It Was Fun While It Lasted

And it was.  Really.

The time has come to pull the plug on this experiment, though.  Thanks to everyone who wrote in with encouragement, criticism, and for any other reason.  It was nice to know that people were reading and, if nothing else, interested in looking to a Massachusetts that works better than it does now.

Now, while we’ve closed down Clean Sweep Beacon Hill, PAC, that doesn’t mean we are completely out of the game or that it won’t come back in some future election.  Right now we’re reorganizing and looking into setting up a foundation to try to spark interest in local politics.

Once again, thanks to all who took the time to stop by.  We hope to see you and many more in the not-too distant future.

Let’s Try Dividing By Zero

I tend to shy away from economics in writing for the simple reason that I tend not to think about it very much beyond helpless and utter confusion.  After all, I am the person who, when presented an opportunity to choose between turning left or right will proactively choose the wrong way every single time.  When my doctor tells me to lose weight all I have to do is think about mathematics; goodbye appetite!  The last economist that I read and felt comfortable comprehending was John Stuart Mill.  After him, they somehow turned from philosophers to mathematicians as if that were to provide more truth or objectivity to the subject matter.  Let it not be forgotten that numbers can be manipulated as easily as words and to greater effect since many of us fear them.

Yet this upcoming election is turning on the economy.  Within this reality lies the problem: what makes the economy work?  Do the basics change as we shift in size from household to national scales?  Are tax cuts truly a panacea or the harbinger of national doom?  Beats the heck out of me.

This brings us to Whitney’s First Law of Economics: pose any question to two economists and each will offer different answers citing no less than two other economists each.  Therefore, six economists equals two answers.  Milton and Kynes will only count as 0.75 economists since they are mentioned so frequently.  End result?  Beats the heck out of me but it leads to Whitney’s First Corollary: I don’t get it.

Now that I have so graciously declared my ignorance of the topic at hand, in the finest American and academic style, I will tell you what’s wrong and how to fix it.

Since economics is strictly a numbers game these days, it necessarily misses out on a major factor that has yet to be truly quantified, that of humanity.  Humans are unpredictable in the extreme and groups are only slightly less so.  When economic policy is dictated without regard for the national sentiment of a people, negative results are more likely to result than positive.  In this case, the adversarial relationship enjoyed by most Americans and the government.

This is an issue I see very often when a policy is compared to a European state.  The problem is that we are, generally speaking, no longer European.  We don’t trust the government any more than we trust our neighbors.  Our history is full of examples beginning with people leaving their homes to get into a leaky boat and travel in excess of 3000 miles on stormy seas to arrive at, well, no one really knew what they were getting into, all that really mattered was that it was going to be different from what they left.  Once here, some stayed in the cities but a sizable number kept going West as fast as possible until geography stopped them.

Naturally, this whole brain-explosion was sparked by seeing a couple of polls declaring the same thing: tax cuts should be implemented, across the board, for all.  Even though, in this specific case, it’s not tax cuts exactly, it’s just maintaining the way things are now.  So, really, it’s people against a tax increase.  And this comes as we’ve been told that the last $700 billion stimulus was necessary to jump-start the economy but this “tax cut that isn’t really a cut” is going to cost about $700 billion.  So, what, the plan was to put the money in for a moment and then take it back out again?  Am I missing something or simply trying to take a right turn when a left turn is called for?

Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of maintaining this mess.  Certain things the government has to do.  Other things are intrusive.  As we were told by the very funny P. J. O’Rourke, trusting government with money and power is like trusting teenagers with whiskey and car keys.

Let’s install a curfew.

The Power of the Primaries

So here it is, Primary Tuesday, perhaps the least cared about day in the pantheon of political high holy days.  And, as usual, my thoughts got spurred in an entirely different direction.

This mornings Globe carried an article about the 28x bus lines through Dorchester, Mattapan, and Roxbury.  The article was confusing since the title mentions dissent, the first few paragraphs repeat how the locals are dissatisfied, and nowhere is there a clear description of why these people are cranky.  It’s in moments like these that the comments section fulfills its greatest purpose, answering the question, “Am I an idiot because I didn’t understand what the reporter said he or she was saying?  What did other people experience?”  Fortunately for my early morning piece of mind, if I am an idiot it appears that I share good company for several commentators mentioned the same thing.

In effect, the main complaint is that the management of the MBTA did not make the people living in the areas affected that their opinions were properly taken into account.  Even simpler: the T bosses didn’t stroke enough local egos and that makes people cranky.  We all get grumpy when we feel things are out of our control, when decisions are made without our input, and changes happen that we don’t necessarily approve.

At the same time, we can’t follow the dictates of every person’s whim.  If one hundred people were asked how they wanted to manage public transportation in their area, the answers would probably break down into some variant of the following: 12 I don’t knows, 17 wanting more stops, 21 wanting more buses, 6 wanting fewer stops, 13 wanting fewer stops, 11 decrying the use of fossil fuels, 7 blaming Bush and/or Obama, 2 Russian spies, 10 nuclear protesters, and at least one vote for “pineapple.”  We’ve known this for a long time; this is how societies work.  Socrates commented on it not long before a mob (also known as a group of citizens exercising their pure democratic duties) elected him the proud recipient of poison.

Pure democracy doesn’t work on larger scales.  That is why we have some form of representation.  In theory, the representatives take most of the chaos out of democracy by virtue of having fewer votes and an ability to look over individual interests.  In Massachusetts, the representatives too often become nest-feathering sinecurists  spreading bounty in the form of government jobs and contracts to the faithful and the following.  They do this because there is no fear they will be voted out since that’s been the pattern for many years.

So, this primary, it is my intention to vote in support of newcomers.  This is our chance to prune the election ballot for either party.  There are many who would rather die than vote Republican.

Here’s your chance.  Get rid of the fatcat Dem and support the upstart.  This country was founded by upstarts.  It works for us.

Believe it or not, our voices can carry just as loudly on Primary Tuesday as they do on Election Tuesday.  Let’s get out there and warm up those vocal chords.