Bacon's Rebellion

General Motors, long considered by some as a hopeless dinosaur, seems to be embarking on an historic comeback. It launched an Initial Public Offering of new stock for the first time in 18 months and on the first day of trading, shares were up nearly 7 percent.

Soon-to-be House Majority Leader Eric Cantor promises to bring a results-oriented approach to governing in Washington, reports Tyler Whitley with the Times-Dispatch.

“This will not be a spring of 100 days or 100 hours, but rather a long march, requiring top-to-bottom reform, focused on producing results in three key areas,” he said: cutting spending, shrinking the size of government, and removing the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the private sector.

He’s talking the talk. Let’s hope he walks the walk.

Virginians can rest assured that there are at least two serious budget cutters in Washington, D.C.: Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Their draft budget-balancing plan issued Wednesday gores so many oxen and butchers so many sacred cows that the Chicago Board of Trade would be well advised to suspend trading on cattle futures.

So where does AntiPartisanism stand after the mid-term elections?

Well first, based on the comments from Jim B and Groveton to the ONE MORE DAY post, plus those heard from via other channels, six Bacon’s Rebellion ‘regulars’ followed Rule One or Rule Two of the AntiPartisan Voters Guide. Not bad for a start.

However, something much more important came up in the dialogue following ONE MORE DAY. Mr. Bacon’s observed that his vote was often cancelled out by that of his wife.

That observation is tremendously important!

It is important, not just because it also happens in many other Households about which EMR has direct knowledge, it is important because it indicates what is wrong with partisan political activity in general.

Mr. and Mrs. Bacon obviously can come to agreement on a number of major issues that impact the existence of, and what is in the best interest of, the Bacon Household, but not on Clan politics.

The contention at SYNERGY is that humans are running out of the surplus natural capital that in the past has allowed citizens the luxury of relying on COMPETITION ALONE to allocate resources.

As noted in the current Beta Draft of PRIMER:

………..

PRIMER can also be seen in a larger context:

For the last two centuries the citizens and their Organizations in the US have been propelled by a philosophy of consumption:

Consumption is good and more consumption is better.

This ethic is based on the illusion that the US was blessed with infinite resources and unlimited ‘opportunity.’ This is the mantra popularized and politicized of Andrew Jackson. It has been reinforced by the Myth that UberGrowth driven prosperity raises all boats.

In the context of these illusions, Mass OverConsumption has been seen as ‘progress.’ This is spite of a long tradition of pointing out the practical and moral shortcomings of these perspectives. For example see The Waste Makers by Vance Packard and The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism by Daniel Bell. More recently, see Deep Economy by Bill McKibben which includes a complete disembowelment of The Moral Consequences of Growth by Benjamin M. Friedman. Also see the sources cited in Chapters 6, 7, 10 and 23 of THE SHAPE OF THE FUTURE and Chapter 24 “Greed, Excess, Ignorance, Myths, Entitlements, Windfalls and Subsidies” in PART SEVEN of TRILO-G.

Now, the US, the First World and the planet are beginning to embrace the reality of FINITE limits to human consumption. In many nation-states humans are already be in Overshoot. Peak Petroleum is a reality but so are diminishing stores of other limited resources such as some metals, ‘rare earths’ and fossil water.

Leading indicators of natural system resilience – e.g. biological diversity and climate – are growing more negative. Supposedly ‘renewable’ resources – fisheries, top soil, potable surface water and rechargeable water tables, timber and other natural systems upon which humans rely are in decline and some are beyond the point of restoration without grave hardship to those that rely on the dwindling resource base. The fantasy of importing resources from the Moon and beyond is the last gasp of irrationality.

At a minimum, in the future ALL resources will cost more because they will be harder to recover and to renew. The end of cheap energy to drive a technologically-advanced civilization is the bellwether.

Equally important is the PACE of human activity. It is not just the rate of consumption but the frenetic pace of activity – productive and anti-productive that is of concern. This includes the pursuit of entertainment that robs citizens of the time and energy to make rational decisions in the voting booth and in the marketplace. This hyper activity acts as a driver of societal dysfunction.

It is not just MORE AND MORE, but MORE AND MORE, FASTER AND FASTER that has been seen as an excuse for Business-As-Usual ‘growth’ and Mass OverConsumption. For a splendid exposition of this reality, see the feature length movie Home at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU (Thank You Groveton!)

………

Page 1 of the 7 November Outlook section of WaPo has a clever do-it-yourself Elephant / Donkey reconciliation exercise: Fold the page and ‘discover’ “Compromise,” “Harmony,” “Unity,” “Middle Ground” and, a SYNERGY favorite “Balance.”

