Lawn Care for America Now

This weekend, I witnessed a modern American Tragedy. My neighbor, a single mom with two kids, was forced to send her son across the street to our Hispanic neighbors to borrow their lawn mower. She then spent nearly two hours drudging up and down her front lawn, suffering more each time she had to go into the front ditch to mow.

When all was finally done, dark had fallen. She shutdown the lawnmower, called to her son, and instructed him to return the mower to our Hispanic neighbors.

How, I ask you, do we allow someone of these tragic circumstances be forced to mow her own lawn and to beg the use of a mower from immigrants to our great country?

Clearly the free market is not functioning properly. This woman could not afford to pay for what is fundamentally a basic human right: she was unable to hire a professional lawn service, with their superior lawn care knowledge and equipment, to ease this strain on her existence.

That's why I am founding Lawn Care for America Now. Don't let this overburdened single mother suffer, nor the infirmed, nor the elderly, all for want of a few dollars to hire someone to mow their lawns!

The mission of Lawn Care for America Now is to lobby Congress to recognize the fundamental human right of every person to live with dignity by getting access to quality lawn care. Like the recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Congress should pass the Homeowner Protection and Affordable Lawn Care Act (HPALCA).

The HPALCA, like the model PPACA, would provide means-tested subsidies to low-income, disabled, and other disadvantaged citizens so that they can exercise their basic right to quality lawn care.

This bill is very important to the continued vitality of America. Many advantages immediately become obvious:

More Jobs: Lawn care jobs cannot be outsourced. This bill would directly reduce unemployment by increasing the number of lawn care specialists, and increase investment in lawn care capital equipment and durable goods and create related manufacturing jobs (in the U.S.A., naturally).

Improved Health: So many people suffer from lawn-related allergies that the cost of treatment and prevention is measured in the tens of billions. Expensive drugs from profit-seeking drug companies are regularly dispensed to suppress allergic reactions and to thwart asthmatic illness. By reducing the number of people regularly exposed to lawn allergens, this bill would reduce health-related expenditures related to unfortunately allergic people being forced to provide their own lawn care. Further, by shifting the labor to those who are more physically fit for the job, this bill will reduce the incidence rate of heat- and stress-related injuries and illness, which needlessly shorten the lives of those most at risk.

Increased Efficiency: Each year, Americans spend hundreds of millions of hours performing lawn care with inefficiently utilized equipment such as mowers, trimmers, edgers, and more. With low utilization rates, much of the maintenance of this equipment is forgotten, shortening the useful life of these assets. Additionally, ordinary Americans must individually bear the expense of purchasing this equipment, paying a relatively high cost for equipment of minimal effectiveness. Professional lawn care equipment does not suffer from this last penalty, as a little more outlay often brings significant benefits. Sadly these benefits are beyond the means of ordinary Americans. This bill will lower the cost of lawn care by efficiently allocating professional-level equipment to lawn care professionals who will achieve high utilization rates, thereby reducing the risk associated with investment, and will allow lawn care professionals to offer access to more services at more affordable prices.

This bill would necessarily require all homeowners to subscribe to lawn care services provided by licensed lawn care professionals. This requirement would benefit consumers in two ways. First, it would spread the cost of lawn care across a larger subscriber base, making it more affordable to lower income homeowners. Second, it would ensure that the lawn care received by homeowners meets minimal quality standards, providing a form of necessary consumer protection.

The bill would also create new and minor taxes on lawn care equipment and services in order to fund the subsidies for lower income homeowners. These taxes will be borne by the equipment manufacturers and lawn care professionals and their profit-seeking shareholders.

There are some who will say that they enjoy performing their own lawn care. There are others who will say that the subscription requirement will cost them more than their lawn care presently costs. Still more will say that they do not need the level of service anticipated by the bill, being willing to accept a lower standard of lawn care. These are half-truths spread by the opposition, who would leave single mothers like my neighbor to fend for themselves in a harsh and unforgiving world.

