lot of favors. At the same time, we will have inexperienced rookie elected officials attempting to navigate a system filled with veteran lobbyists.

You have to balance representatives not serving their constituents because they aren't eligible for reelection and not serving their constituents because they spend all their time campaigning. I personally believe the latter to be a much bigger problem. Do presidents or other term limited officials fail to serve their constituents because they aren't up for reelection? If anything not being up for reelection frees the politician to actually serve his constituents, rather than serve the special interests which are critical for his reelection campaign.Rookie politicians may be better able to navigate the minefield of special interests and lobbyists than life career politicians. Long time politicians are so entrenched with certain lobbyists and special interest groups that the groups basically run the office the representative was elected for. New blood can be very effective at combating this, and they can also bring in new ideas and are more in sync with public opinion. I think one problem with our representative government is that it doesn't reflect the demographics of the country (in age, but also in wealth, race, gender, etc.). Having new blood could help with this.

2. I get the idea of conflict of interest with someone that once ran Citigroup and is now Treasury Secretary. However, isn't their a benefit to having someone with major banking/economic/financial experience serve in the position? If we preclude anyone with private financial experience, then we are essentially blocking out anyone with recent relevant private experience.

There certainly is, however I think the evidence at this point strongly indicates that the harm done by these people strongly outweighs the good. Certainly the original though process to get these people was that they know how the system works and will therefore be better regulators and decision makers. And maybe that worked for a while. But it's obvious now that the financial insiders running the regulatory agencies and holding other important financial positions in the government are primarily using their positions to further their own future careers at the firms they are supposed to be regulating.Jack Lew is a great example. He pushed hard for financial deregulation while he worked for Clinton then went and ran a group at Citigroup that could only exist due to the deregulation he helped pass. His group assisted in crashing the economy due to said deregulation and he is now going to be running the treasury (which oversees the bank bailout of his once and likely future employer). He has publicly stated (when he was questioned by Bernie Sanders) that deregulation was not a major contributor to the economic collapse. It should be obvious to everybody that the negatives of Lew's Wall Street association far outweigh any potential benefit.

3. If the person made Treasury Secretary and has been out of the private banking industry for many years, do we also say they can't hold investments since having stocks may present a conflict of interest?

Specific holdings in banks? Absolutely not allowed. A general index fund? That would be fine. And all his financial information should be publicly available so that when he makes decisions the citizens of this country know exactly how that affects his finances.

 

[Ryan99]

2. I get the idea of conflict of interest with someone that once ran Citigroup and is now Treasury Secretary. However, isn't their a benefit to having someone with major banking/economic/financial experience serve in the position? If we preclude anyone with private financial experience, then we are essentially blocking out anyone with recent relevant private experience.

I think having experience as an executive in a large financial institution should be a strong negative for a candidate for the Treasury Secretary. It is like putting the former head of BP in charge of the EPA.

Why is that person going to be more beholden to their old job as opposed to their new job? Do you think real world high level financial experience could help someone working in the treasury? I just don't think you make these wide generalizations as may be blocking out as many bad candidates as you are good. Each person should be judged individually for each position.

They're more beholden to their old job because their old (and likely future job when they leave government) made them $100 million and their job in the government made them $500,000.

 

[Gachi]

Money.

 

[Ryan99]

Not a major problem but one with an easy fix is the electoral college. It disenfranchises something like 90% of the electorate. Interstate compact to assign all votes to the winner of the popular vote would end it.Also low voter turnout is a problem. Or more accurately disproportionate turnout. It gives way to much power to certain groups which are small in number but high in voters. It also forces politicians to skew older (in terms of their platforms). It's why marijuana and gay marriage are still illegal. The fix is mandatory voting. Make voting one week long with one day a federal holiday. All states must have easily used mail in ballots. Transition to online voting in the near future. If you don't vote you pay a penalty or if you do vote you get a check. $100 sounds about right.

