The IRS, The DOJ, The FDA, and Milton Friedman's Barking Cat

Why are people surprised that the IRS targeted groups that want a smaller IRS? 

Why do almost half of us think that Obama is lying when he says he didn't know that the IRS was targeting groups that want a smaller IRS? 

If you worked for the IRS, and had a great salary, would you want a larger IRS or a smaller IRS?  Would you use your power to intimidate people who wanted a smaller IRS?  Unless your name is Gandhi or Jesus, you would do exactly and precisely what the IRS did.  You would target your enemies. 

Almost half of Americans say President Barack Obama isn’t telling the truth when he says he didn’t know the Internal Revenue Service was giving extra scrutiny to the applications of small government groups seeking tax-exempt status.

.Forty-seven percent of Americans say they don’t believe Obama compared with 40 percent who say he is being truthful, according to a Bloomberg National Poll of 1,002 adults conducted May 31 through June 3.

More than half of political independents -- 53 percent -- say Obama’s explanation that he learned it from media reports is untrue, while 34 percent say they believe him.

Why is this even called a "scandal"?  It's.... what.... large.... powerful.... governments..... do. 

1) They protect themselves and their families. 
2) They protect their organization.
3) Then they look out for you. Maybe.  All other considerations are in a distant 3rd place. 

To expect an honest, selfless system of angelic revenue thieves is to demand what Milton Friedman called a "Barking Cat".  Friedman used the example of the FDA slowing down pharmaceutical advancement, but you can insert FBI, CIA, Tarrant Regional Water District, VA Hospital, or any other government organization that has the power to control others.

Friedman got a letter that began as follows: "In contrast to your opinion, I do not believe that the FDA should be abolished, but I do believe that its power should be" changed in (such and such a way)....

Friedman replied as follows: "What would you think of someone who said, " I would like to have a cat, provided it barked"? Yet your statement that you favor an FDA provided it behaves as you believe desirable is precisely equivalent. The biological laws that specify the characteristics of cats are no more rigid than the political laws that specify the behavior of governmental agencies once they are established. The way the FDA now behaves, and the adverse consequences are not an accident, not a result of some easily corrected human mistake, but a consequence of its constitution in precisely the same way that a meow is related to the constitution of a cat. As a natural scientist, you recognize that you cannot assign characteristics at will to chemical and biological entities, cannot demand that cats bark or water burn. Why do you suppose that the situation is different in the "social sciences?"

The error of supposing that the behavior of social organisms can be shaped at will is widespread. It is the fundamental error of most so-called reformers. It explains why they so often believe that the fault lies in the man, not the "system," that the way to solve problems is to "throw the rascals out" and put well-meaning people in charge. It explains why their reforms, when ostensibly achieved, so often go astray.

The harm done by the FDA does not result from defects in the men in charge-unless it be a defect to be human. Most are and have been able, devoted and public-spirited civil servants. What reformers so often fail to recognize is that social, political and economic pressures determine the behavior of the men supposedly in charge of a governmental agency to a far greater extent than they determine its behavior. No doubt there are exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare-about as rare as barking cats.

This is what Big Government organizations do.  They abuse their power.  They look out for themselves.  In economics, it's called "Public Choice".  I understand the theory better than I do the name. 

As James Buchanan artfully defined it, public choice is “politics without romance.” The wishful thinking it displaced presumes that participants in the political sphere aspire to promote the common good. In the conventional “public interest” view, public officials are portrayed as benevolent “public servants” who faithfully carry out the “will of the people.” In tending to the public’s business, voters, politicians, and policymakers are supposed somehow to rise above their own parochial concerns.

Public "servants" look out for themselves before they look out for you.  And cats don't bark. 
Well, Friedman acknowledged that some cats might rarely bark, but only when they think none of their co-workers are watching. 

9 boys molested at government institution. No steps taken to close the facility.

A government organization recently created a media firestorm when it allowed one of its ex-employees, a known pedophile, to continue using the government's facilities and bring young boys into its showers and dressing rooms.

One government employee attempted to report that he'd seen this ex-employee raping a 10-year-old in the workplace shower.  This witness went to his supervisor, who went to his supervisor to report the crime.  No actions were ever taken to intervene or protect the child. 

The only law enforcement involved were the government organization's in-house security.  No one in the organization spoke out.   

There were other incidents with young children involving the organization's in-house security officers.  Officers made recordings of the pedophile employee apologizing to the mother of one of the boys that he molested. 

No one pressed charges for years, and other government employees took great pains to cover up the incidents and protect the reputation of the government institution. 

It appears that 9 young boys were molested in some way.  Some of them were raped. 

If this had happened at a private institution, would our government allow it to remain open for business for another 15 minutes? 

Would politicians be rushing to sponsor something called the "Victims Of Paterno's Coverup Bill of 2011"?

Would Nancy Pelosi be standing in front of cameras, pontificating about the need for more regulation and oversight of the education industry? 

Just wondering. 

But the government looks after the little guy !!!

From The Agitator:

There’s a lot going on in this video. But first and foremost it’s a lesson in public choice theory, or the misconception that appointed experts and regulators always act in the interest of the public, or in the interests of science. Self-interest is just as prevalent in the public sector as it is in the private sector.

The Food Stalinization Act of 2010 has passed the Senate

Here's the Wall Street Journal on the most blatant "screw the consumer in favor of the producer" act since the Toy Safety Act.  It was almost held up because of a technical/parliamentary error, but too many Benjamins were at stake: 

The Senate waved through the largest expansion of food regulation since FDR on Tuesday, 73 to 25, and maybe the bill won the votes of 13 Republicans because there was hardly any public controversy. These days, the government needs to take over entire industries to get anyone to notice.


Not that this bill in the name of food safety isn't a down payment. The Food and Drug Administration will gain new powers over the 2.2 million farms and 28,000 food producers in America—including federal standards for agricultural practices and food processing, transportation and storage—as well as the authority to mandate nationwide recalls.

High-publicity outbreaks like salmonella in eggs or E. coli in spinach have obscured the reality that food-borne illnesses have fallen by nearly one-third over the last decade—largely because businesses have every incentive to police themselves. Meanwhile, Congress's increasing demands on the FDA—it regulates about 25 cents out of every dollar spent in the economy—mean that the agency does nothing well. When the FDA mistakenly fingered tomatoes as the source of 1,300 illnesses in 2008, the tomato industry suffered $100 million in losses. The real culprit was tainted jalapenos.

Not surprisingly, this bill's main critics have been the small farms and local and organic food outfits that don't have the profit margins to comply with new regulatory burdens like the "risk-based preventative controls" that the FDA will soon enforce. The House version applies even to farmers markets and roadside stands. Naturally, agribusiness and the processed food industry (and their legal departments) couldn't be happier, and it's not the first time big business has leveraged government to weigh down smaller competitors.

I bet the champagne corks are popping at Monsanto today.  The picture of all the screws came from here.  Go here to see a list of the Republicans who need to be primaried ASAP.