Every once in a while – not more than threes time a day – The Times publishes a piece so completely wrongheaded as to set aflame the blood of anyone who ever studied human nature or took a course in logic. One Sarah Vowell published just such an article on August 30, which can be found here.

It bears reading. All that’s missing is a little socialist wall mural.

The author, contending that her education made her life, turns said life into a paean to the beneficence of government. But for her Pell Grant – a gift from the taxpayers – she would not, she avers, have enjoyed the opportunities an education offers. Pell Grants, she contends, reinforce her view, as a Democrat, "... that government can be a useful, meaningful and worthwhile force for good in this republic ..."

Ah. Perhaps we might ask said author to revisit the musty history books from her land grand college education in Montana and provide some examples for the proposition that government has ever been a consistent "... force for good ..."

Just today, a week after the publication of the encomium to the wonders of government, the same Times reports on the demise of Frannie and Freddie, at likely cost of tens (if not hundreds) of billions in taxpayer dollars (dollars that will not be spent educating a single child). Said entities found their genesis in the liberal thought that government should provide "affordable" housing. Query how "affordable" that housing is, when we factor in the tens or hundreds of billions the taxpayers will shell out for this bailout.

While our partisan author denigrates "incompetent yahoos of the executive branch", she conveniently omits the incompetent, economically illiterate socialists in the legislative branch – run by the aforementioned Democrats – who just completed a Congressional term as embarrassing – and more profligate – than any in the history of the nation. She further omits the astonishingly incompetence of Democrats such as Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco, who made Katrina such a wonderful experience for the people they allegedly represent.

The author envisions a little socialist utopia:

"When Barack Obama talks about an America as it should be, I’m guessing the best of all possible countries he imagines would look awfully similar to the ideal America just about every registered Democrat would dream up. Picture this: a wind-powered public school classroom of 19 multiracial 8-year-olds reading above grade level and answering the questions of their engaging, inspirational teacher before going home to a cancer-free (or in remission) parent or parents who have to work only eight hours a day in a country at war solely with the people who make war on us, where maybe Exxon Mobil can settle for, oh, $8 billion in quarterly profits instead of $11 billion, and the federal government’s point man for Biblical natural disasters is someone who knows more about emergency management than how to put on a horse show."

She left out Kumbaya playing in the backgroud.

Well, let us examine that little scenario in light of what experience teaches us about government's actual performance, shall we?

Our mythical public school, constructed by unionized labor making the "prevailing wage" comes in at $5-10 million over budget and twice or three times what it would cost a corporation to build a similar sized building. The wind turbine never works properly (despite costing five times as much as it would have if installed in the private school next door.) Each one of the 19 multiracial kids costs upwards $30,000 per year to "educate" by a unionized teacher who can’t be fired before her early retirement (at age 60) on full taxpayer funded pension and lifetime health benefits. Not one of the kids reads at – let alone above – grade level and 50% of them never graduate. They go home to NO parents. All of the decent jobs long ago fled the jurisdiction because socialists hate profits and thought that they could make better financial decisions than could the market. The Country refuses to engage those who mean it harm until they arrive uninvited at 8 AM in the morning on a peaceful Sunday in Hawaii or on a gorgeous September day in lower Manhattan.

Meanwhile, the Administrator at said public school makes $300K per annum, plus benefits, while the average wage-earner in the jurisdiction makes 1/10 that. He can’t be fired either and gets a $700,000 taxpayer funded buyout at the end of his contract for the days he didn't get sick.

Which scenario better fits with a candid audience's experience with government as it actually exists?

Democrats exist in a Neverland, where dreams become reality. "If only we had the right people running government", they lament, "things would be wonderful."

Those people do not exist. Certainly not in sufficient numbers to actually run anything larger than a Kibbutz.

Government is, always has been, and always will be, a necessary evil, not a positive force, because power inevitably corrupts. Liberal Democrats – and liberal Republicans, who share their view of the affirmative benefits of government – have held power across the country, on and off, for 70 years. Where are the windpowered schools? Where are the engaging, inspirational teachers? Where are those classrooms in which "minority" students excel? What country was the author living in when Bill Clinton waged war in Bosnia, Kosovo, and – yup – Iraq – countries that never made war on us? Where are these exemplars of governmental competence to which she aspires?

Let me – as a conservative – offer a competing vision:

Each of those multiracial children attends school in an institution of his parents’ choosing (at 1/4 the cost of the governmental schools they replaced). They are taught by someone answerable to the parents for the quality of the education she provides and who can be instantly replaced if she fails to deliver. She receives a 401(k) and has an HSA, so the taxpayers are not on the hook for her retirement or health care, and the cost of the latter actually decreases as market forces and competition come to bear. The parents can afford to work less, because their property taxes are now 1/4 what they once were. When the young adults are ready for college, they can either pay themselves or participate in a program such as Teach for Amercia – or ROTC – which asks them to give back the value of that which they received, further reducing the costs of government.

The feds stay out of local educational matters, as such things are none of their business.

Meanwhile, the feds keep us safe by killing the people who want to kill us. They remove the shackles from the nuclear industry which provides a reliable source of non-polluting power. They permit energy exploration where the supplies exist. They enable utilities to build transmission lines so that windpower can be economically harnessed.

As long as we’re engaging in fantasy, imagine the inestimable benefits if smart folks, like Obama, become so smart that they realize that they’re not smart enough to run everyone else’s lives. And they all vote Republican.

Getting the Brand Back

Two recent postings – one on Bluejersey the other on PoltickerNJ – prompt this piece, as both relate to the same subject: fiscal responsibility.

