Archive for the ‘administrative state’ Tag

The Fate of the Rising Generation Within a Bureaucratic Environment   Leave a comment

Ludwig von Mises

The youth movement was an impotent and abortive revolt of youth against the menace of bureaucratization. It was doomed because it did not attack the seed of the evil, the trend toward socialization. It was in fact nothing but a confused expression of uneasiness, without any clear ideas and definite plans. The revolting adolescents were so completely under the spell of socialist ideas that they simply did not know what they wanted.

Found on FEE

It is evident that youth is the first victim of the trend toward bureaucratization. The young men are deprived of any opportunity to shape their own fate. For them there is no chance left. They are in fact “lost generations” for they lack the most precious right of every rising generation, the right to contribute something new to the old inventory of civilization. The slogan: Mankind has reached the stage of maturity, is their undoing. What are young people to whom nothing is left to change and to improve? Whose only prospect is to start at the lowest rung of the bureaucratic ladder and to climb slowly in strict observance of the rules formulated by older superiors? Seen from their viewpoint bureaucratization means subjection of the young to the domination of the old. This amounts to a return to a sort of caste system.

Caste Conflict and Class Warfare

Among all nations and civilizations—in the ages preceding the rise of modern liberalism and its offspring, capitalism—society was based on status. The nation was divided into castes. There were privileged castes such as kings and noblemen, and underprivileged castes such as serfs and slaves. A man was born into a definite caste, remained in it throughout his whole life, and bequeathed his caste status to his children. He who was born into one of the lower castes was forever deprived of the right to attain one of the stations of life reserved to the privileged. Liberalism and capitalism abolished all such discrimination and made all people equal under the law. Now virtually everybody was free to compete for every place in the community.

This is more than a crisis of the youth. It is a crisis of progress and civilization.

Marxism provides a different interpretation of liberalism’s achievements. The main dogma of Karl Marx is the doctrine of the irreconcilable conflict of economic classes. Capitalist society is divided into classes the interests of which are antagonistic. Thus the class struggle is inevitable. It will disappear only in the future classless society of socialism.

The most remarkable fact about this doctrine is that it has never been explicitly expounded. In the Communist Manifesto the instances used for the exemplification of class struggles are taken from the conflict between castes. Then Marx adds that the modern bourgeois society has established new classes. But he never said what a class is and what he had in mind in speaking of classes and class antagonisms and in coordinating classes to castes. All his writings center around these never-defined terms. Although indefatigable in publishing books and articles full of sophisticated definitions and scholastic hairsplitting, Marx never attempted to explain in unambiguous language what the characteristic mark of an economic class is. When he died, thirty-five years after the publication of the Communist Manifesto, he left the manuscript of the third volume of his main treatise, Capital, unfinished. And, very significantly, the manuscript breaks off just at the point at which the explanation of this fundamental notion of his entire philosophy was to be given. Neither Marx nor any one of the host of Marxian writers could tell us what a social class is, much less whether such social classes really play in the social structure the role assigned to them in the doctrine.

Of course, from the logical viewpoint it is permissible to classify things according to any trait chosen. The question is only whether a classification on the ground of the traits selected is useful for further investigation and for the clarification and amplification of our knowledge. The question is therefore not whether the Marxian classes really exist, but whether they really have the importance attached to them by Marx. Marx failed to provide a precise definition of the concept social class that he had used in all his writings in a loose and uncertain way, because a clear definition would have unmasked its futility and its valuelessness for dealing with economic and social problems and the absurdity of coordinating it to social castes.

The characteristic feature of a caste is its rigidity. The social classes, as Marx exemplified them in calling the capitalists, the entrepreneurs, and the wage earners distinct classes, are characterized by their flexibility. There is a perpetual change in the composition of the various classes. Where today are the scions of those who in the days of Marx were entrepreneurs? And where were the ancestors of the contemporary entrepreneurs in the days of Marx? Access to the various stations of modern capitalist society is open to everyone. We may call the United States senators a class without violating logical principles. But it would be a mistake to coordinate them to a hereditary aristocratic caste, notwithstanding the fact that some senators may be descendants of senators of earlier days.

In the bureaucratic machine of socialism the way toward promotion is not achievement but the favor of the superiors.

The point has already been stressed that the anonymous forces operating on the market are continuously determining anew who should be entrepreneur and who should be capitalist. The consumers vote, as it were, for those who are to occupy the exalted positions in the setting of the nation’s economic structure.

