Government waste and how to better control it

Today I read a story on the Washington Post about military spending that absolutely floored me.  It essentially states that we have as many people working in support services as we do for all the active duty military personnel combined.  That means for every front line soldier there is one person paying bills, buying supplies, and doing other administrative tasks.  This information comes from an internal Pentagon study and estimates are there are $125 billion in over spending every year.

Here's some tables I pulled from the study:

		Employees	Cost
Admin Employees		716,000
Desk soldiers		298,000
		1,014,000	$134 billion	23%
Front line soldiers		1,002,000	$446 billion	77%
Total		2,016,000	$580 billion

Here's the breakdown of the 1,014,000 people in military support services.

		Employees	Total cost	Avg Cost
Supply chain		457,000	52.1	114,004
Acquisition		207,000	37.5	181,159
Real estate		192,000	22.6	117,708
Human resources		84,000	11.4	135,714
Financial Flow		41,000	5.4	131,707
Health Care		30,000	4.1	136,667

Keep in mind that the $446 billion spent on front line soldiers also includes the cost and upkeep of all the military equipment and you can imagine just how bad this problem has become.  I'm sure it is something that isn't much of a secret to the actual fighting soldiers.  They get paid a relatively small amount and put their lives on the line while deskbound costs have soared to well over $100,000 per employee annually.

I'm sure quite a bit of this is due to the way the military is structured.  To advance in the military you have to work well with your superiors and that doesn't happen if you criticize how they've done things.  Keep in mind that most soldiers also don't spend much time in any post so it is easy to leave the bureaucracy for the next guy.  Add a Congress that wraps itself in the flag for votes, giving the military money even when they don't want it, and you get something that is impossible to control.

Of course the Pentagon hid the study and it's hard to blame them.  First, studies by outside consultants are always highly optimistic and in today's political environment this study would have been tossed around like a grenade, which each side cherry picking parts of the study to make political points.  The problem is there is a real issue and without visibility no one outside the military can fix it.

This isn't just a problem in the military.

Ratification of the US Constitution

The country's founders based the United States government on the concept of a separation of powers.
 The legislative branch in Congress makes the laws.  The executive branch in the President executes the laws.  The judicial branch in the Supreme Court checks the law for legality.

This system has worked for over 200 years but under the current scope and size of the United States this system is starting to show cracks.  Money, power, and atrophy has combined to create a bureaucratic morass that our current system cannot control.  Social media adds to this mix and unleashed a public anger at a government that no longer listens to them.  This has lead to things like President Trump but he can't fix the system.  No one person can do it.

What is the answer?  Is there an answer?

King George III

Our current situation reminds me of a comment King George III made after the Americans won their independence,

"I pray that the United States does not suffer unduly from its want of a monarchy."

This quote baffled me when I first read as the American colonists fought to rid itself of monarchy.  In time I realized his meaning that the United States government would benefit from an enlightened leader at the top with limited power.  Kings of England by George III's time had lost most of its power compared to the British Parliament who both made laws and elected the Prime Minister who was the executor of those laws.  The king's position (and in time, the House of Lords) was mostly one of oversight.  Over time the king of England became a symbol, the voice of the people and a check on the excesses of Parliament.

Queen Elizabeth II

I recently watched the television series called 'The Crown' which showed the first couple of years of Queen Elizabeth's reign.  I didn't know much about her before this show and never really gave it much thought.  It keys on the relationship between the wizened Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Elizabeth, an out of her depth young girl.  The Queen had little understanding of how the world worked when her father died and struggled at first with her ignorance compared to these older, much smarter men,

Near the end of the show, Elizabeth finds her footing, scolding senior government officials for keeping secrets from the English public and from her.  The sight of these great men trembling at the foot of a 25 year old girl was the highlight of the show for me.

Elizabeth understands that her role is as the conscious of the English people so their leaders keep the welfare of their people first in their hearts.  The Queen is supposed to be above partisan politics.  She only cares about the country and there is benefit in that.