If the two adult voters in the Bacon Household can come to consensus on a wide array of decisions but not on partisan politics, the fault lies in the concept of two party competition being a rational way to determine the public interest in the 21st century.

That is a very important indicator!!

EMR

(From today’s Washington Times, online edition):

As the old saying goes, be careful what you pray for: The gods just may grant you your wish. Republicans fervently hoped for a return to power, and the political furies granted them their biggest win in six decades. Now the GOP must make good on its promises to cut spending, reduce deficits and stabilize the national debt.

Here’s the big question that no one asked during the campaign season: How much fiscal consolidation in the form of spending cuts and/or tax increases must Congress enact to put the nation back on a financially sustainable course?

In its Pledge to America, the GOP House leadership vowed to roll back government spending “to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels,” thus saving $100 billion in the first year alone and “putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt.”

Putting us on a path to paying down the debt? Whoever composed that line must have stayed up way too late and taken way too much No-Doz. It’s blather. Rolling back spending $100 billion a year won’t accomplish anything.

In the 10-year forecast submitted with the midyear review of the fiscal 2011 budget, President Obama already assumes a $75 billion reduction in discretionary spending between 2011 and 2012, thanks to resumed economic growth, reduced unemployment and reduced entitlement payouts to the poor.

House Republicans might respond that the pledge also promises to put a “hard cap” on domestic discretionary spending to limit federal spending on an annual basis. Yet Mr. Obama, in his State of the Union address, already vowed to impose a three-year freeze on discretionary domestic spending. In his 10-year forecast, he sees such spending topping out at $533 billion in 2011 (the current fiscal year) declining to $459 billion in 2014, and rising slowly to $529 billion over the next six years.

In other words, House Republicans swore in their pledge to accomplish little more than Mr. Obama already has committed to deliver. (Read more.)

Meredith Whitney is on the warpath against out-of-control state spending. The banking analyst warns today in the Wall Street Journal that a wave of municipal defaults and indiscriminate bond selling will prompt the next big federal bailout. Indeed, she writes, the bailout has already begun.

More than 20% of California’s debt issurance in 2009 and 30% in 2010 to date has been subsidized by the federal Build America Bonds program, in which Uncle Sam covers 35% of the interest paid by the bonds. The BABs have subsidized an even higher percentage of bonds issued by Illinois and Nevada.

But debt subsidies are the tip of the iceberg. Writes Whitney:

General federal government transfers to states now stand at the highest levels on record. Traditionally, state revenues were primarily comprised of sales, personal and corporate income taxes. Over the years, however, federal government transfers have subsidized business-as-usual state spending not covered by state tax collections. Today more than 28% of state funding comes from federal government transfers, the highest contribution on record.

Get this: New York state expenditures represented 250% of its tax creceipts over the past decade. The figure for the 15 largest states by GDP was 220%. “Clearly,” says Whitney, “states have been spending at unsustainable levels without facing immediate consequences due to federal transfer payments and other temporary factors.”

Doo doo, as the saying goes, rolls downhill. Local governments depend upon state government transfers for 33% of their funding. If the federal government has to cut aid to states, the states will likely cut aid to localities. Expect a huge uproar from entrenched political interests when the house of cards collapses.

That day is not far off. States are staring at the second consecutive year of $200 billion budget shortfalls. Says Whitney: “Rainy day funds are depleted, pension-fund contributions are already at record lows, and almost all of the major federal government subsidy programs will run out in June 2011.”

One of the early tests of the new Congress will be whether or not to bail out the states and municipalities. If Congress refuses to act, we could see that wave of state and municipal bankruptcies. If Congress buckles, it opens up giant barrel of moral hazard.

Virginia’s General Assembly has hardly covered itself with glory when it comes to spending, but it has been less reckless than most states. We don’t need a bailout. And our elected representatives should not vote to approve bailouts for states that are chronically undisciplined and profligate. I’ll be following this issue closely, and I won’t be the only one. If any Virginia congressmen vote to bail out other states, they can expect one heck of a voter backlash.

CNN say’s 75 percent of the voters want to throw the bums out.

Well known political analyst Brewster Rockit goes one better:

“Don’t Let the Bums in.”

The ANTIPARTISAN VOTERS GUIDE – YEAR ONE

With Federal mid-term elections looming tomorrow and important contests facing voters in many states, please memorize The ANTIPARTISAN VOTERS GUIDE – YEAR ONE.

The ANTIPARTISAN VOTERS GUIDE for the inaugural year of the AntiPartisan campaign can be reduced to four simple rules:

1. If the incumbent is a Donkey Clan member, vote for the Elephant Clan candidate UNLESS there is a creditable non-aligned candidate* who can win.

2. If the incumbent is an Elephant Clan member, vote for the Donkey Clan candidate UNLESS there is a creditable non-aligned candidate* who can win.