Now under socialism there are neither entrepreneurs nor capitalists. In this sense, namely, that what Marx called a class will no longer exist, he was right to call socialism a classless society. But this is of no avail. There will be other differences in social functions which we can call classes with surely no less justification than that of Marx. There will be those who issue orders and those who are bound to obey these orders unconditionally; there will be those who make plans and those whose job it is to execute these plans.

Architects of Their Own Fortune

The only thing that counts is the fact that under capitalism everybody is the architect of his own fortune. A boy eager to improve his own lot must rely on his own strength and effort. The vote of the consumers passes judgment without respect to persons. The achievements of the candidate, not his person, are valued. Work well done and services well rendered are the only means to succeed.

Under socialism, on the contrary, the beginner must please those already settled. They do not like too efficient newcomers. (Neither do old-established entrepreneurs like such men; but, under the supremacy of the consumers, they cannot prevent their competition.) In the bureaucratic machine of socialism the way toward promotion is not achievement but the favor of the superiors. The youth depends entirely on the kind disposition of the old men. The rising generation is at the mercy of the aged.

It is useless to deny this fact. There are no Marxian classes within a socialist society. But there is an irreconcilable conflict between those who are in favor with Stalin and Hitler and those who are not. And it is simply human for a dictator to prefer those who share his opinions and praise his work to those who do not.

It was in vain that the Italian Fascists made a hymn to youth their party song and that the Austrian socialists taught the children to sing: “We are young and this is fine.” It is not fine to be a young man under bureaucratic management. The only right that young people enjoy under this system is to be docile, submissive, and obedient. There is no room for unruly innovators who have their own ideas.

This is more than a crisis of the youth. It is a crisis of progress and civilization. Mankind is doomed when the youths are deprived of the opportunity to remodel society according to their own fashion.

Excerpted from Bureaucracy (1944).

Tyranny By Another Other Name   Leave a comment

I like free speech and I like privacy. In fact, I think free speech depends on privacy.

 

Too bad the US government absolutely sucks at protecting our privacy.  Glenn Greenwald’s new book No Place To Hide reveals that the U.S. government tampers with Internet routers during the manufacturing process to aid its spying programs.

 

Do you really trust the government with control over the Internet? We know from the Fairness Doctrine that the government didn’t trust the media outlets to police themselves, so we can be sure that the government will need to technically verify whether the telecoms are treating data as they should, which will mean installing its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic.

 

We already know that , once installed, our government (and any other government able to hack in) will not use this access for benign purposes. They didn’t in the past. Why would they change their behavior now?

 

Oh, but you like Barack Obama and the current Chair of the FCC and you’re not worried that they will invade YOUR privacy or infringe upon YOUR freedom of speech. What happens if Jeb Bush is elected to the White House? What if Republicans remain in control of the House and Senate? That changes the dynamic a bit, doesn’t it?

 

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. – James Madison, The Federalist No. 51

 

I used to believe the US government was a benevolent and wise parent looking out for the best interests of society. When Jimmy Carter violated Alaska’s Statehood Compact and the provisions of ANILCA, I got real-world woke up. I see the US government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporations, seeking to control everyone and everything.

 

At the crux of the debate between proponents and opponents of Net Neutrality are that some of us have become aware that Skynet exists and others of you still want to live in dreamland.You want to believe that the US government is all-knowing with good intentions that will never change without your permission and all will be well. I don’t believe that because I look to history and see Woodrow Wilson outlawing political dissent and FDR locking up US citizens of Japanese ancestry. The US government topples elected democracies, fights unjust wars and interferes in world affairs. It executes American citizens in violation of 5th Amendment rights.

 

I don’t trust the government. It doesn’t matter which party is “in” at the moment because I’m convinced they’re two sides of the same coin called tyranny.

 

Regulations can start out with the best of intentions, but when enough red tape accumulates, we drown in it regardless. That leads to less freedom for us individually and for society as a whole.

Crony Capitalism & the Internet   Leave a comment

Were you happy with your doctor and did you get to keep him? Were you happy with your insurance policy and do you still have it? Have your premiums gone down … or up?

Yeah … the ACA is a cautionary tale of what happens when large corporations and government get into bed with one another. The ACA was written by large medical corporations behind closed doors in collusion with our elected representatives and, with a few notable exceptions, it has largely been a disaster.

So now we have Net Neutrality. Do we think it wasn’t written in a way that will make it harder for new companies to offer Internet service?

