BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Author Archive

Friday

13

April 2012

1

COMMENTS

How Much of Your Money Does it Take to "Translocate" a Bush?

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Waste & Government Reform

I wrote recently about a situation that demonstrated how much more inefficient and wasteful is government compared to private action. Another story, this time out of big government mecca San Francisco, provides further evidence of government waste:

The government spent at least $205,075 in 2010 to “translocate” a single bush in San Francisco that stood in the path of a $1.045-billion highway-renovation project that was partially funded by the economic stimulus legislation President Barack Obama signed in 2009.

…“The translocation of the Arctostaphylos franciscana plant to an active native plant management area of the Presidio was accomplished, apparently successfully and according to plan, on January 23, 2010,” the Interior Department reported.

The bush—a Franciscan manzanita—was a specimen of a commercially cultivated species of shrub that can be purchased from nurseries for as little as $15.98 per plant. The particular plant in question, however, was discovered in the midst of the City of San Francisco, in the median strip of a highway, and was deemed to be the last example of the species in the “wild.”

Prior to the discovery of this “wild” Franciscan manzanita, the plant had been considered extinct for as long as 62 years–extinct, that is, outside of people’s yards and botanical gardens.

Before that, the bush had grown in the “wild” in two cemeteries in San Francisco’s Richmond District as well as on Mount Davidson, a peak in the middle of San Francisco. The Department of Interior said that there had also been “unconfirmed sightings” of the shrub in the city’s Haight-Ashbury District—an area that became famous in the late 1960s as the epicenter of the psychedelic hippie movement.

I feel like the country has gone completely mad. Step back and think about this for a moment. Our government is running trillion dollars deficits, we are piling unsustainable debts upon future generations, and are barreling down a path that without a sharp correction will eventually see us turn into Greece. Yet we’re willing to spend $200,000 not just to move a freaking plant, but to move one that isn’t actually rare in any real sense of the word, and even if it was, so what? It’s a plant, people! Are we insane, or am I?

First of all, what in the world were they doing to move the plant that could possibly cost that much? Second, it is ludicrous to make a distinction between “wild” plants and…what, domesticated plants? Plants held in captivity?

A plant is a plant is a plant. Whether the initial seed wafted unobstructed on the wind until reaching its resting place and sprouting, or was consciously planted by a human being makes no material difference regarding the nature of the plant. The plant does not experience life differently depending on whether it is “wild” or not.

Finally, who says “translocate”? Such self-aggrandizing bureaucratese is an indication that the author understands what the government is doing is both shamefully unimportant and worth neither their time nor the taxpayers money. The bureaucrats involved are merely trying to obscure the issue and deceive the people and, perhaps even more so, themselves. Nobody likes to feel like what they do is unimportant, so just imagine how it must feel to write a report about spending boatloads of taxpayer dollars to move a shrub. Of course, that’s nothing like how the rest of us are forced to feel in paying for such nonsense.

Tuesday

10

April 2012

1

COMMENTS

Overgovernment: No Bags For You Edition

Written by , Posted in General/Misc.

Sometimes I think nannies just put things on a giant roulette wheel and spin to find the next thing to ban. For the enviro-nuts in Los Angeles, the new(ish) evil is disposable bags.

You know that horrible feeling when you get to the grocery store ready to use reusable bags and realize you forgot them at home? Well, pretty soon forgetting them won’t be an option for customers at 7,500 supermarkets throughout California.

According to the LA Times, the  Los Angeles City Council’s Energy and Environment Committee approved a ban on plastic and paper bags at grocery stores last Wednesday, saying it would make consumers more likely to use reusable bags. It has not yet been voted by the City Council as a whole.

My own little bastion of tyranny, otherwise known as Montgomery County, Maryland, recently decided to slap a pointless and obnoxious $.05 tax on bags. So I have to actually tell the cashier at Subway that yes, I want a freaking bag; I’m not going to just carry around a bagless sandwich like a hobo.

What has the world come to?

Saturday

7

April 2012

1

COMMENTS

Friday

6

April 2012

1

COMMENTS

Department of Labor Propaganda

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

I once again find myself forced to draw parallels between the current administration and dictatorial regimes. The inundation of propaganda intended to invade the very thoughts of  the people is a necessary component for any dictator or strongman regime.  And apparently the same is needed in a democratic society when you run not on the soundness of ideas, but instead on empty sloganeering and the iconography of a charismatic leader:

Government-financed political propaganda at the Department of Labor is causing discomfort for some employees.

Signs posted in at least 20 DOL elevators depict Secretary Hilda Solis carrying a bullhorn and rallying alongside the Rev. Al Sharpton, the Free Beacon has learned. Next to the pictures is a quote from Solis that reads in part: “We all march in our own way.”

“Whether we take to the streets or simply do our work with integrity and commitment here at the U.S. Department of Labor… we are all marching toward the same goals: safe workplaces, fair pay, dignity of the job, secure retirement, and opportunities to make a better life,” the poster states.

It concludes with a call to action.

“I believe in the power of collective action. We all play a role. We all march.”

I believe in the power of individual liberty and free thought, two things which are anathema to the collectivized state.

Wednesday

4

April 2012

1

COMMENTS

Private Does It Better

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Liberty & Limited Government, Waste & Government Reform

This is apparently an old story from a couple years ago, but I just came across it. First, the story:

Their livelihood was being threatened, and they were tired of waiting for government help, so business owners and residents on Hawaii’s Kauai island pulled together and completed a $4 million repair job to a state park — for free.

…Polihale State Park has been closed since severe flooding destroyed an access road to the park and damaged facilities in December.

The state Department of Land and Natural Resources had estimated that the damage would cost $4 million to fix, money the agency doesn’t have, according to a news release from department Chairwoman Laura Thielen.

…And if the repairs weren’t made, some business owners faced the possibility of having to shut down.

…So Slack, other business owners and residents made the decision not to sit on their hands and wait for state money that many expected would never come. Instead, they pulled together machinery and manpower and hit the ground running March 23.

And after only eight days, all of the repairs were done, Pleas said. It was a shockingly quick fix to a problem that may have taken much longer if they waited for state money to funnel in.

It would be easy to take a story like this and generalize about the uselessness of government, but I don’t want to overstate the lesson here. This is a very particularly case that is not likely to be applicable in many other situations. Specifically, the residents had a very strong financial interest in restoring access to the park, enough to overcome the collective action and free-rider problems.

But what strikes me as really interesting is the stark contrast between the cost estimates by the government and the amount of work it actually took from the volunteers. The government needed $4 million dollars to do what a handful of volunteers got done in eight days. That is a shocking amount of waste and incompetence, and this sort of thing probably goes unnoticed every single day. Only this time, because folks got together to act, we were able to see clearly just how incompetent government is.

If ever there was proof for the inefficiency and waste inherent in government, this is it.  The lesson here is not that government is necessarily unneeded, but rather that anything which can be accomplished by some other means than government, should be.

Tuesday

3

April 2012

5

COMMENTS

The Judiciary Strikes Back

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Following the President’s intemperate, childish outburst of Constitutional ignorance, one  federal appeals court is fighting back:

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

…The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists.

Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy is upset over the rebuke, finding it to be “embarrassing to the federal judiciary.” I disagree. While I don’t necessarily think that demanding a three page response is necessary, standing up to the Obama’s dangerous assault on the judiciary certainly is.

The Obama administration, which leads a branch of the government, has since Citizens United all but declared war on another co-equal branch, the judiciary. I, for one, do not expect members of the judiciary to just sit back and take such a dangerous assault (see the damage wrought to our liberty and economic well-being by FDR’s successful attack on the Supreme Court), and am rather heartened to see that they are not.

Simply put, I don’t think it’s appropriate for a sitting President to engage in dishonest, populist assaults on a vital American institution in order to undermine freedom and expand the already near limitless power of government. I find pushing back against his intemperate outbursts to be entirely appropriate, certainly in intention if not the precise manner.

Tuesday

3

April 2012

1

COMMENTS

Obama Desperately Lashes Out at SCOTUS

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Indicating just how serious the White House is taking the Supreme Court’s review of Obamacare after the government’s dismal performance during oral argument, President Obama has lashed out with a populist and ignorant scolding of the court for daring to consider the Constitutionality of his signature legislation.

“I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress,” President Obama said at a White House event in the Rose Garden today.

“I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step,” Obama said to the White House press.

Is the President really so ignorant of both the facts regarding his legislation (it was not passed with a strong majority, for instance, but instead by an extremely narrow, party-line vote), and the Court’s history? There is nothing unprecedented about overturning unconstitutional legislation. Overturning unconstitutional acts is precisely the job of the court. Or is our law professor President not familiar with Marbury v. Madison?

And as I’ve previously written, judicial activism is a red herring. The job of the court is to actively defend the Constitution.

The President later urged the court to look at the “human element,” as if liberal feel-good intentions trump the Constitution. This is typical of the left, where the ends are frequently used to justify any means. If a law is good and necessary to advance some liberal goal then it must be Constititional by virtue of the fact that the left has deemed it good and necessary. But of course that’s not how it works, and a President supposedly schooled in Constitutional law should know better.

Tuesday

3

April 2012

0

COMMENTS

Free Market Capitalism Breaks Out in New York, NYT Can't Figure Out Who to Blame

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Free Markets, Media Bias

In one of the odder stories I’ve seen in sometime, the New York Times describes competition among local pizza shop owners as if it’s reporting from the front lines of Afghanistan. In essence, new competition has forced prices at local pizza shops down from $1.50 to $.75. Wonderful, right? How great for the consumers!

But the article describes the “amped-up war of commerce” in the starkest of terms, warning that “escalation seems imminent,” as if the missiles might fly at any moment. They even note that both sides accuse the other of “unprovoked” price slashing, implying that it’s a negative thing that can only occur after some sort of initial affront. Not once does the piece object to this absurd characterization by offering the point of view of the consumer. Price cutting is not an action that must be “provoked,” it is a simple consequence of our competitive system where businesses fight to attract customers. Nor do we need the New York Times to delve into the he said/he said to determine who is the “true aggressor.”

There is no aggressor; there are merely multiple suppliers rushing to serve the same customers as cheaply and efficiently as possible. Perhaps if the New York Times understood the concept they wouldn’t be losing so many of theirs.

Wednesday

21

March 2012

2

COMMENTS

Unanimous Supreme Court Slaps Down Tyrannical EPA

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Although somewhat limited in its application, today’s Supreme Court decision in Sackett vs. EPA is a victory for property rights and should serve as a shot across the EPA‘s bow. I’ll let Alito’s concurrence set the stage:

The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees.

The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable.

We’ve still got a long way to go to restore basic property rights in this country, and the Sackett’s still have to fight the EPA on the merits of the case as they seek to disprove the claim that their own property is a “wetland,” much less a “navigable water” of which the Act supposedly deals, despite having no water. But at least now they have their Constitutional due process rights recognized*, so that they may challenge EPA’s jack-booted thugs in court without first having to rack up millions in fines waiting for EPA to allow them to do so.

EPA designated “wetland”

*To avoid spreading misinformation, I should clarify that the court did not have to draw upon the Due Process clause, as they found a sufficient statutory basis.

Tuesday

20

March 2012

3

COMMENTS

Overgovernment: It’s Better To Be Hungry Than To Be Salty Edition

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Nanny Bloomberg strikes again:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s food police have struck again!

Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer.

Glenn Richter arrived at a West Side synagogue on Monday to collect surplus bagels — fresh nutritious bagels — to donate to the poor. However, under a new edict from Bloomberg’s food police he can no longer donate the food to city homeless shelters.

Big government is a jealous government. You shall have no other providers before big government. You shall depend entirely upon big government for your sustenance, for you know not what you do.