3. If the office in question is ‘open,’ vote for the Donkey Clan member, UNLESS there is a creditable non-aligned candidate* who can win.

4. In the rare instance where there are two creditable non-aligned candidates* who can win and one is a lawyer, vote for the other one.

*‘Non-aligned candidates’ include all candidates who have formally and irrevocably renounced partisan Clan affiliation.

A BRIEF EXPOSITION OF THE FOUR VOTERS GUIDE RULES

On the first two rules:

Most voters would feel better about themselves if they voted for someone they believed REALLY wanted to make the world a better place for someone besides the candidate, his / her Clan and the Clan’s financial backers. However, it is not prudent to waste votes on someone who has no chance of winning UNLESS the candidate is an avowed AntiPartisan candidate that supports Fundamental Transformations. In this case, every vote WILL count, even if the candidate does not win.

On the third rule:

Voting for the Donkey Clan candidate in open contests will avoid the GRIDLOCK that would result from a Donkey Clan administration and Elephant Clan legislature at the Federal level. Citizens of the US do have two years to waste on more governance gridlock.

One should not worry that a single Clan would control both administration and legislature. The goal, for reasons spelled out below, is Transformation, NOT gridlock. Voting out ALL the Clan-aligned incumbents will send a clear enough message that Business-As-Usual is not an acceptable strategy.

On the fourth rule:

Shakespear stated the proper strategy with respect to lawyers and he was centuries ahead of the most egregious problems caused by ‘the bar.’ However, the Bard’s strategy must be broadened to reflect 21st century reality:

Society must evolve to rely the actions of citizens, not the actions of agents, surrogates and unaccountable / unresponsive ‘representatives.’

With respect to governance, citizens must have representatives who understand the need for solutions that meet the needs of the vast majority, NOT representatives who are trained in the art of advocacy for client that are, by definition, WRONG HALF THE TIME.

It is clear that the enlightened interest of the vast majority of citizens INCLUDES respecting the legitimate interests of ALL minorities.

Note: These rules reflect the view voters in ‘swing districts’ as documented by “In Swing Districts, Old is Out and New is In: Seniority no longer prized as more voters demand results.” WaPo 15 October 2010 Page A-1. The key problem will come from entrenched candidates.

Some suggest term limits would address the problem of entrenched Clan candidates. Term limits are nothing more than an excuse to postpone Fundamental Transformations in governance structure.

It is the STRUCTURE that is the problem. It matters far less WHO is in office.

Within a transformed governance structure, term limits would be an integral component of any fair the system. That is not because term limits remove dead wood but because they encourage office holders to change venues, change perspectives and change Estates.

In addition, term limits would provide an incentive for those with good ideas and initiative to move up – from Community manager to Regional cabinet member to MegaRegional legislator to Continental chief executive – even it they do not change Estates.

EMR

I’ve been pretty tough on my alma mater in the Bacon’s Rebellion blog, but I’m detecting positive auras and penumbra emanating from Charlottesville these days. In a recent speech, Meredith Woo, dean of the College of Arts & Sciences at the University of Virginia, said some surprising things. First, she extolled the value of “virtue and character” — concepts that I thought had largely died out in Higher Education as hopelessly antiquated, bourgeois and politically incorrect. It’s good to know that someone still champions them.

Further, Woo indicated a willingness to make the kind of hard choices that leading universities must make in order to constrain costs while also pursuing excellence. Reading between the lines, I see her taking a page out of the business playbook. UVa, she seems to say, should reallocate resources from fields that generate a return on investment to fields that generate a higher rate of return.

As we remap the intellectual strengths of the College, we also need to make choices about the areas—or subfields—that need to be accentuated and nurtured, as we prune weak or unnecessary branches. No university has every possible department and no department has every possible subfield. We will endeavor to be known for the fields and subfields—some old, some new—in which we have unquestionable strength.

Virginia universities as leaders in the 21st century free speech movement? Who woulda thunk it? Kudos to the new university presidents, Teresa Sullivan at the University of Virginia and Taylor Revely at William and Mary (replacing the smarmy William Casteen and odious Gene Nichol respectively) for taking stands against the banning of politically incorrect speech. How refreshing it is to have something good to say about the executive leadership of our top universities for a change!

Details come from this release by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE):

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va., October 28, 2010—This week, the University of Virginia (UVa) confirmed that it had eliminated the last of its policies that unconstitutionally restricted the free speech of students and faculty members. While more than two-thirds of the nation’s colleges maintain policies that clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech, UVa is now a proud exception, having fully reformed four speech codes. UVa has now earned a coveted “green light” rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

“President Teresa Sullivan and her staff should be commended for making these simple but important changes to guarantee the First Amendment rights of students and faculty members at the University of Virginia,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “Within three months of taking office, President Sullivan has overseen the transformation of UVa from a school that earned FIRE’s worst ‘red light’ rating for restricting protected speech to our highest ‘green light’ rating. We hope that more colleges will follow UVa’s sterling example and reform their codes to protect free speech.”