If I wasn’t a broke novelist taking informed pot shots from the cheap seats, I’d bet money that the telecoms now have an effective tool against smaller, more efficient competitors and that consumers will have few options for Internet service.

Oh, but you believe the politicians who say that if they hadn’t stepped in things would be much worse?

In a truly free market, telecoms like Comcast and Time Warner would have to adjust their practices or go out of business. They’d be replaced by options that would give us better service at lower prices. Some of the new options would depend on taking advantage of the freedom to charge more for certain types of Internet … which is exactly what Net Neutrality seeks to eliminate.

Barriers to competition tend to work in the favor of large corporations which can more easily afford to forego profits in the short term in order to profit in the long term. This sort of predatory capitalism blocks the smaller companies out of the market and leaves the field wide open for the larger companies that helped to write the regulations in the first place.

 

But hey, don’t take my word for it. Go research it for yourself.

Net Neutrality   2 comments

Looking through Facebook posts and watching the news, you might get the idea that everyone is for “Net Neutrality”.

I’m not. It just became the regulatory law of the land, but I oppose it.

I’m not a paid shill for the cable industry, I don’t even have cable television. I have zero experience with Comcast, but I occasionally grumble about GCI, an Alaska ISP. I’m skeptical of large corporations and dislike that true capitalists end up sounding like we’re supporting them, because I’m not. I’m supporting me and people like me and I’m learning from the past so I don’t repeat it.

Remember what I wrote about the Fairness Doctrine. Consider these to be companion pieces.

I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle. Unrestricted access to the Internet is a net good, but I don’t think this is a wise way to go about it – in fact, I don’t think it’s going to work at all.

Competition is a good thing. Proponents of Net Neutrality say the telecoms have too much power … and I agree. Monopolies are bad, always.

So why do we think giving a monopoly to the government is somehow going to work out well?

Think about it a moment.

The United States government built a health care website using a budget equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs and this website doesn’t work even after several attempts to fix it.

The federal government spends 320 times what private industry spends launching a rocket into space.

Has the involvement of the federal government improved public schools? Well, test results compared to other countries suggest not.

How about immigration?

Housing?

Bridges and highways?

The military?

The post office?

All these examples are heavily regulated or controlled by the government and all are areas mired in red tape and struggling to survive the realities of the 21st century.

On the other hand, telephone services were deregulated a few decades ago. The industry almost immediately responded with cell phones the size of bread boxes, but look where we are today?

The US government has repeatedly shown that it is ineffective at managing … well, everything. Which is as it was designed. Our Founders didn’t trust government, so they created one that is slow, inefficient and mired in gridlock. That way government is slow enough for people to protect their individual liberty from its usurpations. Well, we could if we bothered to pay attention, anyway.

It’s actually a plus that our government is slow, because it gives us time to rein it in before it eats our liberty, but the downside is that slow inefficient government cannot be relied upon to provide us with the high quality products and services we want in a timely manner.

Everything that makes the telecoms bad has to do with the federal government and the regulatory structure that links the telecoms to government. What? You didn’t know that?

Government regulations are written by large corporate interests in collussion with officials in government. The image of government being full of people on a mission to protect the little guy from predatory corporate behemoths is a Mad Man illusion fostered by politicians and corporate interests. Most government regulations are the product of crony capitalism designed to prevent small entrepreneurs from becoming real threats to large corporations.

Go on! Go research it, find out I’m right and come back for more discussion.

Remembering the Fairness Doctrine   3 comments

This can be considered an installment of my media influence series. It isn’t over. I just got busy and distracted.

 

The American people just seem unable to learn the folly of allowing the administrative state to control anything in our lives.

 

When I was in college (early 1980s) there was a fierce debate underway about the unfairness of the Fairness Doctrine.

 

For those who are unfamiliar with the Fairness Doctrine, it was based on a 1949 Federal Communications Commission regulaion that requried broadcasters to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of pulbic importantce.” It was overturned by the FCC in 1987 because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage discussion of more controversial issues. It also violated the First Amendment, but who cares about that old piece of paper anyway, right?

 

The Fairness Doctrine was predicated on the idea that the airwaves were scarce and to assure that broadcasters did not stomp on one another’s signal, the government had to regulate access. From that came the idea that it could also regulate content. The FCC claimed that the only way to assure fair and balanced news and opinion was to mandate it.

 

In practice, controversial speech was silenced as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as “unbalanced views.” Rather than encouraging debate, it stifled it. But it also skewed the news.