The United States has nothing similar in its government.  Throughout US history it has relied primarily on the politician's love of country and the media to keep our government honest.  This doesn't seem to be working anymore.  Political confrontations like Watergate, the Bork confirmation hearings, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, budget impasses, and the lead up to the Iraq War have inflamed passions on all sides to the point that no one is able to put country ahead of party.  The country has no conscious anymore

The British Senate House in London,
the basis for Orwell's Ministry of  Truth
in his book, 1984

I've thought for a long time this country needed a 4th branch of government called the 'Ministry of Information'.  While it sounds Orwellian in title, my hope would be the reality to be somewhat limited in scope.  This 4th branch of government would be elected by the people with a 20 year appointment and focusing on leaders with a proven lifetime of service to the country.  This group would elect a new leader from its members each year,  The only caveat would be after election, members of this group could no longer engage in public politics of any form.  Doing so would lead to immediate dismissal.  Like the Queen, people in this organization need to be totally above politics.

The only goal of the 'Ministry of Information' would be to provide truthful information about the country.  Current organizations like the Congressional Budget Office would transfer to authority to them.  Government misstatements in the press would be called out.  A real look at the state of things like Social Security and Military spending would done.  Politicians would be held accountable to repeated false statements.  The organization would be part auditor and part newspaper.  When agreed on by other members, the president of this organization can meet with Congress and/or the President when they feel either aren't doing their job and go public when they refuse.

Of course there is the possibility that this organization could fracture leading to the same situation as current the Supreme Court but I'd hope we could find a couple dozen civic minded citizens to lead this group.  Ideally we'd never hear from them other than policy papers that would lead to marked improvements in how our government operates.  They would only go public in times of crisis like a lack of a Supreme Court vote over last summer or a rash of filibusters I'm sure we will see next spring over Trump's appointments.

The American government is based on effective lawmaking combined with a separation of power.  Party politics have narrowed the lines of power creating never ending gridlock that has no hope of addressing the needs of its people in the 21st century world.  Our current system is starting to show its age and we need to act soon before we prove King George's admonition correct.

Tweet

Hillary vs Donald, an Election Day lookback - Is the best behind the United States?

Today is election day in the United States with Hillary Clinton on one side and Donald Trump on the other. This election will go down as one of the most vitriolic in American political history. I thought I'd take this opportunity to step back and take a look at both and look through their BS to see if I can find a little bit of truth.

Tonight both Hillary and Donald released a capstone video as a last plea to win votes.

Here is Hillary's comment:

"We've come through some hard economic times. And we've seen some pretty big changes. But I believe in our people and I love this country. And I've convinced our best days are still ahead of us if we reach for them together."

Clinton's comments are similar to Reagan's optimism in the 1980 election.  Every politician since then has made this optimism a cornerstone of their policy even if facts got in the way.  Hillary's only real modification is adding 'reach for them together' which is a nod to the demographic shifts of the past fifty years. 

Here is Donald Trump's take which is amazing in its pessimism:

"The political establishment has brought about the destruction of our factories and our jobs as they flee to Mexico and China and other countries all around the world. The only thing that can stop this corrupt machine is you."

It is hard not to have at least a little grudging admiration for a man that can state, 'Vote for me, I'm the only one that can save you' with a straight face.  Beyond Trump's self importance, he actually speaks truth to subjects the American people know are correct but our politicians are too cowardly to state out loud.

The country isn't dominating anymore.  Politicians have failed the country over the last 30+ years. The US manufacturing sector has shrunk to a fraction of the American workforce since its numerical peak in the late 1970s. The American trade deficit is staggering and the national debts we are accumulating are unsustainable.  Trump has tapped into something powerful that will have ramifications long past this election.

******

Of course politicians are supposed to talk a good game but the question no one really asks is --- can they really do anything about the problems?

When the United States founders wrote the Constitution they knew they country had one huge advantage over their counterparts in Europe.

In essence, the United States had lots of land and the ability to expand.

During the country's first century most immigrants become farmers and as they settled the land they pushed the borders westward (by war and native displacement) past the Mississippi River and eventually to the Pacific Coast.