Remember my neighbor, your parents and grandparents, the wounded veteran, and those with special needs. Join our cause! Donate generously to our group, so that we can work to influence more with our common cause! Contact your elected officials, and make sure they understand how important the passage of this bill is to the welfare of millions of disadvantaged American homeowners.

Together, we can win!

[EDIT: Added heat- and stress-related injury and illness.]

Government Tilting the Playing Field

Got a postcard from the IRS to my small business today touting "the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", saying that it "could earn you a new tax credit this year for providing health insurance for your employees."

On the reverse, it explains that "eligible small employers could qualify for a credit worth up to 35% of premiums paid in 2010 (for businesses) or 25% of premiums paid (for tax-exempt groups)."

In order to qualify, I must have fewer than 25 employees (more if I have part-time employees), and less than $50,000 in average wages.

Here's my complaint:

My small business (a veterinary hospital) will be open four years in September. We have around ten employees, split around 50-50 between full and part time. This is the minimum staffing for our business to provide the required standard of care, whether we see patients or not (i.e., whether we have revenue or not). Thanks to an unforseen and powerful recession, our profit is less than one week's revenue and incredibly unstable.

My wife is the chief doctor and receives no compensation yet. (No stable, significant profit means no compensation for the doctor-owner). Our second doctor is compensated according to industry standards (approximately 25% of gross production). Our staff is provided a steady number of hours each week at competitive wages to honor their need to keep on budget at home. We provide time off for full-time employees, and hospital discounts for all employees.

The thing is, not one of our employees wants a group health plan. Some are covered under spousal health insurance plans. At least one detests being in a group plan for the extra expense brought by other employees, and so has an individual plan of her own choosing. Our solution is to pay a cash benefit to full-time employees to help cover the costs of health care. There is a provision in the federal tax code that allows this to be tax-free to employees under specific circumstances, otherwise it is treated as additional wages.

Here's the problem: The tax credit offered by the Act does not apply to my business!

How does this tilt the playing field? My competitors who are larger and have group health insurance plans will have a major labor expense subsidized.

I cannot and will not force my employees into a group health plan in order to get this tax credit. They don't want it. It would be an affront to their individual liberty to do so, would be unethical on my part, and would likely be illegal under state and federal law.

Through no action or inaction of my own, my competitors will receive thousands of dollars in subsidies to provide a benefit they already provide out of revenues. In times of rising medical supply costs (even for veterinary hospitals), this subsidy will allow my competitors to consider passing on fewer of these cost increases in their prices. At best, it will provide additional income to the owners at taxpayer expense.

This hardly seems the object of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Yet it is a foreseen (and foreseeable) consequence. The federal government wields blunt instruments.

Our situation is but one of many unintended consequences of governments of all levels intervening in the marketplace. Even local government is not immune to tilting the playing field.

Dan Telvock, writing in his blog on Fredericksburg.com on March 24th and in later posts, details how yet another company is being offered multi-year tax rebates simply for locating in the county. What a slap in the face to the rest of us who have already located businesses in the county! Are the jobs we create less valuable than the jobs another company brings in?

Economists will call this creating incentives at the margin, but there are costs to these incentives. In this case, local government is taking a lot of "little bits" from me and many others to give "a lot of" preferential benefit to one private entity. Furthermore, it arouses ill-will in the existing business community. What assurance do we have that the deal is being considered solely on merit? There can be none!

In truth, the playing field has been crumpled and tilted in so many ways, that it is impossible to know whether the net benefit to my business is more or less than it would be if the field were level. The fact that the situation is so obscure makes possible rent-seeking by lobbyists and "good ole boys". In plain language, it is easier to hide gains from having the field tilted in your direction.

After all, what the public does not know cannot hurt them, right?

Brimstone Hill Fortress National Park

Known as the "Gibraltar of the West Indies", Brimstone Hill was built by the British to defend their "middle third" of St. Kitts. Eventually, they took the whole island, but until not after the French (who had the other two thirds) had taken Brimstone Hill at least once. This is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and is worth the thirty minute drive.