 

Those of us old enough to remember the late-1960s remember the “Silent Majority” – a vast number of ordinary Americans who never seemed to make waves. While protests swept college campuses and sucked up all the media attention, they were largely silent. But were they, really? We now know that as the media focused glowing attention on the affects of progressivism in the America a large groundswell of conservatives were forming that would eventually bring Ronald Reagan to the presidency, followed a few years later by the Contract with America. If you go back and look at broadcasts from that era, you don’t see any evidence of that groundswell. You have to go to print media to find it. There were a handful of local radio stations that allowed citizens to call in and espress opinions, but if the discussion skewed too far to the conservative end of the wading pool, the radio station management was likely to receive a call from the FCC telling them to balance their content.

 

I’m not saying there was a vast progressive conspiracy to keep conservative ideology off the airwaves. I’m saying that government is more likely to be staffed by progressives. It makes sense. If you feel that government should be small and limited, you’re less likely to seek employment with government. If you are a progressive, you are more likely to view progressive ideas as being more truthful and valid than conservative ideas. You are also going to get into a lather when the local radio station allows “unbalanced” views and you can do something about it. So the FCC became a watchdog and bulwark against conservative ideology creeping onto the airwaves.

 

In 1984, the Supreme Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine “inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate”. When the Fairness Doctrine was set aside in 1986, conservative talk radio exploded onto the scene. It didn’t need to build an audience because that previously Silenced Majority were thrilled to finally hear their own beliefs in public.

 

Of course, progressives don’t like that and there have been occasional attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, especially to enshrine it in Congression law. Reagan vetoed one attempt in 1987 and later attempts have failed to pass Congress. As an independent regulatory agency (which ought to scare the hell out of all intelligent Americans), the FCC has the power to reimpose the doctrine without Congressional or Executive action.

 

Supporters of reviving the un-Fairness Doctrine base their argument on the same three faulty premises that the FCC used originally.

 

Scarcity

The broadcast spectrum is limited, supporters say, so they should be policed by federal bureaucrats to ensure that all viewpoints are heard. And yet there are thousands of radio and television stations nationwide as well as cable and satellite channgels and the Internet (more on that in a later post). There is little prospect for a information monopoly simply because of the incredible diversity of media.

 

Fairness

Federal policing is needed to guarantee fair access to the airwaves for a diversity of viewpoints. This is assuming that FCC bureaucrats have the ability to discern what is “fair”. The way the Fairness Doctrine was administered, each broadcaster had to offer air time to anyone with a controversial viewpoint. FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what “fair access” was and who was entitled to it through selective enforcement. PBS in Fairbanks Alaska was a progressive wonderland with no FCC warnings in its jacket. KFAR in the same market would receive regular FCC warnings for listerners calling in and expressing their personal opinion. Gotta balance that! Both the Kennedy and Nixon administrations used the Fairness Doctrine to keep unfavorable reporting off the airs. What is “fair”? It all depends on your viewpoint, I guess.

 

Guaranteed Vigorous Debate

Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine then and now will assert that requiring broadcasters, under threat of arbitrary legal penalty, to “fairly” represent both sides of a given issue will result in more views being aired and will not affect the editorial content of a station. The reality was quite different. Under the Fairnmess Doctrine, with the threat of potential FCC retaliation for perceived lack of compliance, most broadcasters were reluctant to air their own opinions because it required them to also air alternative perpectives thatt their audiences did not want to hear. Free (regulated) speech became less free. It did not result in easier access to conversial views, but instead led to self-censorship. With the wide diversity of views available today, people seeking alternative viewpoints can simply change the channel or click on a different link.

 

Ah, but can they?

 

I see Net Neutrality as this era’s version of the Fairness Doctrine and I predict it will result in the exact same problems and with far more dire consequences.

Duct Tape Alert   Leave a comment

I will start out by saying that I couldn’t care less about lost government revenue. The federal government needs to be put on a diet, so lost revenue looks like a good thing to me. My rage here has nothing to do with revenue.

This has to do with the administrative state and myriad of convoluted regulations that allowed this to happen. Some of my irritation is directed at Doyon, which may deeply impact Alaska Native corporations because of these shenanigans. As Alaska Native corporations are joint-partnered in many construction projects in Alaska, this has the potential for deeply affecting Alaskans in general.

This is what crony capitalism looks like, but it wouldn’t be possible without the Federal Communication Commission creating a monopolistic system for the airwaves. This is the same organization that has now seized control of the Internet and, if you don’t believe this sort of thing will now be commonplace in that government-created monopoly, you’re foolish.

