Caveat Emptor

Very interesting letter to The Economist from James Hutchin published in the April 14th-20th 2007 volume. Mr. Hutchin asks if it is rational for US taxpayers to support a further investment in the Iraq war, an enterprise "without a business plan, and with no targets and deadlines". How many folks think of their tax payments to the goverment in the same way they think of their other large investments? But why should things not be as he articulates them? Would you spend 15, 20, 30% or more of your gross income on anything else without critical study of what the investment was getting you? Think how carefully you track your home's value, your 401(k) plan's returns, or just your houshold budget for most folks.

Most people seem to send checks to their government - not without complaint often, mind you, but without requesting any direct accountability. The most folks might do is tune in to the public debate on the media-selected "political" issues of the day and consider which side of those force-fed issues they take. Usually the talking heads present two of the many possible views as the two "sides". That way, we barely have to think. To appear knowledgeable and interested in a government's activities to our similarly-behaving friends and family, all we have to do is know and chat about what's on the front page of our newspaper or in the lead stories on the national TV network news program.

Here's an idea. Challenge yourself to track your investment in your government as closely as you track your other large investments. Investigate how much gets spent on what, and how successful the effort is. Focus on the subjects that concern you the most, regardless of what the media has decided is hot. And understand how other governments are dealing with the same issues. For US taxpayers, the OMB publishes these charts, which make for a fascinating start.

It's Justice, After All

I for one hope the Dems get to the rock bottom of US Attorney-gate. Allegations are that the Justice Department might have been infected with -- oh no! -- politics, which might have influenced decision-making about who should serve in what office and what they should do. If the Dems are on track, we may discover that US Attorneys sometimes hear from their appointers (at whose pleasure they serve) about legal work programs and priorities. Of course, this will be just shocking news when it breaks, though you won't be surprised to learn that only Republicans ever engage in this kind of activity. No way would Dems ever be so political, I am sure.

Once again, I am thrilled that the US Government is so wisely using taxpayer dollars. Lord knows where the USA would be if the Government did not occasionally tell folks what they already well know (or should know) about governmental deviation from stated policy. And we certainly would not want the folks at Justice to be spending too much of their time on legal matters that may heavily affect the future of the USA, such as Guantanamo, corporate fraud, and official dealings with nuclear-capable nations.

Look, I get that we need Justice to be as pure as it can be, and politically-motivated investigations at least work toward ensuring that Justice is minimally corrupted. But it sure is unsettling to pay taxes which are supposed to be used (a) to get the job done, but instead have to be used (b) to screw-up the job, (c) to investigate the screw-up, (d) to fight with political opponents about the screw-up and the investigation, (e) to figure out how to present the screw-up and investigation to the media and the public, and then (f) maybe, if we're lucky, to get some part of the job done. That litany's old news, for sure, I understand.

And though I want politics out of my Justice as much as the next guy, the fact that it is in there surely ain't news either. The wasted resources and diverted energies, however, now that's a story. Who's been covering that one again?