Go early in the morning to avoid the rush from the tourists. (Ahem, we are "explorers" and "travelers" on our journeys; never call us tourists, no matter how much we stick out.)

As usual, get a taxi and ask lots of questions on the drive to and from. We had a taxi driver (Leo's Taxi Service, christopherom at yahoo.com, 869-764-3387) who knew more about his island than we could have dreamed of asking. He also knew a fair amount about American History. As it happened, when we told him we were from Virginia, he grew very excited and exclaimed that it was James Madison's birthday. He asked if we had been to Madison's home (Montpelier)--we have, as it is in neighboring Orange County. This is the kind of experience we treasure, and it is not often found on tour buses.

Departing Basseterre, St. Kitts

Kathy has a very good sense of how to get night shots that bring out an artistic reaction. These two photos were taken as we awaited departure from St. Kitts. We were unexpectedly delayed by three hours as we took on fuel from a barge. This gave us time for astrophotography (didn't turn out too well) and these two samples.

English Harbor, Antigua

This is a view of English Harbor and Falmouth Harbor (beyond the causeway) in Antigua. This photo is taken from one of the three outposts on Shirley's Heights.

In English Harbor proper is Nelson's Dockyard, so named because Admiral Nelson was commander here for some time. The dockyard is a well-preserved historical site that offers insight into the workings of a Caribbean British naval base in the Age of Sail. It is best to first go to Shirley's Heights to watch the worthwhile presentation prepared by the Antiguans.

Whether with a tour group or going independently with a taxi driver, ask lots of questions on the way to this side of the island. It takes about half an hour to get here from St. Johns (the capitol), and cuts through the heart of the island.

A view of Signal Hill on Pigeon Island, St. Lucia

This photo was taken from just below Fort Rodney, on the lower of the two peaks on the island. The resort on the causeway to the island is a Sandals resort.

Part of what is interesting about this picture is the difference in vegetation on the saddle point between the two peaks. On the ocean side (left in photo), the vegetation is rough and scraggly. On the harbor side (right in photo), it is composed of more grasses and trees. I wonder if this is a salt spray effect?

High Dynamic Range Photography: Inside the Cathedral in Old San Juan

This picture was taken inside the cathedral in Old San Juan. This is my first attempt at creating a high(er) dynamic range picture. This is a combination of three photos using "exposure blending." I shot three images, bracketed by 2EV each. In a normal exposure, the madonna in the alcove is washed out. Using this method, as semi-automated by a GIMP script, it was possible to have the full range of detail.

One lesson I learned from several attempts is to use a tripod. In many cases, I shifted or rotated the camera slightly, resulting in an imperfect alignment that is difficult to correct. I gave up on several of my hoped for HDR photos, but I will do better in the future!

A view of the harbor in San Juan, Puerto Rico as it leads past Old San Juan to the sea. This is part of the walking tour of Old San Juan. We are standing right next to the Governor's Mansion (not pictured), one of the oldest dwellings in the New World.

We found that we could drop our luggage at a restaurant named Barrachina, home of the first Pina Colada, located just two blocks from where this picture was taken. Not only are they very nice to hold our luggage (for a nominal "tip", payable in advance), but the food is authentic and excellent. It was a nice way to end our cruise last month, as we waited to depart by plane later in the afternoon.

The View from Signal Hill, Pigeon Island, Saint Lucia

This image is a panoramic that I put together using Panorama Factory and shots from the top of Signal Hill on Pigeon Island in Saint Lucia. It's quite a hike to get to the top of this hill, but the view is spectacular.

Many years ago, when the Rodney Bay marina was constructed, they removed the sand and used it to build a causeway linking the island to the mainland. Since then, Sandals resorts has built a lovely hotel on the causeway, which some of the locals resent encroaching on this even lovelier historic national park.

This island has a lot of history. It was fortified by the British as a defense (and implied threat) against the French on the nearby island of Martinique. Fort Rodney, on the lower peak of the island, was the primary walled defense, supported by gun emplacements in the saddle between the two peaks. Signal Hill was used to display large signal flags on a tall flagpole so that distant friendly ships could receive messages. Near the present causeway are the ruins of the extensive headquarters and support buildings built to support the island as a major naval base.

Regrettably, Saint Lucia is undergoing an extreme drought, so all the foliage and underbrush is dry and brown. This is most unusual for this island, which normally boasts extensive rainfall and lush vegetation. The situation is so dire that the government is rationing water, cutting off service to various areas for several days at a time, unannounced and for uncertain duration each time. The locals still use water barrels, and so are generally able to coast through each rationing period. Nevertheless, it puts an incredible strain on their ability to host tourists, which is by far their greatest export.

Kathy and I hope to return to Saint Lucia a third time, when there is more rain and more green. Until then, we pray for them to receive good rains.

Quote of the Day: The Slaughter Rule

"Why not just get rid of the Constitution altogether, adopt the sham legislative procedures of a banana republic, and drop the pretense that we are a nation governed by the rule of law and certain specifically prescribed political procedures? That would be preferable to enduring this current charade and insult to the electorate being undertaken by the Democrats." --Guy Jones, commenting on the article referenced below.

Read more at the Washington Examiner

Quote of the Day

"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with most unnecessary attention but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."

-- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Volume 1

Justin Wehr asks philosophical questions

Wehr in the World is asking questions about wisdom.

Here are the questions and the answers that I submitted:

Question 1: What is a good parent?
A good parent realizes that their life was fundamentally altered when their child was conceived. They re-prioritize their life to make the education (in knowledge and wisdom) of their child(ren) their most valuable long-term goal. They are, in fact, influencing the life of their child(ren), their own life (in the event of age or disability), the lives of everyone their child(ren) will come into profound contact with, and very probably a line of succeeding generations. A good parent balances the individual needs of the child(ren) with familial and societal needs, which vary by person, family, and culture. This involves constant discipline and action. In the end, a good parent teaches their child(ren) to be independent thinkers and doers, capable of achievment.

Question 2: How can one tell if one is in love or infatuated?
Infatuation is a gut reaction of desire; not wrong or right, it just is. Love is something altogether more difficult to comprehend. There are many types of love--for self, for parents and siblings, for spouse, for children, for friends, for ideas, for country, etc. The distinguishing characteristic about love is the presence of the spirit of "giving" in addition to "desire."

Question 3: How much love should one have for oneself?
Enough to appreciate one's qualities, but not so much that one becomes prideful. Enough to accept one's faults, but not so much that one never strives to improve.

Question 4: Should one worry what other people think?
Worry? No. Be concerned? Maybe. Any action one takes that affects the well-being of others should involve concern. Otherwise, it is probably not any of their business, and concern on their behalf is a waste of effort.

Question 5: What should one do when anxious?
Pray. Seek counsel from references, either books or people, from memory or otherwise. These things and people are called "references" for a reason, as they provide a reference point for our own feelings, knowledge and experience. Anxiety is tied to impending uncertainty or unpleasantness, neither of which one wants to experience. Mastering the anxiety is the key to continuing on. Mitigating the causes of the anxiety and their effects provides action, which is soothing in and of itself. Just don't give up.

Question 6: How should one deal with death?
Above all, with honesty. If another has died, one must accept what has occurred, regardless of why. One must move on with life or else follow the deceased. If one's own death is pending, one must accept what will occur, regardless of why. One must complete preparations for death if possible, but once that is concluded (or while it is in others' hands), one should embrace the life that remains.

Question 7: What should one do if one is shy?
Find and hold fast a small group of close friends and family. There is no need to be outgoing with everyone, so long as one has at least one other person in life as a good and true friend. Do what must be done in public life, be polite with all, but be not ashamed for being shy.