FIRE began working with UVa in April 2010 after a FIRE lecture on free speech at UVa, which was hosted by UVa student groups Students for Individual Liberty and Liberty Coalition. FIRE detailed objections to UVa’s speech codes at the time in a letter to Dean of Students Allen W. Groves on April 7. UVa student Virginia Robinson, a 2010 FIRE Summer Intern, also helped persuade UVa to reform its speech codes.

First, Dean Groves reformed UVa’s “Just Report It!” “bias reporting” system to promise students that protected speech will not be “subject to University disciplinary action or formal investigation” even if it is reported. Then, Assistant Vice President for Information Security, Policy, and Records Shirley Payne removed unconstitutional language from a policy prohibiting Internet messages that “vilify” others and mailing list messages that are “inappropriate.”

Finally, UVa’s Women’s Center confirmed that it had removed two policies with unconstitutional examples of “sexual harassment” from its website. The examples stated that “jokes of a sexual nature,” “teasing,” and even mere “innuendo” constituted sexual harassment. The policies further suggested that simple flirting could be sexual harassment if it was not “wanted and mutual,” and that if a person felt “disrespected,” their experience “could indicate sexual harassment.”

UVa joins its fellow Virginia public institution The College of William & Mary (W&M) in an elite group of 13 “green light” schools. W&M earned its “green light” in October 2009. FIRE is now turning its attention to three more Virginia public universities, including George Mason, which has a “red light” policy, and James Madison and Virginia Tech, which have “yellow light” policies that threaten free speech. …

The Obama administration has doled out a record amount of college loans this year to help students cope with the affordability crisis in college tuitions. Meanwhile, college tuitions became even more unaffordable. Gee, do you think there could be a connection?

Uncle Sam gave out $28.2 billion in Pell grants to students in the 2009-2010 school year, almost $10 billion more than the previous year. Since taking office, President Obama has increased spending on student aid by nearly 50%, to $145 billion total year, reports the Wall Street Journal.

“But college affordability remains a problem,” says writer Stephanie Banchero. Gee, do ya think? From 2000 to 2010, tuition and fees at four-year institutions increased an average of 5.6% faster than the inflation rate. Apologists for higher ed blame cutbacks in state appropriations, which declined 5% in 2009-2010. “There’s only so much cutting you can do before institutions suffer in fundamental ways,” weeps Terry Hartle, an official with the America Council on Education, a higher-ed lobbying group.

Cutting? Did the man say “cutting?” Higher ed has been one of the great growth industries of the 2000s. In a quick Internet search, I failed to turn up long-term historical data on higher education revenues, but I did uncover some figures covering the school years between 2003/4 and 2006/07 from the National Center for Education Statistics. During those three years, which appear to be representative of later years, total operating expenditures for all U.S. institutions of higher education increased 16.0% (in real, inflation adjusted dollars) over that three-year span.

Where did the money go? Here are the spending categories that came out ahead:

Instructional wages and salaries — 16.8%
Auxiliary enterprises — 17.8%
Institutional support — 19.0%
Academic support — 19.9%
Student services — 20.6%
Operations & Maintenance — 25.4%

Here were the relative losers:

Public service — 13.5%
Research — 11.7%
Scholarships & fellowships — 9.6%

Four of the most administration-intensive categories — institutional support, academic support, student services, operations & maintenance — raked in the most money. (For a definition of the categories, see “Trends in College Spending,” pages 19-20.) In other words, those higher tuition payments and bigger college loans are going largely to expand higher ed bureaucracies. But don’t worry, faculty members appear to be well taken care of. As for making college more affordable through scholarships and fellowships, who do you think colleges exist for? The students? Get real.

When higher ed spokesmen whine about “hardship” and “cuts,” they’re talking about the bitter, cruel, punishing years when expenditures increase only 1% or 2% faster than the general inflation rate. The faculty and administrators in the world of higher ed are one of the most protected classes in the American economy. No wonder the campus crew is overwhelming Democrat and liberal — they are the beneficiaries of one of the most expansive income transfer schemes in the nation. And who is paying for it? We, the taxpayers… We, the parents of college students… And the college grads who enter the working world with massive student loans.

Through the mechanism of runaway college tuitions, Middle America is subsidizing an intellectual elite that trashes our values, mocks our way of life, advocates the politics of wealth redistribution and transforms our children into a 21st century version of indentured servants. Tuition payers of the world, unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains!