Things I’d Like to See a New Chief Executive Do

See page for author [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

In February of 2016, I posted the following tweet:

Eliminate:
HHS
HUD
Ed
Energy
Transpo
Labor
Commerce
Ag
Interior

— ScottO30 (@gscottoliver) February 18, 2016

Since these are all departments of the Executive Branch, it seems to me a Chief Executive could eliminate them whenever he or she wished to do so. To create a new department, as George W. Bush did in 2002, the President must go to Congress to get money appropriated for it. But to terminate one? It would simply mean that any unused budget it had would remain unspent, and that’s a good thing, isn’t it?

In reverse order of their creation, I believe we should eliminate the following U. S. government cabinet departments:

• Education
• Energy
• Transportation
• Housing and Urban Development
• Health and Human Services
• Labor
• Commerce
• Agriculture
• Interior

Any legitimate Federal functions can be moved to an appropriate Department that is left: State, Treasury, Defense, or Justice.

I would leave the Veterans Administration separate from Defense, as the latter’s responsibility is active defense of the nation, while the former is charged with taking care of the people who have served the nation in that capacity.

I would even suggest that the Department of Homeland Security is redundant, and its important functions should be moved to Defense or to Justice, as appropriate.

Finally, the White House lists the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, and the United Nations Mission as separate entities. I submit that neither of the first two have any place at a Federal level. If the Federal government didn’t confiscate resources at such a high rate, States and Localities would have plenty to deal with any violations of their citizens’ right to life. And in my opinion, the United Nations does more harm than good, and the U. S. should withdraw from it (and maybe raise its rent).

Don’t Talk About That!

I am so tired of hearing that.

Different people care about different things. That’s part of what makes us, well, different.

You may not care that young Barry Soetoro ate dog meat, but his campaign is attacking Mitt Romney for transporting the family dog in a protected carrier on the roof of a crowded car.

You may not care what Obama’s position on same-sex marriage is.

You may not care about an alleged attempted bribe of someone who was perceived as capable of harming a Presidential campaign 4 or 5 years ago.

But some people do.

In fact, some of those people may not even be hurting badly because of the economy. They may be wondering why all you rugged individualists are whining about lost jobs, rather than going out and making your own job. (I expect that you are.)

My point is that if the left wins by creating distractions and playing up picayunish “sins” of their opponents, then it’s obvious that people respond to that nonsense. Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad for the right to engage in a little of it. Or a lot.

That’s why I will not be telling people, “Don’t talk about that.”

An Idea Whose Time has Come: #TeleCongress

I've seen this idea mentioned a few times on Twitter and ever so briefly discussed on TV: With today's technology, there is no good reason for Congress to gather in one geographic location. The fact that they still do leads to corruption, because they are generally away from the people who elected them, and away from their families, and can be more easily swayed by lobbyists and other influence-wielders.

I believe when the District of Columbia was established, it was never intended to have "residents". The whole idea of a "citizen Congress" is for a person to be elected, serve a term, then go back to work in his or her regular business. Where that went wrong is a subject for another post (or 12), though.

With the money it takes to get elected these days, the winner could easily buy a netbook computer and headset to participate in Congressional proceedings from home. I would even be pleased to see States to set up one or several meeting places for their elected Federal representatives to use for the purpose. At the very least, the lobbyists' resources would be spread much thinner.

Just think of it: when you want to call your Representative or Senator, you can dial a local number, and maybe even get a chance to speak to the officeholder! Also, people who aren't near a TV with C-SPAN could watch proceedings on their office computers, by Congress providing a public URL for read-only access.

The more I think about this, the more advantages I can see. I'd better stop now so I can post this. Let me know what you think!

Who Does the Congress Think it is, Anyway?

I wrote a piece some time back about how I thought if the FCC started to impose tyrannical regulations (more than they already do?), that the best thing for the radio owners to do would be to ignore them. I guess that they would really need some legal authority to do that, though.


Well, it appears that others have thought the same thing before. American Thinker has a piece that says what I've been trying to say, just more eloquently. Please take the time to read it.

Localism: Fairness Lite, or Fascism?

Localism, as you probably know, is the name of a tactic the State Bureaucratic Apparatus (SBA) may try to use to curtail or eliminate the national syndication of radio talk shows. If you're not familiar with localism, here is a recent article about it from Broadcasting & Cable Magazine.) Since most successful shows of this sort feature conservative commentators, localism is viewed by conservatives as a method of squelching dissent to the collectivists and Progressives (represented by the Democrats). Localism would be enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Why does the FCC have the power to grant, refuse, or revoke broadcast licenses for radio stations? I'm fairly certain the chief purpose of the FCC originally was simply to ensure that two broadcasters in one locality were not attempting to use the same frequency. Perhaps decency guidelines were also part of the original mission. With modern popular music recordings, though, that's pretty much out the window. The FCC has probably been construed to have much more power because of the "interstate commerce clause" doctrine.

There has been an attempt recently by a number of states to try to push the SBA back out of the lives of citizens, by eliminating the invocation of the insterstate commerce doctrine. Montana's "in-state firearm" law is one example. If a firearm is manufactured, sold, and used entirely within the state of Montana, this law exempts it from any federal regulation. Perhaps broadcasters can similarly use the concept of "local" to their advantage.

Radio stations, at least those not streaming on the Web, are local businesses. They serve a limited number of cities around their offices & studios; they accept advertising from other local businesses; they broadcast programming and advertising to a local market. Their product is made, sold, purchased, and consumed all within one local area. These are exactly the characteristics that localism intends to exploit for the SBA's purposes.

Wouldn't it be the pinnacle of localism for the radio stations to say, "The city or state has granted us the authority to broadcast on this frequency, simply because there are no other stations trying to use it. Our market is completely local, INTRASTATE, and therefore the FCC regulations do not apply to us."