Question 8: How should one end a relationship?
I have never done this properly, and consider myself unwise in this respect.

Question 9: How can one live happily with other people?
I am still learning how to do this, and consider myself unwise in this respect.

Roger Ebert

This wonderful look at the life of Roger Ebert caught my attention. What I find most amazing is that a man who has endured so much pain can still find so much joy in life.

Because he can no longer speak, he writes notes on scraps of paper or has his computer speak his words. What is interesting is the effect on his anger. He will still become angry, but the moment passes him more quickly because of the effort required to communicate it. Perhaps there is wisdom in counting to ten before releasing our anger, as it may really evaporate more often than not.

Also quite moving is the story of his relationship with Gene Siskel, his first television partner. He has spent considerable time in his online journal remembering Gene. They were opposites in many ways, argued much, but were connected somehow by a shared destiny. They were the best of friends until the day Gene Siskel died. While showing to an interviewer the journal entry containing a video of his first show after Gene's death, the video was unexpectedly reported deleted. This sent Ebert into a towering rage, typing on his computer the equivalent of "standing on the street corner ... arching his back and ... shouting at the top of his lungs." I have no doubt that whoever deleted the content received hell for it soon after.

Roger Ebert does not believe in any afterlife. He knows that he is "dying in increments." But he goes on living and working and enjoying what is left of his life.

I do believe in the afterlife. This will not stop me from drawing a lesson from Roger Ebert's life:

My belief in a paradise after death should not stop me from "sucking the marrow" from the life I have on earth, no matter how good or bad my life becomes. This does not mean, "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die." Rather, I should treat life as a precious gift and not let a moment go to waste in despair and despondency. "To despair is to turn one's back on God." It also wastes the gift of life.

Bonus: Here is a review of the Esquire article linked above. It records some of Ebert's reaction to the article. It seems to have been cathartic.

The Law and the Profits: Part 4

Finishing up Chapter 1. This is such a rich chapter that I don't mind having spent four posts getting through it and the preface.

To summarize all that went before, "the public revenue is regarded as limitless[,] and expenditure rises eternally to meet it, and the various devices which are supposed to check expenditure fail to do so, being wrongly conceived and imperfectly motivated."

What to do? "[R]e-motivate the people actually concerned, penalizing the extravagance we now reward and rewarding the economy we now penalize."

The crux of it is this: "Ministers should not begin by ascertaining what the departments need. They should begin by asking what the country can afford to spend." Much like household budgeting.

Without specifying a value for the ideal tax revenue to GDP ratio (more in chapter 6), he identifies this as a critical metric. "What proportion of the national income should the government demand? What proportion of the individual's income can the government safely take? And what happens when that proportion is exceeded?" He asserts that economists have been actively shying away from this problem, which has the unfortunate side effect of letting government believe that "where government expenditure is concerned, the sky is the limit." I have read many news articles recently where the ratio problem is accepted as true and bearing real adverse consequences. Perhaps this is a sign that economists are not shy about this problem any longer.

The natural advantage of this method of tax revenue budgeting is that it necessarily limits expenditure. This makes it easier for the legislature to allocate funds, under ideal circumstances. This is a consistent grain of salt that must be applied while reading this book: Prof. Parkinson sounds a lot like an idealist, and may very well have been. This can undermine his suggestions on grounds of impracticality, although he often anticipates this response (especially from the civil service) and offers advice on how to get round the opposition.

The second advantage is that expenditure can (should?) become flexible within each department and sub-unit. The reason for this is as follows: Ministers are responsible for achieving goals; more goals can be accomplished on a fixed budget if ministers economize; if promotions are based jointly on economy and goal achievement, then ministers (and subordinates) are competitively prodded in the direction of less inefficiency and waste.

To oversee the ministers, the Treasury department, instead of "divided control", can employ the "strong leash of account and audit." (This creates an efficiency in and of itself by eliminating a lot of overhead.) The minister is then "compelled to accept responsibility, free to display initiative[,] and forced to recognize that cost and value are but two aspects of the same idea."

As mentioned in an earlier post, enlisting the public (as the ultimate overseer of government) is vital in the prevention of waste. He suggests an official tribunal, composed of private citizens and at least one government representative, to receive all proposals for saving money. Upon detailed review of each proposal, including hearings with the public and with the affected departments, they can conclude the feasibility. Each favorable decision would lead to a "ministerial order to the department concerned to reduce its future allocation by the amount to be saved." The tribunal would also reward each successful applicant, such as through tax credits proportionally related to the amount of the saving. He also suggests that all savings be used to repay the national debt. It seems clear that the savings that would go through the tribunal are sizeable compared to the savings that each minister might find within their own department as part of the goal achievement competition.

To combat the "formidable opposition"-- "a closed phalanx of civil servants representing one of the strongest vested interests in the world"--there is not yet in the book a suggestion for victory. There is a history of rebuffed reform attempts from 1570 onward, a brief chronicle of the rise of "esoterrorism" (a blend of "esoterics" and "terrorism"). "Let no one imagine that this citadel will yield to the first assault. Let no one doubt, however, that it will yield to the last."

Next time, the types of taxes through history.

"Why are liberals so condescending?"

I was startled to come across this article in the Washington Post asking the question, "Why are liberals so condescending?" Within, Gerard Alexander examines statements from the 1950's forward that cast conservatism as "more of a psychiatric disorder than a rival."

Comments were closed, so it is difficult to know how other readers are responding to the article. I don't believe that every liberal is condescending, just as I believe that not every conservative is without guilt in destroying civility in public discourse. It is definitely a problem, however, when liberals appear to be running two out of three branches of the federal government.

I may not be the most intellectual conservative-libertarian, but I do not need liberal pity and condescension for my beliefs. I'd like to see leading liberals (and conservatives and libertarians) roll up their sleeves and talk about more facts and fewer opinions.

Here is a response article from Dan Kennedy in the U.K.

The State of the Union: Campaign Finance

Last night, the President stated:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people.

He received much applause from the floor, but earned a quiet "Not true" from Justice Alito.

Laying aside the issue of trying to intimidate the Justices and whether corporations are politically "people", there is a simple flaw in the President's argument. He fails to acknowledge the behavior of national and state parties and associations in crossing state and district lines respectively to imbalance elections. Imagine a scenario where House candidates only receive funds and volunteer assistance from within their district, and where Senate candidates only receive funds and volunteer assistance from within their state. This is a fantasy, far removed from the truth of how campaigns are financed.

Let's face facts. The national parties are special interests in local and state races. Out-of-state corporations and associations are "foreign entities" under state laws. We have the fundamental rights to associate and to petition our government for redress of grievances. (Together, these rights allow us to try to get our candidates elected--the ultimate opportunity for redress of grievances.)

It is hypocrisy to point out the mote in someone else's eye and ignore the log in your own. If you want to clean up campaign finance, examine out-of-state and out-of-district contributions. By definition, that means that you are examining foreign contributions.

Tax Time Stinks

Forget the winter blues. I've got the taxation blues.

I'm busy closing my year-end accounts for tax filings for my businesses. Every January (and at the beginning of each quarter--January is just the worst) I really hate having to be Uncle Sam's and the Commonwealth of Virginia's uncompensated tax collector. Last year I got smart and paid my accountant to do the annual payroll tax filings (W-2's, 1099's, etc.).

Has anyone ever sent government an invoice for tax collection services rendered? Had it paid? Does this make me a slave to my government?

And it will only get worse for me if Congress passes the health insurance reform bill. I hope that Brown wins in Massachusetts, and that the Democrats don't use reconciliation to pass the bill without cloture.

Please, God. Put an end to it! I don't want to suffer more!

The Tolkien Professor

A friend of mine sent me this wonderful site containing an ongoing series of podcasts about J.R.R. Tolkien and his writings. The author writes concerning himself and the site:

My name is Corey Olsen. I am a professor of medieval literature and an English PhD, and I have been a student of Tolkien’s works for as long as I can remember. On this website, I am posting a series of FREE audio lectures on Tolkien’s major works for you to download and listen to on your computer, your iPod, or wherever. I hope you have as much fun listening to my lectures as I have making them!

He is not too far along, so it won't take long for you to catch up.

Quote of the Day

"Apathy and inertia are the handmaidens of indifference."

--Over the Hedge comic strip, 9 January 2010

The Law and the Profits, Part 3

Still in chapter 1.

Professor Parkinson relates the general process of government budgeting: The civil servants create the budgets in such a way that the previous year's dollars are adjusted for inflation, and then a percentage is added for good measure. These values trickle up to the Treasury, at which point revenues are allocated to meet budgetary demand. The legislature plays a role in the authorization and allocation, but if the system of accounts is not robust (as it was in Britain despite major reform efforts in 1666, 1689, 1826-29, and 1904), then the legislatures role is practically limited.

The United States federal government has spent many years attempting to improve its system of accounts, yet after so long still regularly fails to modernize and make reliable the financial systems at key departments. (See the Financial Report of the United States, past and current, specifically the auditor's reports.) Having read the U.S. financial reports for nearly a decade, it is clear that progress is being made. Nevertheless, politics interferes with budgeting reform. A fascinating paper by Theresa Kohler of Virginia Tech examines some of the major problems of legislative involvement in budgeting, and reviews some concepts for improvement. A list of recommendations from the Heritage Foundation identifies seven steps for current budget reform. Parkinson has his own suggestion for reform, which is stated simply: "Ministers should not begin by ascertaining what the departments need. They should begin by asking what the country can afford to spend." This is after all the basis for household and business budgeting; why not the government as well? More in part 4.

The U.S. is a long way from the Britain of Parkinson's time (1957), and yet we are still very close in many ways. He states, "The accepted principle is that new expenditure is watched by the Treasury, old expenditure by the departments themselves." In the U.S., most budgeting is done by incremental changes to the baseline, which is determined by the departments. New allocations are an amalgam of legislative and departmental desire. There is so much happening in the federal budget that the 535 people who are our representatives cannot know what is going on in any significant detail. Therefore, they must deal in "deltas" from baseline, allowing what presently is spent to continue to be spent. This is the reason that few government programs are ever ended despite the clear end (successful or not) of their mission. It is simply too difficult to identify these living-dead programs and to end them. Now, in modern times, using the internet as a tool, some efforts to bring transparency to the federal budget are having the effect of allowing more citizens to review the budget and to make their voices heard concerning the waste. What remains to be seen is whether politicians will have the political fortitude to end the waste.

Parkinson writes concerning the watchdog,

"The ordinary taxpayer is often in a better position to know about waste in administration than either the politician or the journalist. For one thing, he may himself be employed in the [government program]. It is theoretically in his interest as well as his duty to come forward and denounce extravagance when he sees it. He does nothing of the kind, and that for two distinct reasons. In the first place, he stands to gain nothing but unpopularity and abuse, being likely to be regarded as at best a crank, at worst a spy. In the second place, he knows perfectly well that the money saved in one direction will certainly be wasted in another. Nothing he can do will reduce the tax he has to pay. So he wisely decides to say nothing and keep the good opinion of his neighbors. In matters of public expenditure no help is to be expected from the public at large unless the informant is personally rewarded and at the same time assured that all savings will go to the reduction of the taxes to which he is subject."

He did not foresee the internet, nor the rise of watchdog groups. He saw the heroic individual standing up for what is right in the face of "unpopularity and abuse." The watchdog groups still receive "unpopularity and abuse," but the effect is diluted and easier to individually bear. There is strength in numbers, and I must caution that not all interest groups are evil or self-interested.

Next time, how much taxation can a country afford, and what types of taxation are appropriate?