After the Civil War, the country moved to its second phase, taking the English Industrial Revolution to a new scale and creating wealth through manufacturing making many millionaires in the process.

Three things fueled the post Civil War boom - land, abundant natural resources, and a seeming unending supply of cheap immigrant labor.

Farming as a percentage of total labor dropped from 70% to 30% during this period as people started to move from farms into cities looking for work. A lack of competition meant profits stayed mostly with the 'robber barons' leading to the first government regulation of business and pressure for labor unions.

Then Europe exploded in flames and changed everything. Few people realize the transformational effect World War One on the the country but you can make a good argument it was just as big as the American Revolution or the Civil War.  Certainly its impact was bigger than World War Two.

The Industrial Revolution started in Europe but with millions their men dying in trenches, United States manufacturing rose to fill the demand. American steel, American grain, American textiles, and perhaps most important, American gunpowder, took the place its European counterparts. American gold reserves filled to overflowing due to the international trade imbalance. The American Dollar soared in value. Every warring power found themselves highly indebted to American banks to the point they all demanded relief from their debt load in the 1920s.

The United States produced almost half the world's industrial products during the post war period even though it represented about 3% of the total population. New inventions like radios, automobiles, and refrigerators poured out of American factories, lengthening the lead and increasing the boom.

During the 1920s, the United States still held its three key advantages in land, abundant resources, and cheap labor but it had been joined a fourth - Banking Power. 

The country leveraged this into a decade of prosperity until over speculation lead to a Wall Street crash, the Great Depression, and the world economy dependent on American production and banking crashed as well.  This led to another disastrous World War, which again destroyed much of Europe allowing the American economy to restart with a virtual monopoly in many world markets.

In the first half of the 20th century, the government broke up predatory monopolies and enacted protection for labor unions. During the post World War Two world and with a world dependent on the United States goods, wealth rapidly spread down through the economy leading to a rapid expansion of a new American 'middle class'.

High hourly wages, leisure time, employer paid medical plans, and retirement pensions became an expected part of American life vs. the impossibility of such ideas a generation earlier. A boom of postwar babies came to understand this circumstance as normal, not as a fluke of profitability due to a destroyed world economy.

The first signs things were changing started in the 1960s as wages started to stagnate but the real turning point was the OPEC embargo in 1973. In 1971, gold reserves dropped to a dangerous point forcing the president to move from a gold backed currency to currency based on faith in the American economy.

American manufacturers suddenly found it harder to compete internationally as the high labor cost, imported oil, and the creeping cost of property eliminated many of the country's historic advantages. In the 1980s the economy exploited its last advantage, banking to continue to expand its economy and to pay for the salary and benefits expectations raised by the postwar boom.

As the Industrial Revolution made its way around the world, countries leveraged their cheap labor costs to compete with American business. It didn't take long for the United States to move from a manufacturing based economy to a service/consumer economy. Families that previously could survive on one income now needed two incomes to pay the bills. Massive credit card debt became the norm. Big school loans. Borrowing against housing loans. Living paycheck to paycheck.

In 2008, speculation in the housing market crashed almost destroying the United States last economic advantage in the banking sector. Massive subsidies saved the banks but ended the banks spending spree which tightened credit. The post war baby boom is began to retire leaving fewer active workers to pay for retirement benefits. Government debt rose to all time historic levels vs GDP, threatening to spiral out of control and make the US dollar worthless.  It's a mess that will take hard decisions but American political system is unequal to the task as the politicians continue to ignore these issues, afraid for their re-election, hoping the problems will magically go away and leaving the mess for the next guys in office.  Of course there are exceptions but the bottom line is gridlock.

*******

Click to embiggen

Hillary says we've been through tough times but 'together we will find better days ahead' without giving any details. The truth is after WW2 the United States saw a period of unsustainable profits but instead of recognizing that we spent our surplus on unsustainable social programs, war, and extravagance. Hillary's plan does little to address the problems that face the country and I'm pretty sure she's smart enough to realize this. She's also a smart politician and will never admit it.