In the first, a scribe on BJ holds forth on "Which Party is the Big Spender", reciting certain statistics on state and local taxes to conclude that little difference exists between the parties when it comes to spending and taxing. He’s partially correct, but only because he misframes the question, to which more in a minute.

First, a few quibbles. While I understand the rationale for choosing 1980 – the year of Reagan’s election – as the starting point, that choice gives Byrne a huge bye. Byrne took office in 1974, with the state budget about $2 billion. By the time he left office in 1981, it was approximately $5 billion. He increased the sales tax and imposed the income tax, both of which facilitated the fiscal disaster we witnessed over the next 30 years.

Second, combining local and state taxes produces a useless result. State officials posses limited power to affect local budgets. Too, local governments labor under spending caps; giving the incumbent governor credit for their comparative restraint makes no sense.

Third, the analysis omits the effects of politics. The author notes, with a hint of puzzlement, "it may also surprise some to find that the single lowest positive growth year was in 1993 - the third year of the Florio Administration." Noone should be the least bit surprised, because Florio’s policies produced massive Republican legislative majorities (before all those folks with "Florio Free in ‘93" bumper stickers moved to PA). His big spending Democratic allies got thumped, and (relatively) conservative Republicans flooded in, with veto proof majorities.

This study credits Florio credit for fiscal restraint, despite the fact that the Republican Legislature imposed it on him over his strenuous objections. Florio only looks conservative by comparison because the GOP Legislature cut taxes and spending, over his veto.

Taking simple budget numbers provides a more useful yardstick of fiscal responsibility. Byrne more than doubled the size of state government, and Kean followed that with a further doubling, both abetted by consistent Democratic legislative majorities. Florio added about another 1/3, even with the second half discipline the GOP imposed upon him. Whitman held the line somewhat her first term, but faltered in her second. McGreevey, Codey, Corzine and the Democratic legislative majorities boosted spending by another 60% on top of an already bloated baseline.

With the exception of Whitman, whose term was mediocre, every other Governor since Cahill has been an unmitigated fiscal disaster.

At what conclusion about Party spending, then, can we arrive? Consider: Kean is every Democrat’s favorite Republican, "the kind of Republican who can win in New Jersey". Or, put another way, a liberal. Reading the columns he and Byrne write in the Ledger, wherein they often purport to lament out-of-control spending, is enough to produce out-of-control laughter. Or crying. The two principal architects of the State’s financial disaster lamenting the Frankenstein monster they birthed, with very limited admissions of their patent guilt in the crime.

The moral of the story is simple: electing liberals – from either party – to office produces disastrous consequences.

But for sheer cheek, Bob Torricelli takes the cake. First, he reiterates the liberal canards that Bush sent men into combat without flack vests or armored Humvees. Hmm, lessee. What party controlled the presidency and would have had to order the vests and armored Humvees for them to be available for a Bush presidency? But as Clinton "loathed" the military, he could not be expected to actually equip it, could he?

Annoyingly, Torricelli credits Clinton with balancing the budget. Riiiight. Just like Florio cut taxes and spending in the second half of his term. Clinton’s foolish policy produced Republican Congressional majorities, which imposed fiscal discipline upon him. During his first two years, economic performance was anemic to pathetic; in the next six, fantastic. Perhaps Senator Torricelli would provide a candid audience with a single Clintonian policy – just one – which actually, demonstrably helped the economy? Just one little initiative?

Giving Bill Clinton credit for the work of the Republican Congress (does anyone in their wildest imagination believe we would have seen so much as a single balanced budget had Hillarycare actually passed?) is infuriating. HE DID NOTHING to produce economic growth. NOTHING!! The Republican Congress, for strictly partisan reasons, felt compelled to act like real Republicans while he sat in the White House. And the Country prospered mightily, precisely because Clinton was essentially irrelevant.

Alas, the Republicans completely squandered that legacy when a fiscally liberal Republican, George Bush, took office. No longer politically obliged to oppose foolish presidential proposals – and without a President politically motivated to check congressional excesses – the Republicans became a caricature of their complaints about the Democrats.

This produces a huge political difficulty. With the record made by liberals like Kean in NJ, the late, unlamented liberal Republican Congress (and, alas, the liberal George Bush), it’s hard for a conservative to argue that Republicans present anything more than an incremental improvement on the Democrats.

How can one argue against deficits when so many Republicans joined the Dems in supporting the farm bill? When a Republican president passed the largest single entitlement increase since 1965? When some Republicans vehemently support pork? When they get together and pass a budget-busting "stimulus" bill, which indebts our kids even further to permit us to spend beyond our means?

The problem with Republicans is that they often break their promises ("read my lips; no new taxes); the problem with the Democrats is that they often keep theirs.

This election offers the Republicans a chance at redemption. The Democrats did us a huge favor by nominating a truly radical and fabulously underqualified man for President. He measures the cost of his proposals in the trillions of dollars, all of which must be sucked out of the productive economy. Given the record of the last Republican Congress, and the economic performance of this fiscally irresponsible president, this should be a Democratic year. But the people seem to understand that trading one big spender for an even worse example constitutes no improvement.

McCain and the GOP must persuade the electorate that they actually mean to reform their ways, to keep their promises, to cut taxes, curb spending, stop borrowing, and reduce the size of government. If they win, and keep those promise, the GOP may get its "brand" back. If they break those promises – again – the GOP may be in the political wilderness for years, not because the people like the Dems or support their policies, but because millions of voters will stay home, persuaded that no party actually represents their interests.