Lela

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/business/dealbook/how-loopholes-transformed-dish-network-into-a-very-small-business.html?_r=0

NEW YORK TIMES

DEAL PROFESSOR

STEVEN DAVIDOFF SOLOMON

Charles W. Ergen, the billionaire who controls the satellite TV provider Dish Network, and his company are about to make a cool $3.25 billion — courtesy of the American taxpayer.

This windfall came from a recent successful auction of wireless spectrum that raised more than $40 billion for the American treasury. But it will be $3.25 billion less than it ought to be, if Mr. Ergen and his clever lawyers have their way.

The reason is that Dish Network bid for licenses through a newly formed vehicle that claimed to be a “very small business” under the Federal Communications Commission rules and was entitled to a 25 percent discount.

At this point you may be scratching your head. How can Dish, a company with a $34 billion market value, be a “very small business”? Indeed, to qualify for the discount, a very small business must have revenue not “exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.” Dish in its last full fiscal year had almost $14 billion in revenue.

Through sleight of hand and aggressive use of partners and loopholes, Dish turned itself into that very small business, distorting reality and creating an unfair advantage.

Here is how it worked for $7.8 billion of Dish’s winning bids (it had $13 billion in winning bids in all).

A new company, Northstar Wireless, was formed to bid on the spectrum. Dish Network Corporation indirectly owns 85 percent of Northstar Wireless.

But a new company is not enough. After all, anyone could then simply form a new company and save similar billions of dollars. In its rules, the F.C.C. counts the revenue of affiliates and the controlling owners of the bidding entity for purposes of determining whether a business is a very small one.

For the first loophole, the lawyers went to Alaska.

Doyon is an Alaska Native regional corporation, created as part of a federal government settlement of native land claims back in the 1970s.

Based in Fairbanks, Alaska, Doyon has more than “19,000 shareholders, and is the largest private landowner in Alaska,” according to its website. It has at least 12 different operating companies, including one that operates seven drilling rigs on the Alaskan North Shore. It purpose is to serve the Native American community in central Alaska, and its shareholders are all Native American descendants.

Doyon owns 15 percent of Northstar, a stake it acquired for $120 million; Mr. Ergen’s Dish owns the other 85 percent. Even though Dish is the majority owner, Doyon was designated as the manager of Northstar.

Doyon’s control over Northstar is the key to the small-business discount. Dish contends that it lacks control — Doyon has all the votes — and so its own revenue is not included in calculating whether Northstar is a very small business.

Still, you may be wondering how Doyon itself can qualify as a “very small firm.” After all, being the largest landowner in Alaska and an owner of oil rigs must count for something.

And indeed, Doyon’s average annual profit over the last five years has been more than $18 million.

It comes down to what may be the most obscure exemption in the F.C.C. rules.

There are regulations specifically for the dozen or so companies organized under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. For them and other Indian tribes, the agency does not count the revenue from “entities owned and controlled by such tribes or corporations” unless the revenue comes from gambling. And so only Doyon — the holding company — is counted, and it has no revenue for these purposes because all of its money was made in its other companies.

And so, Dish has erected an edifice that it used to reap that $3.25 billion in savings.

By this point, your head may be exploding.

The rest of Dish’s winning bids — worth about $5.5 billion — were done under a partnership with John Muleta, the former chief of the F.C.C.’s wireless telecommunications bureau, and relied on similar loopholes. As a former government official, Mr. Muleta has no real revenue and so meets the test of being a “very small business.”

No doubt Dish and its lawyers are high-fiving one another and patting themselves on the back. By giving 15 percent ownership to Doyon at a discounted price, they have saved themselves billions.

Taxpayers, however, may want to ponder what those billions of dollars could have done in the coffers of the government — a new bridge or money for schools, perhaps.

And this is not a new issue. The “small firm” exemption has been known to be a problem at the F.C.C. for years. The Congressional Budget Office in 2005 wrote a report highlighting how it was used mostly by big companies instead of the small firms it was intended to benefit. Moreover, the office found that the program provided little benefit to consumers while providing a big discount to companies. In a 2006 auction, AT&T successfully used this structure with Doyon.

The latest spectrum auction — and the attention it has received — may finally push the F.C.C. to eliminate this exemption. It’s hard to see how it benefits anyone but Dish and Doyon, which both get free money for not doing much of anything.

More immediately, the agency should take a good, hard look at the structure of the arrangement.