Donald says he can bring jobs back but I've seen no plan from him that could actually accomplish this. Look at the above chart.  The United States has added  100 million workers in the last 65 years, most of them in the service industry.  Frankly, there is no way to get manufacturing back to 30% of total employment we saw in the post war era.  We'd need to create 50 million manufacturing jobs and none of these jobs are coming back. No manufacturing company can compete if they pay American wage rates. Trump has hinted at using tariffs and quota's to accomplish this but all that would do is create a backlash against American products internationally.  It would cause higher unemployment as companies retaliate and stop buying American.  It would also lead to inflation due to the tariff, causing Americans to pay more not less for their products.

The bottom line is the United States benefited from a global economy for most of the 20th century and now we are feeling the effects of competition that were destined to occur.  It is naive to think we can go back to a pre-WW1 economy where the United States trade stayed mostly within its own borders.  It is silly to blame NAFTA or the Pacific Trade Partnership for lost jobs.  In fact, working with the world is important if we want to continue to thrive.  We can no longer dictate to the world.

Wall Street knows this which is why the stock market improved 300+ points on Monday, assuming that Hillary is more likely to win.  The stock market will crash if Donald actually does win as they hate uncertainty.  Hillary is a politician and knows the nuance of the world economy.  Donald speaks to an angry populace that feels helpless.  I understand that anger but it doesn't mean they are correct.  Frankly, I hate to think what might happen to the economy if the country is led by someone that doesn't understand the basic economics.

******

Politicians annoy me. It's obvious I'm not the only one who feels like this and Donald Trump has tapped into the country's anger. The problem is like the Egyptians, Romans, and British before us, empires follow a predictable pattern.

The people of the United States need to understand our time of dominance is almost over.   That doesn't mean we will become a third world country.  The United States will be an important member of the world community for a long time to come but only if we learn to live within our means.  I know none of us want to admit it but it is true.

Neither of this year's candidates are willing to tell us the truth so it is up to us to lead them.  We cannot rely on politicians to improve our future as their reliance on empty promises can't solve anything.  Trump has tapped into anger that is important but only if we are willing to face the truth.  If we don't we will create the future for ourselves that we fear the most.

Tweet

Sir Kevin vs the Dragon

And now for something completely different:

Once upon a time there was a brave knight called Sir Kevin. His exploits were renowned through the yet it is his clash with the foul beast known as Fred the Dragon that he is best known.  Many thought Fred to be merely a tale told to scare young children but Sir Kevin always knew otherwise.  It was a warm August day when these two legendary foes met.

The dragon caught Sir Kevin by surprise as dastardly creature are wont but thankfully the creature did not strike at once instead preferring to retreat to a high vantage point.  Sir Kevin knew this was often the preferred tactic of dragons as they need a high vantage point before they can swoop down raining hellfire.  Sir Kevin was much too cunning for the beast as he ran as fast as he could in the other direction.

Sir Kevin thought of retreating then to warn nearby villagers but the dragon guarded the exit to the valley.  

"Then I will lay a trap myself," said Sir Kevin aloud though no one was close enough to hear him speak.  Inspired by the surge of energy only present when staring death in the face, Sir Kevin devised a trap of incredible cunning.  

But how to get the beast inside?

Moments later the answer came, "Of course, I know, my faithful companion Yogi will help".  If any were nearby they might question Sir Kevin's sanity as he continued to speak out loud with no human in earshot.

"Charge Yogi.  Kill the beast."  

Yogi flew through the air on command.

But alas Yogi was not up to the task.  His plush stuffing hit the creature's hindquarters, the sound of the collision indelibly resounding in Sir Kevin's ears as Yogi bounced once then landed on the ground with a dull thud. Fred the Dragon turned, his maw pointed directly at Sir Kevin, flames expected to spew any second.  Sir Kevin had no choice.  He drew his sword.

Words cannot describe the battle that followed. Steel hit scale. Bitter epitaphs were sworn by both sides though Sir Kevin cannot be certain what Fred said as he does not speak lizardtongue. In the end, both man and beast were not able to best the other, the scaly beast cleverly avoiding the trap and returning to his lair.

Sir Kevin knew victory was not to be had on this day.

Sir Kevin checked on Yogi who had made a miraculous recovery despite his nasty fall.   Yet Sir Kevin knew his friend was more hurt than he was letting on and while he wanted to continue the battle, Sir Kevin decided it best to make hasty retreat for his friend's sake.  Besides, it was important to let the nearby village know that dragons had returned to the land.

And that is the tale of Sir Kevin vs the Dragon.  Even now, bards are composing songs of the mighty battle that no one else saw.  As his fame spread throughout the land Sir Kevin has cloistered himself behind stone walls in preparation for the day he might again meet Fred the Dragon.  Others have attempted to fell the foul beast but Kevin will not come out of his room until his studies are complete.  And when that day happens, Sir Kevin promises the dragon's days are numbered.

THE END

Tweet

Could Barack Obama join a select group of U.S. Presidents?

Now that the presidential primaries are over it is now official that the Republicans and Democrats are running Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton respectively as their candidates.

Trump has never served in public office in any capacity and if he wins will be the first since Eisenhower to win the presidency with no prior public service experience.  The only other presidents with this distinction are George Washington, Zachery Taylor, and Ulysses S Grant though all these men served in the United States military and each commanded the army during war.

If Hillary wins she will obviously be the first women president in United States history which is certainly a landmark, but as I watched Obama's speech it dawned on me that if Clinton wins it will also put our current president in a rare category.  Only nine presidents have been elected to two terms and had their party win the next election.  They are:

President	Party	Historical Ranking
Thomas Jefferson	Democrat-Republicans	4
James Madison	Democrat-Republicans	14
James Monroe	Democrat-Republicans	16
Andrew Jackson	Democratic	7
Abraham Lincoln *	Republican	1
Ulysses S Grant	Republican	36
William McKinley *	Republican	19
Franklin Roosevelt	Democratic	2
Ronald Reagan	Republican	15

                 * - Elected Twice ; Died in office

Will Obama join this group?  Only if Hillary wins.

As you can see this list contains many of the best presidents in US history.  To serve two terms and still be liked enough at the end of your presidency that your party can still win the next election is a rare thing in American politics.  The following fact about this list of men is even more interesting to me when thinking about the future.

President	Currency
Thomas Jefferson	$2 bill ; Nickle
James Madison	$5000 bill (discontinued)
James Monroe	$100 Silver Certificate (discontinued)
Andrew Jackson	$20 bill
Abraham Lincoln *	$5 bill ; Penny
Ulysses S Grant	$50 bill
William McKinley *	$500 bill
Franklin Roosevelt	Dime
Ronald Reagan

Notice the guy at the end whose been left off?  Republicans have been trying to get Reagan's face on US currency since he left office but the Democrats have prevented it thus far.  That hasn't stopped Republicans from immortalizing Reagan's name where ever they can all over the country.

Contrast that with Obama.  Despite what Republican say, Obama has been a good president.  He inherited a divisive war, a crumbling economy, and a polarized voter base yet right now he's finishing strong enough to be a positive force to help get Hillary and other Democrats elected.  That is what it means to leave a legacy.  Compare that to George Bush who was considered toxic to Republican candidates by the end of his presidency.

Obama has been a much better president than most Republicans are willing to admit just like Reagan was a better president than most Democrats are willing to admit.  My guess is it won't be long until we start seeing Obama's name on schools, airports, and parks all over the country just like Reagan.

Perhaps we might even see some comprise in Congress and in time we will see Reagan on the $50 dollar bill and Obama on the $100.  Crazier things have happened.

Tweet

Lucifer - How a mistranslation gave the devil another name

Earlier this week I found a comment by Ben Carson very interesting.  Actually it wasn't something that Dr. Carson said but instead in the reaction to a disparaging comment he made about Hillary Clinton.

In 1969, Hillary wrote her undergraduate thesis about Saul Alinsky, a man who in his book Rules for Radicals called Lucifer:

“… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively he won his own kingdom.”  

Ben Carson saw that as Saul Alinsky praising Lucifer and sees Hillary’s relationship with Saul Alinsky as another reason why America should reject her.  I mostly ignored the comment at the time as politics is filled with half truths but someone made a comment online that did arouse my interest.

The name Lucifer isn’t in the Hebrew Bible.  It’s a mistranslation from when Jerome created the Latin Bible.

As a history junkie, this statement was much more interesting to me than a political jab no one will remember in a week.  Was this person’s claim true?  What is the origin of the name Lucifer?  I spent the next couple of hours investigating it.

The story of how the Bible came to its current form is much too complex for a blog post but for the last 400 years the English speaking world has mostly used the King James Bible.  The King James has had a huge impact on the way we speak today.  Many common sayings such as 'bite the dust', 'fly in the ointment', and 'wit’s end' along with thousands of other common phrases all originate from the King James.  It isn't much of a stretch to state that the King James Bible has had more impact on the English language than any other book.  Yet in this version of the Bible the name of Lucifer is mentioned exactly once.  It occurs in Isaiah 14:12.

 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Of course the Bible wasn’t originally written in English.  The main source for the King James Bible was the Latin Vulgate written by Jerome around 400 AD which states.

Quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris? corruisti in terram, qui vulnerabas gentes?

This translates loosely to:

“How art thou fallen from heaven , O Lucifer, son of the morning like the sun? art thou cut down to the ground , you who laid the nations low!”

The confusion occurred when Jerome translated the Hebrew Bible into Latin.  Here's the translation of the Hebrew Bible directly into English.

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

Notice the change?  The meaning is essentially the same in all version but the original Hebrew referred to a morning star.  What is the Latin word for ‘morning star’?  You’ve probably guessed that it is lucifer.  In defense of Jerome, his wording had nothing to do with Satan as Lucifer was also the proper name for Venus, as known as the morning star.

Hanging Gardens of Babylon
by Maarten van Heemskerck

Isaiah 14:12 was written as a metaphor.  In this case the 'morning star' is (most likely) referring to Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylonian who conquered most of today’s Middle East in the late 7th-early 6th century BCE.  After repeated uprisings in today’s Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar took important Jewish families into Babylonian captivity starting in 597 BCE.  It was in this captivity where the Jewish scholars put the final touches on the books that made the Torah while adding further books.  Most of Isaiah 14 speaks about the godlessness of Babylon and how its actions will lead to ruin. 

Cyrus the Great liberating the Jews
 from Babylonian captivity to resettle
 and rebuild Jerusalem.
Painting by Jean Fouquet

It mentions nothing of Satan and while some Christians have argued Satan was working through Nebuchadnezzar, the Bible does not state this explicitly.  All Isaiah states is saying Nebuchadnezzar had risen high and would eventually be struck low.  Later in Daniel 4:28-33, Nebuchadnezzar is shown to have lost his sanity though most history scholars feel this passage is really speaking about a later Babylonian king, Nabonidus, who is known to have had a nasty skin disease.  It fits the narrative as Nabonidus is also known to history as the last of the Babylonian kings.  In 539 BCE he lost his throne to Cyrus the Great, founder of the Achaemenid Empire, who eventually allowed the captive Judeans to return home to Jerusalem.

How did one mistranslated line about the ‘morning star’ in Isaiah 14:12 get into today’s vocabulary equating the devil with the name Lucifer?

Paradise Lost Illustration
 by Gustave Doré

It took time.  As people stopped using Latin, the meaning behind the words made less sense to future generations.  They began to understand the word Lucifer as a proper name of an individual.  When Dante completed the Divine Comedy in 1320, he referred to Lucifer as sitting in the 9th ring of Hell.  In 1654, Vondel made Lucifer the titular character in his play on the subject of Satan.  In 1667, Milton's Paradise Lost speaks more specifically when he describes the angel Lucifer's fall from Heaven to become Satan in Hell.  As time passed, these popular works meshed into Christian lore and the names of Satan and Lucifer became interchangeable.

So today I learned something from Ben Carson ... indirectly.

Tweet