Robocalls

Unsolicited phone calls are driving me crazy -- especially the "robocalls" from machines!  Despite being on the "do not call list" I still get calls soliciting for credit cards, roofing, funeral services (these will probably never end), various vacations, and solicitations disguised as surveys.  The political calls have pushed me to the edge.  Its time we did something about it.  Here are some ideas:

Keep track of the number of calls you get from each political candidate.  When the election comes, vote for whoever made the fewest calls.  Pretty soon candidates would figure out that making calls is an ineffective and counterproductive approach.

Pass State laws that require an actual person to answer within 10 seconds if the person receiving a robocall pushes the "0" button.  This would make robocalls too costly for most organizations.

Presidential Race

Does it seem like the party running against an incumbent President often chooses a candidate that is highly unlikely to win?

Bush vs. Kerry

Clinton vs. Dole

Reagan vs. Mondale

Nixon vs. McGovern

Obama vs. Romney(?)

Is there any dispassionate, unbiased person out there who honestly believes that Kerry, Dole, Mondale, McGovern, or Romney had/have a chance to win unless the incumbent was exposed as a cross-dressing child pornographer shortly before the election?  Kinda makes one wonder what is going on in the primary election process that arrives at these candidates.  

 There are several possibilities:
1) The opposing (to the incumbent) party may have decided that it is impossible to unseat the incumbent short of a miracle, so the selected candidate is sacrificial fodder.  This seems unlikely due to the gargantuan egos and incredible work involved, but the slate of Bozos the Republicans have fielded for this election certainly brings the possibility to mind.
2) The opposing party may be manipulating the primaries so that a powerful candidate (within the party) is selected at a time least likely for success.  This might be done to push aside the candidate in the future so a more desirable candidate is selected for a more winnable election.  This too seems unlikely because it implies a secret, well-coordinated, focused effort within the party hierarchy.  Neither secrecy, nor coordination, nor focus are hallmarks of any actions within our political system.
3) The media might be manipulating the outcome by coverage patterns for certain candidates in order to steer results toward their favored candidate.  While I believe the media does a disservice to the public in their coverage, I don't believe they are capable of a successful overt effort to steer the election for the same reasons as the parties being unable to steer it.
4) The primary process is actually what it seems to be.  While severely disconcerting, this seems to be the most likely situation -- Heaven help us!




 

Race to the bottom

A student at Georgetown University's School of Government sat next to me on a cross country flight the other day.  We discussed this blog at some length and she expressed a concern that allowing States to make their own choices about items currently handled at the Federal level would lead to a "race to the bottom" (RTB).  The concern is that if one State is different from another residents will depart the State providing fewer benefits and move to the State providing greater benefits causing a counter-productive catch up approach from the first State.  Ultimately everyone loses.  Having subsequently thought some about this, I present the following thoughts:
1) There are countless counter examples to the RTB.  Virtually every business encounters and deals with competitors and few make the decisions that drive both out of business.  Most either find a win-win path or only one prospers -- but at least that one does prosper.
2) The functions currently performed by the Federal government consume resources that would presumably become State resources (assuming the total outlay to governments by citizens remains constant).  Since citizens of States are not currently leaving the State, and since presumably the State would be a better judge of what its residents need, it is likely that the same financial resources would be likely to make the residents happier rather than anxious to leave the State.
3) Perhaps a bad example given its fiscal condition,but California has for many years had significantly more restrictive laws in the areas of environmental effects than required by or implemented by other States.  This did not cause any mass migration.  Similarly other States have had unusually beneficial welfare and/or health care conditions, once again causing no significant migrations to or from other States.
As businesses that have opened plants in other areas have found, it is very difficult to get most people to move -- even when their moving costs are paid by the company.  Most of us want to be right where we are locationwise.
Further consider that we're talking about a survivability issue for the decision makers in a State.  If the Governor and the Legislature of a State make decisions leading to a RTB, they will lose their positions and livelihood -- their very survival as they have defined themselves will be at risk.  According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs their survival will dominate all other factors in their decision processes and they will refuse to enter a RTB.
Now weigh the above against the benefits of allowing, tracking and reporting on fifty different approaches as discussed in an earlier article.  Diversity has great potential for leading to convergence on a far better solution for every State.  I just can't buy RTB as a significant risk.   

Seeking help

At this writing only a few hundred people have viewed this blog.  I originally envisioned that the ideas represented herein would become broadly discussed conversation topics and compete with the relatively trivial but seductive discussions and the major items with no proposed practical solutions that politicians seem to want to lead us into today.  It is not evident that this is happening.  I solicit your help in two ways:
1) If there are a substantial number of items in this blog that match your views, please send the link to everyone you know who might be interested.  It would also be good to include your personal perspective.
2) Please provide comments with your perspective on this blog or other items associated with the Federal Government and perhaps we can get some meaningful debate generated.

Thanks
Ron