Doyon has control over Northstar in its day-to-day operations, but the agreements also require Northstar to be managed according to a five-year business plan agreed to by Dish in advance. No deviation in any material respect can be made without Dish’s approval through a subsidiary. Not only that, but there is a multipage list of things that Northstar cannot do without approval from Dish’s subsidiary. These restrictions include spending more than $2 million, selling the company or paying any executive more than $200,000.

Given Dish’s significant control and the requirement that Doyon cannot deviate from a previously agreed business plan, Dish is having its discount but still getting effective control. Though the F.C.C. may have passed on this issue without scrutiny before, this instance would seem to provide grounds to challenge the exemption claim.

Ajit Pai, an F.C.C. commissioner, followed up by saying that Dish’s bid made a “mockery” of the exemption and called for further investigation.

Dish has been busy trying to defend itself, arguing in a presentation to the agency that this program “helps increase auction revenue” by allowing more parties to bid.

You have to laugh, because even if true, this credit was never intended to help companies like Dish bid and earn them billions.

Mr. Muleta has turned into a very rich man overnight. Doyon put up only $120 million and now owns 15 percent of an entity worth almost $8 billion. Mr. Ergen, who is worth more than $22 billion, according to Forbes, is even richer. If the F.C.C. wants to encourage more bidders, it would seem that other, fairer ways are possible.

In a statement, Doyon defended the strategy, saying its participation in the auction helped push up the prices “three times more than was expected.”

“We followed the designated entity (‘D.E.’) program rules and did what Congress intended: create competition,” Aaron M. Schutt, the president and chief executive of Doyon, said in the statement. “By any measure, the D.E. program delivers solid value for the American taxpayer.”

Mr. Muleta did not respond to an email request for comment. A representative of Dish directed me to a conference call with analysts earlier this week in which Mr. Ergen argued that Dish “went by the rules” and that by bidding, it created more value for the government.

In an era when banks and oil companies are at times publicly vilified as not being good corporate citizens, Dish’s strategy for the spectrum auction comes across as among the most brazen, least civic-minded act by a corporation in years. The involvement and enrichment of Mr. Muleta, a former government official, only makes it worse. Manipulating the system this way may win points with shareholders and lawyers, but it will serve only to fuel the public’s cynicism over large corporations and government.

Correction: February 26, 2015
The Deal Professor column on Wednesday, about Dish Network’s bidding for wireless spectrum, misidentified the company that created Northstar Wireless, an affiliate of Dish, to participate in the auction. It is Doyon, which owns 15 percent of Northstar — not Dish, which indirectly owns 85 percent.

Get Over It, Alaska????   Leave a comment

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell apparently felt it was appropriate to tell Alaskans to “get over” the idea of building an 11-mile single-lane gravel road from Cold Bay to King Cove to provide emergency transfer when the seas are too rough for boat transfer of residents needing hospitalization.

 

Interior Secretary Jewell wishes Alaskans would “get over’ King Cove road

Anchorage blogger Amanda Coyne picked it up, but almost nobody else did.

Folks, this is highly indicative of the attitude that the Obama Administration has toward the entire country, but most especially if it is rural or owns resources.

We should just “get over” the idea that a functional economy requires things like pipelines and roads, mines and refineries, electricity and home heating. It’s far more important for his administration to pretend to to be considering opening the Arctic Petroleum Reserve to drilling (though they won’t actually do it) and make speeches about solar panels (which are next to useless here in the winter) than it is to consider the people their policies affect.

So could someone please tell me why the administrative state is a good idea? How do you justify the tyranny?

 

Homestead on the Range

Abundant Living in Flyover Country

Servicios Promonet

¡Promoviendo el conocimiento en Internet!..

the dying fish

Book info, ordering, about me etc. in upper right

STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

Never underestimate the power of a question

Healthy Ebooks

Healthy tips to live more & better!

Mikes Film Talk

Entertainment, Films, Books, Television

Radical Capitalist

Anti-State. Anti-Left. Pro-White.

PushUP24

Health, Fitness, and Relationships is a great way to start living again.

MG WELLS

✪ Enjoy The Journey!

ouryoungaddicts.wordpress.com/

Too many young people are becoming addicted to drugs/alcohol. OYA is a community of parents and professionals sharing experiences, resources and hopes on the spectrum of addiction, treatment and recovery.

Warhawke's Vault Book Blog

A Literary Treasure Trove Of Light To Dark Romance

%d bloggers like this: