$50,000 or $1,000,000 - What's The Difference?

It seems federal government executives deal with such very large budget numbers daily that they lose any sensitivity to their value. If you talk in terms of Billions and sometimes Trillions (the debt) of dollars, a mere one Million dollars is a very small number. According to a November 3, 2011 report by Bloomberg reporter Jim Snyder,

“'Lazard [Lazard Ltd.-a financial advisory firm] advised that no further capital be allocated from the government to Solyndra,' George Bilicic, vice chairman of investment banking at Hamilton, Bermuda-based Lazard, said in an interview today. 'We didn’t think it made economic sense.'

Bilicic said he delivered the advice to administration officials on an Aug. 28 conference call. U.S. officials rejected the restructuring plan, and Solyndra closed a day later.

$1 Million Advice

The department paid Lazard about $1 million for its advice on Solyndra, according to Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman."

There are plenty of highly competent financial advisory firms in the U.S., plenty of whom could have arrived at that analysis and advice for, say, $50,000. But when $1 million sounds like pocket change, who is going to question the bill?

The federal government needs private auditing firms reviewing its budgets and bids. Where is the independent monitoring that should be required, especially of an entity (the federal government) that has no profit/loss internalized control system and that spends other people's money?

Economic Birth Control

I read an article a couple of days ago that noted that births to unwed teens have declined in response, it is hypothesized, to the worsening economy and lack of jobs.

A logical analysis of this economic response to want would be that a policy of providing less financial support to such families would result in fewer such births.

Just a thought.

Laboratories of Democracy; Outside Interference in Local Experiments

The Governors of Wisconsin and Ohio, Scott Walker and John Kasich, both supported bills designed to curb public sector union power. One (Wisconsin) won and one (Ohio) lost. Both were vehemently and expensively opposed by union money, much of it from out-of-state.

1. This exemplifies the practice of state-level experimentation - a strength of Federalism.

This appears to me to be a classic example of states testing different solutions to a common problem, in this case the unions' strangulation of state budgets. Walker's proposal excluded police and firefighters, Kasich's was all-inclusive. The perennial defense of taxes and budgets is that certain popular public services will be cut - libraries, police, firemen, schools, parks. (There is never talk of increasing efficiency and reducing duplication and waste in government office administrative expenses.) So by excluding some of these excuses for voting against the bill, Walker managed to get his to squeak through. Kasich did not. Two versions were tested; one worked and one did not.

These results provide other states with empirical outcomes they can study before trying similar efforts. Federalism and democracy in action.

2. This also demonstrates the potential for corruption of local legislating by imported money.

Much is being made of the Ohio loss as reflective of the public's discomfort with limiting public union's bargaining strength. These results also provide an opportunity to interpret their meaning and my interpretation differs somewhat from the current general opinion.

I believe the union leaders were mortified and shocked by the Wisconsin results and determined to win in Ohio to shift the momentum and to assert their power. They poured many millions of dollars into both efforts, printed professional signs for demonstrators and imported marchers from out of state. Although polls indicated significant support for repeal of the bill, the flooding in of outside protestors surely affected local voters' proclivities and possibly discouraged support for the bill. And now the unions are preparing to go back to Wisconsin, where they barely lost, to try and get Governor Walker recalled.

Perhaps demonstrators should prove their residency just like voters before being able to participate in a local protest.

Where is the Anger at Obama's Outrageous Posturing?

Congressman Ryan has called Obama out on his mischaracterization of the Republicans' positions and actions in Congress (no one will use the word "lies"). Sean Hannity has interviewed C. Ryan to discuss his objections to Obama's assertions. Conservative news and opinion writers opine on the same theme. But no one expresses anger, even outrage, at the ridiculous, insulting and dishonest statements made by Obama and his congressional acolytes (Pelosi included). The tone of the criticisms seems to be calm, even-handed and unperturbed.

It is fine to be calm and unperturbed in a debate; actually advantageous. This is not a debate, however. Obama is running around the country proclaiming falsehoods about the Republican public servants in Congress and no one seems upset. Everyone takes it in stride, as a sophisticated reporter feels he should. Apparently, it is uncool and uncouth to respond in anger.

It is a one-sided argument when the President can freely make false statements that are immediately reported as news while those who dispute his assertions must be content with polite interviews on conservative television and radio programs.

Where is the fire to put the lie to Obama's posturing?