 

[Ilov80s]

2. I get the idea of conflict of interest with someone that once ran Citigroup and is now Treasury Secretary. However, isn't their a benefit to having someone with major banking/economic/financial experience serve in the position? If we preclude anyone with private financial experience, then we are essentially blocking out anyone with recent relevant private experience.

I think having experience as an executive in a large financial institution should be a strong negative for a candidate for the Treasury Secretary. It is like putting the former head of BP in charge of the EPA.

Why is that person going to be more beholden to their old job as opposed to their new job? Do you think real world high level financial experience could help someone working in the treasury? I just don't think you make these wide generalizations as may be blocking out as many bad candidates as you are good. Each person should be judged individually for each position.

They're more beholden to their old job because their old (and likely future job when they leave government) made them $100 million and their job in the government made them $500,000.

What about when we bring in some rookie rep that isn't making much money and will be out of a job in a few years. He doesn't have any incentive to help out that likely future job that can net him the big bucks he doesn't yet have?

 

[Ilov80s]

Not a major problem but one with an easy fix is the electoral college. It disenfranchises something like 90% of the electorate. Interstate compact to assign all votes to the winner of the popular vote would end it.Also low voter turnout is a problem. Or more accurately disproportionate turnout. It gives way to much power to certain groups which are small in number but high in voters. It also forces politicians to skew older (in terms of their platforms). It's why marijuana and gay marriage are still illegal. The fix is mandatory voting. Make voting one week long with one day a federal holiday. All states must have easily used mail in ballots. Transition to online voting in the near future. If you don't vote you pay a penalty or if you do vote you get a check. $100 sounds about right.

Pay people to vote? No thanks.

 

[Tuco]

Not a major problem but one with an easy fix is the electoral college. It disenfranchises something like 90% of the electorate. Interstate compact to assign all votes to the winner of the popular vote would end it.Also low voter turnout is a problem. Or more accurately disproportionate turnout. It gives way to much power to certain groups which are small in number but high in voters. It also forces politicians to skew older (in terms of their platforms). It's why marijuana and gay marriage are still illegal. The fix is mandatory voting. Make voting one week long with one day a federal holiday. All states must have easily used mail in ballots. Transition to online voting in the near future. If you don't vote you pay a penalty or if you do vote you get a check. $100 sounds about right.

Pay people to vote? No thanks.

Agreed. Same with people voting to get "paid".

 

[bakes]

Lack of term limits

People continue to cite a lack of term limits on this board. I'm not seeing it. Smart voters, not term limits. Term limits make the lobbyists even more powerful, it is crazy.

Financial influence on the Hill.

Again, smart voters is the answer. The politicians don't keep that money (well most of them don't anyway). It's only useful if the voters are susceptible to the silly ads that the politicians buy with the donations. If the voters are well informed and take the time to vote for the politician whose positions on the issues they agree with the most instead of the one who makes the best "gotcha" ad, the money is useless.

I absolutely disagree. Hell, some groups (example: ALEC) write legislation that gets passed as written, in their favor, regardless of what voters want because of $$$$$. Money is useless? Far from it. The government is bought and paid for; get rid of corporate, union, and other special interest money in the halls of Congress and you've solved half the problem.Another major part is that the Congress gets benefits so far out of whack with those available to the vast majority of the population that they don't care about the impacts of legislation on their constituency. Get rid of their pensions and health care programs and see how fast things change. Bring these arrogant pricks back to reality.

Then attack the tax code, simplify, eliminate loopholes and targeted benefits, level the playing field.

That's a start.

 

[Ryan99]

Pay people to vote? No thanks.

Agreed. Same with people voting to get "paid".

Are you worried about more people voting or do you just not want to incur the expense? If it's the latter you can have a penalty for not voting instead of a check for voting. More people voting is always a positive. The country would be much better off if the demographics of voters more closely tracked the demographics of the overall population.

 

[Ilov80s]

Pay people to vote? No thanks.

Agreed. Same with people voting to get "paid".

Are you worried about more people voting or do you just not want to incur the expense? If it's the latter you can have a penalty for not voting instead of a check for voting. More people voting is always a positive. The country would be much better off if the demographics of voters more closely tracked the demographics of the overall population.

I am not worried about either of those. I am concerned about financial incentives to voting. Besides, it isn't like those new voters are better educated or more aware. They just want their $100. I actually find this appalling and not at all American.

 

[Ryan99]

I am not worried about either of those. I am concerned about financial incentives to voting. Besides, it isn't like those new voters are better educated or more aware. They just want their $100. I actually find this appalling and not at all American.

What about it is "not at all American"? And what specifically concerns you? It sounds like you think "American" means 55% voter turnout for the presidential elections and 35% turnout for midterm elections. The reality is certain groups benefit by other groups having low voter turnout and push hard to retain the low turnout. We all saw how hard the republicans tried to disenfranchise people this past election.

 

[Warrior]

There's nothing wrong with America. You're all just ungrateful for what you have.

 

[The Commish]

The two party system

Along with an incredibly lazy, misinformed voting contingent.

This.I know way too many co-workers, family members who are afraid to vote 3rd party because they think it's a "wasted" vote.

It is a wasted vote in some states. And until we all get that third eye winking in unison, that third party thing ain't happenin', Ralph.

We have plenty of examples of what I and wazoo1 were talking about....don't need another.

 

[Joe T]

The Wages of Unemployment

Labor-force participation has declined since 2000, and among the reasons are soaring government benefits.

From the mid-17th century to the late 20th century, the American economy grew roughly 3.5% a year. That growth rate has since declined significantly. When the final figures are in for 2012, the annual rate of real output growth for the first dozen years of this century is likely to be about 1.81%.

What accounts for the slowdown? An important part of the answer is simple: Americans aren't working as much today. And this trend reflects more than the recession and sluggish economy of the past few years.

The national income accounts suggest that about 70% of U.S. output is attributable to the labor of human beings. Yet there has been a decline in the proportion of working-age Americans who are employed.

In recent decades there was a steady rise in the employment-to-population ratio: For every 100 working-age Americans, there were eight more workers in 2000 than in 1960. The increase entirely reflects higher female participation in the labor force. Yet in the years since 2000, more than two-thirds of that increase in working-age population employed was erased.

The decline matters more than you may suppose. If today the country had the same proportion of persons of working age employed as it did in 2000, the U.S. would have almost 14 million more people contributing to the economy. Even assuming that these additional workers would be 25% less productive on average than the existing labor force, U.S. gross domestic product would still be more than 5% higher ($800 billion, or about $2,600 more per person) than it actually is. The annual growth rate of GDP would be 2.2%, not 1.81%. The retreat from working, in short, has had a real impact.

Why are Americans working less? While there are a number of factors, the phenomenon is due mainly to a variety of public policies that have reduced the incentives to be employed. These policies include:

• Food stamps. Above all else, people work to eat. If the government provides food, then the imperative to work is severely reduced. Since the food-stamp program's beginning in the 1960s, it has grown considerably, but especially so in the 21st century: There are over 30 million more Americans receiving food stamps today than in 2000.

The sharp rise in food-stamp beneficiaries predated the financial crisis of 2008: From 2000 to 2007, the number of beneficiaries rose from 17.1 million to 26.3 million, according to the Department of Agriculture. That number has leaped to 47.5 million in October 2012. The average benefit per person jumped in 2009 from $102 to $125 per month.

To be sure, we would expect the number of people on food stamps to increase with rising unemployment, poverty and falling incomes in late 2008 extending into 2009 and perhaps even into 2010 (even though the recession was officially over in late 2009). But more is going on here.

Compare 2010 with October 2012, the last month for which food-stamp data have been reported. The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% from 9.6%, and real GDP was rising steadily if not vigorously. Food-stamp usage should have peaked and probably even begun to decline. Yet the number of recipients rose by 7,223,000. In a period of falling unemployment and rising output, the number of food-stamp recipients grew nearly 10,000 a day. Congress should find out why.

• Social Security disability payments. The health of Americans has improved, and the decline in the number of relatively dangerous industrial production and mining jobs should have led to a smaller proportion of Americans unable to work because of disability. Yet the opposite is the case.

Barely three million Americans received work-related disability checks from Social Security in 1990, a number that had changed only modestly in the preceding decade or two. Since then, the number of people drawing disability checks has soared, passing five million by 2000, 6.5 million by 2005, and rising to nearly 8.6 million today. In a series of papers, David Autor of MIT has shown that the disability program is ineffective, inefficient, and growing at an unsustainable rate. And news media have reported cases of rampant fraud.

• Pell grants. Paying people to go to college instead of to work is traditionally justified on the grounds that higher education builds "human capital" that is vital for the country's economic future. But a study Christopher Denhart, Jonathan Robe and I did for the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (that will be released soon) shows that nearly half of four-year college graduates today work in jobs that the Labor Department has determined do not require a college degree. For example, over one million "retail sales persons" and 115,000 "janitors and cleaners" are college graduates.

In 2000, fewer than 3.9 million young men and women received Pell Grant awards to attend college. The number rose one-third, to 5.2 million by 2005, and increased a million more by 2008. In the next three years, however, the number grew over 50%, to an estimated 9.7 million. That is nearly six million more than a decade earlier. The result is fewer people in the work force. Meanwhile the mismatch grows between the number of college graduates and the jobs that require a college education.

• Extended unemployment benefits. Since the 1930s, the unemployment-insurance system has been designed to lend a short-term, temporary helping hand to folks losing their jobs, allowing them some breathing room to look for new positions. Yet the traditional 26-week benefit has been continuously extended over the past four years—many persons out of work a year or more are still receiving benefits.

True enough, the economy isn't growing very much. But if you pay people to stay at home, many will do so rather than seek employment or accept jobs where the pay doesn't meet their expectations.

These government programs are not the only players in this game. For example, a more worker-oriented immigration policy in recent decades would have measurably raised the rate of economic growth and increased the employment-to-population ratio. Taxes are part of the story too: Today's higher marginal tax rates on work-related income could well lead to further reductions in work effort by those taxed, as well as to slower economic growth.

Most Americans recognize the need to reduce government spending to rein in the national debt. But there is another reason to cut government spending for specific programs: If more people have less incentive to stay out of the work force, they might seek jobs and help spur economic growth.

Mr. Vedder is professor emeritus of economics at Ohio University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

WSJ link

 

[Ryan99]

The Wages of Unemployment

Most Americans recognize the need to reduce government spending to rein in the national debt. But there is another reason to cut government spending for specific programs: If more people have less incentive to stay out of the work force, they might seek jobs and help spur economic growth.

Mr. Vedder is professor emeritus of economics at Ohio University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

WSJ link

But people are seeking jobs, that's why unemployment is at 8%. The way the US counts unemployment does not include people who have given up looking for jobs or are underemployed, so actual unemployment is much higher than 8%. If people are unemployed by choice and there are jobs out there for people who want them, why can't 8% of the workforce find a job?The reality is that the available jobs are low paying, low quality jobs. Your article essentially makes the argument that if people had fewer unemployment benefits they would be more willing to take a crappy job. I'm sure that's true. But you should also ask the question "Why are there so few good jobs available when corporations are making record profits?".

 

[Foosball God]

The Wages of Unemployment

Most Americans recognize the need to reduce government spending to rein in the national debt. But there is another reason to cut government spending for specific programs: If more people have less incentive to stay out of the work force, they might seek jobs and help spur economic growth.

Mr. Vedder is professor emeritus of economics at Ohio University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

WSJ link

But people are seeking jobs, that's why unemployment is at 8%. The way the US counts unemployment does not include people who have given up looking for jobs or are underemployed, so actual unemployment is much higher than 8%. If people are unemployed by choice and there are jobs out there for people who want them, why can't 8% of the workforce find a job?The reality is that the available jobs are low paying, low quality jobs. Your article essentially makes the argument that if people had fewer unemployment benefits they would be more willing to take a crappy job. I'm sure that's true. But you should also ask the question "Why are there so few good jobs available when corporations are making record profits?".

Because they aren't paying for a bunch of high wage jobs?

 

[Apple Jack]

There's nothing wrong with America. You're all just ungrateful for what you have.

 

[Slapdash]

Ah yes, the Great Vacation theory of unemployment.

 

[lod01]

The two party system

Along with an incredibly lazy, misinformed voting contingent.

This.I know way too many co-workers, family members who are afraid to vote 3rd party because they think it's a "wasted" vote.

Just use this type of line: 'You are the ones wasting your vote by continuing to vote in these losers.' They never have a comeback for that one.

 

[roadkill1292]

By design, our government can't make any creative systemic changes. I like creative systemic changes.

 

[Fennis]

the exeucitve branch has way too much power

 

[jonessed]

It's in the nature of a bureaucracy to expand. Governments, both federal and local, need money to grow that bureaucracy (as would any private bureaucracy). It's only limited by the amount of money it can collect.The real problem is us. We have become lethargic in defending our freedoms and in the process have lost our ability to control our own government.It amazes me that people can blame special interest groups. Special interest groups are just a collection of people (large or small) with a common goal. We are the ones that gave the government control over redistribution of half of the country's wealth. The fact that people now flock to it for handouts makes perfect sense.If you want to limit government you have to take away it's power to redistribute wealth. If you want to grow government you give it more power to redistribute wealth. Special interest influence is a function of the latter. You will never disconnect the two. If you want big government then you have to deal with the good and the bad.

 

[Joe T]

WSJ link

Millions Improperly Claimed U.S. Phone Subsidies

By SPENCER E. ANTE

The U.S. government spent about $2.2 billion last year to provide phones to low-income Americans, but a Wall Street Journal review of the program shows that a large number of those who received the phones haven't proved they are eligible to receive them.

The Lifeline program—begun in 1984 to ensure that poor people aren't cut off from jobs, families and emergency services—is funded by charges that appear on the monthly bills of every landline and wireless-phone customer. Payouts under the program have shot up from $819 million in 2008, as more wireless carriers have persuaded regulators to let them offer the service.

Suspecting that many of the new subscribers were ineligible, the Federal Communications Commission tightened the rules last year and required carriers to verify that existing subscribers were eligible. The agency estimated 15% of users would be weeded out, but far more were dropped.

A review of five top recipients of Lifeline support conducted by the FCC for the Journal showed that 41% of their more than six million subscribers either couldn't demonstrate their eligibility or didn't respond to requests for certification.

The carriers—AT&T T +1.01% Inc.; Telrite Corp.; Tag Mobile USA; Verizon Communications VZ +0.45% Inc.; and the Virgin Mobile USA unit of Sprint Nextel Corp. S +2.07% —accounted for 34% of total Lifeline subscribers last May. Two of the other largest providers, TracFone Wireless Inc. and Nexus Communications Inc., asked the FCC to keep their counts confidential. Results for the full program weren't available.

The program is open to people who meet federal poverty guidelines or are on food stamps, Medicaid or other assistance programs, and only one Lifeline subscriber is allowed per household.

The program, which is administered by the nonprofit Universal Service Administrative Co., has grown rapidly as wireless carriers persuaded regulators to let people use the program for cellphone service. It pays carriers $9.25 a customer per month toward free or discounted wireless service.

Americans pay an average of $2.50 a month per household to fund a number of subsidized communications programs, including Lifeline.

For the carriers, the program is a chance for them to sign up more subscribers and make a small profit, plus more money if customers go over their small initial allotment and need to buy more minutes or text messages. Carriers can set prices for their Lifeline subscribers as the companies wish.

Until last year, FCC rules didn't require carriers to certify to the FCC that subscribers were eligible. Consumers could self-certify, and in many states documentation wasn't required.

Carriers said many of the disqualified subscribers simply didn't reply when asked to prove their eligibility. They also said the FCC rules on self-certification, and the absence of a national database of participants, made it hard to keep ineligible people from signing up.

The FCC said it is investigating allegations that some Lifeline providers violated the rules, though it declined to comment on that probe. Carriers that don't properly confirm eligibility can be fined up to $150,000 for each violation for each day of a continuing violation, up to a maximum of $1.5 million. In egregious cases, a carrier could lose its ability to participate in the program.

Telrite said it confirms Lifeline eligibility but said it had been difficult to verify the one-phone-per-household rule.

A Verizon spokesman said the "vast majority" of the subscribers removed from its rolls didn't respond to eligibility checks. While Sprint found that some of its subscribers were no longer eligible, it, too, found that many others didn't respond, a person familiar with the carrier's operations said.

AT&T hadn't detected the ineligible subscribers because customers self-certified under old rules and because some states required the company to provide Lifeline service to people enrolled in certain state assistance programs, according to a person familiar with the company's thinking.

Tag Mobile didn't respond to requests for comment.

TracFone Chief Executive F.J. Pollak declined to say how many customers his company shed. Nexus Communications didn't respond to a request for comment.

Two years ago General Communication Inc. GNCMA -0.24% paid more than $1.5 million to settle allegations that Alaska DigiTel LLC, an Alaskan company it owns, submitted false claims to the FCC for more than four years. General Communication said the alleged misuse occurred before the company took day-to-day control of Alaska DigiTel.

Lifeline users have been a source of subscriber growth in the otherwise saturated U.S. market and helped fuel the expansion of companies like TracFone, now the fifth-largest U.S. wireless carrier.

The FCC until last year allowed consumers to self-certify, without requiring documentation, that they met federal poverty guidelines. Subscribers didn't have to recertify once they were enrolled in the program, and there were few checks on whether households signed up for more than one cellphone.

"The program rules we inherited were designed for the age of the rotary phone and failed to protect the program from abuse," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said.

The agency pushed through new rules last year, requiring documentation when a Lifeline customer signs up. Consumers also must certify that no one else in their households is using the program. Carriers now have to check a state or federal social-service database to confirm eligibility and must reverify eligibility every year.

Carriers were required by Jan. 31 to report the number of subscribers they had removed from Lifeline as of the end of last year. The data reviewed by The Wall Street Journal came from those reports.

The FCC said new verification procedures saved nearly $214 million last year, and projected total savings over the next three years would reach $2 billion. Disbursements under the program began to drop in the third quarter after 12 consecutive quarters of increases.

 

[kface]

It's in the nature of a bureaucracy to expand. Governments, both federal and local, need money to grow that bureaucracy (as would any private bureaucracy). It's only limited by the amount of money it can collect.The real problem is us. We have become lethargic in defending our freedoms and in the process have lost our ability to control our own government.It amazes me that people can blame special interest groups. Special interest groups are just a collection of people (large or small) with a common goal. We are the ones that gave the government control over redistribution of half of the country's wealth. The fact that people now flock to it for handouts makes perfect sense.If you want to limit government you have to take away it's power to redistribute wealth. If you want to grow government you give it more power to redistribute wealth. Special interest influence is a function of the latter. You will never disconnect the two. If you want big government then you have to deal with the good and the bad.

That post makes no sense. I realize you are a right wing superhero but size of government has nothing to do with special interest groups. You think if there were five people in government somehow the oil companies would have less sway over policy decisions? Money talks...no matter what the size is. Get the influential money out of politics and you'll get a good government.

 

[Statcruncher]

WSJ link

Millions Improperly Claimed U.S. Phone Subsidies

I got a letter from Lifeline saying that I am violation of their policies because I'm receiving a credit on two phones (landline and our emergency pay-as-you-go phone). I called them and told them I've never signed up with your program. Turns out that even though I don't qualify, because my son has special needs somehow the paperwork got started and they enrolled us. I looked at my bill and sure enough, there is a small credit on each phone every month. I asked the guy on the phone to please remove both my phones from the program and he said he can't do that, I have to write them a letter. I wrote them a letter asking them to please remove both my phones from their program. A month later I got another letter from them saying I am in violation because I'm receiving a credit on two phones.

 

[Joe T]

WSJ link

Millions Improperly Claimed U.S. Phone Subsidies

I got a letter from Lifeline saying that I am violation of their policies because I'm receiving a credit on two phones (landline and our emergency pay-as-you-go phone). I called them and told them I've never signed up with your program. Turns out that even though I don't qualify, because my son has special needs somehow the paperwork got started and they enrolled us. I looked at my bill and sure enough, there is a small credit on each phone every month. I asked the guy on the phone to please remove both my phones from the program and he said he can't do that, I have to write them a letter. I wrote them a letter asking them to please remove both my phones from their program. A month later I got another letter from them saying I am in violation because I'm receiving a credit on two phones.

I think you've pinpointed the problem.

 

[Statcruncher]

WSJ link

Millions Improperly Claimed U.S. Phone Subsidies

I got a letter from Lifeline saying that I am violation of their policies because I'm receiving a credit on two phones (landline and our emergency pay-as-you-go phone). I called them and told them I've never signed up with your program. Turns out that even though I don't qualify, because my son has special needs somehow the paperwork got started and they enrolled us. I looked at my bill and sure enough, there is a small credit on each phone every month. I asked the guy on the phone to please remove both my phones from the program and he said he can't do that, I have to write them a letter. I wrote them a letter asking them to please remove both my phones from their program. A month later I got another letter from them saying I am in violation because I'm receiving a credit on two phones.

I think you've pinpointed the problem.

They will probably correct it by assessing penalties and interest for however long I was errantly getting the credit. My son is 12 and I never noticed the credit until they told me to look for it. I have no idea how many months or years I've been getting it.

 

[Slapdash]

I didn't know Reagan created ObamaPhone.

 

[Jim11]

Pay people to vote? No thanks.

Agreed. Same with people voting to get "paid".

Are you worried about more people voting or do you just not want to incur the expense? If it's the latter you can have a penalty for not voting instead of a check for voting. More people voting is always a positive. The country would be much better off if the demographics of voters more closely tracked the demographics of the overall population.

Poppycock. Too many ill-informed dimwits vote as it is. You should have to get > 110 or 120 on an IQ to be allowed to vote. That way, smart people would be determining who gets elected.An analogy would be a family of 4. Mom, dad and 2 kids, ages 8 & 10. According to your way of thinking, it would be better if all 4 people decided things, instead of just the parents.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Too many people disagree about stuff.

 

[Ilov80s]

Pay people to vote? No thanks.

Agreed. Same with people voting to get "paid".

Are you worried about more people voting or do you just not want to incur the expense? If it's the latter you can have a penalty for not voting instead of a check for voting. More people voting is always a positive. The country would be much better off if the demographics of voters more closely tracked the demographics of the overall population.

Poppycock. Too many ill-informed dimwits vote as it is. You should have to get > 110 or 120 on an IQ to be allowed to vote. That way, smart people would be determining who gets elected.An analogy would be a family of 4. Mom, dad and 2 kids, ages 8 & 10. According to your way of thinking, it would be better if all 4 people decided things, instead of just the parents.

About 16% of the country's population score higher than 110, so that isn't like your situation at all. It would be more like a family of 7 with a father,mother , 4 grown adult children and one baby child all agreeing that only 1 person will have a say in making any family decisions.

 

[Joe T]

The Answer Is a Longer Yellow

Red-light cameras have become a lucrative but corrupt form of taxation.

In Chicago, voters are familiar with human nature. This may explain why no one believes Mayor Rahm Emanuel when he says concern for children is the motive for his promotion of anti-speeding cameras to milk money from the city's motorists.

A Chicago Tribune poll finds even those most inclined to support the cameras were cynical about Mayor Rahm's motives: "Senior citizens and women voters were evenly split on whether they favored or opposed cameras, but they showed broad consensus that they believed Emanuel sought cameras to raise revenue, not save lives."

When governments are engaged in sleazy new forms of taxation, sleaze happens. In fact, speed cameras were the mayor's consolation prize—which he hopes will generate $20 million a year in revenue—when Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn nixed his plea for casino gambling in the city.

And sleaze has happened, not unlike the scandals that two decades ago engulfed the private companies that run state lotteries. Last week three executives of Redflex Traffic Systems, an Australia-owned company that operates Chicago's cameras, were fired over an alleged $2 million graft campaign aimed at the local official who oversaw the city's camera contract, including gifts of Super Bowl tickets and trips to White Sox spring training.

Then again, the reputation of this disguised form of taxation has been plunging everywhere. Los Angeles, amid public outrage, suspended its camera program when it came out that most tickets went to harmless perpetrators of the "California roll"—failing to stop completely before making a legal right on red. Even more so when it was discovered that, in keeping with maximizing profits, the city wasn't chasing down those who didn't pay. Why bother when it's so easy to click off a few more photos and dun those citizen who pay up the moment a ticket arrives in the mail?

Baltimore's camera program has been in turmoil since a November Baltimore Sun investigation revealed that misfiring speed cameras had been allowed to issue tickets to non-speeding and even motionless vehicles.

"If the goal of employing red-light camera systems is to improve driver safety, the data suggest that the program has failed," New Jersey state Sen. Michael Doherty wrote in the Trenton Times in December.

New Jersey's experience shows that revenues fall off sharply once drivers become aware of the cameras—but accidents don't. Serious T-bones at intersections occur not because a driver willfully ignores a red light but because he's not paying attention—which cameras don't help.

Meanwhile, numerous studies, including an in-depth federal report, confirm that red-light cameras are associated with an increase in rear-end collisions as drivers slam on the brakes.

Virtually all now understand that the best way to decrease crashes at problem intersections is a longer yellow. In Tampa, hundreds appear to have received tickets because a busy yellow was set at three seconds when the state minimum is 4.5. In Georgia, after a new state law adding a second to the yellow, several towns canceled their camera programs as no longer profitable.

Highlighted too is the most insidious form of taxation of all: speed limits themselves.

The authoritative National Cooperative Highway Research Program recognizes that "the vast majority of drivers will select a speed that is reasonable, safe, and prudent for a given road." That speed is typically faster than the posted speed limit, so the organization recommends timing yellows for a traffic speed 6.5 miles per hour faster than the posted limit. Most jurisdictions—New Jersey is an exception—still prefer to time their yellows by the posted speed limit. Why? More money for jurisdictions and firms like RedFlex, which often are paid a per-ticket bounty.

All this may seem passé, since robotic cars supposedly soon will be able to drive safer, faster and obey all traffic laws. In fact, traffic will slow down intolerably if robotic cars are programmed to obey speed limits that were originally designed to be ignored except when local governments need to raise money.

A 2008 Detroit News investigation found cops cheerfully acknowledging that they had quotas to fill. In Massachusetts, large sums were spent to widen and re-engineer Route 3 to allow speeds of 68 miles per hour, which drivers promptly adopted by driving at 68. Yet at the insistence of state police, the posted speed limit remained at 55, presumably to facilitate ticket writing.

Chicago's scandal will likely end up just protecting the larger scandal. Many of Mayor Emanuel's new speed cameras won't go in school zones, after all. For the sake of cheaply and quickly getting the cash register ringing, the first speed-detection equipment will be attached to existing red-light cameras.

Chicagoans have nothing on the rest of the country, of course. In New York, traffic-enforcement cameras aren't just about money but about the anti-car agenda of Mayor Mike Bloomberg. But a bigger picture is also becoming clearer: Ticket-racketeering has been, let's just say, a contending motivation with safety since the automobile age was born.

WSJ link

 

[roadkill1292]

All this may seem passé, since robotic cars supposedly soon will be able to drive safer, faster and obey all traffic laws. In fact, traffic will slow down intolerably if robotic cars are programmed to obey speed limits that were originally designed to be ignored except when local governments need to raise money.

I have no issue with most of the opinions in this piece but the above is simplistic and stupid.