> TIM CONDON NOW RESPONDS TO HIS FRIEND GARY, AT SOME LENGTH:
> Lobbyists are not unionized. Lobbyists are not "feet-on-the- street."
> Lobbyists are not the shock-troops that public employees and their unions
> are. And lobbyists tend to cluster in Washington, DC and state capitols
Tim, it doesn't matter what you call these entities, and it doesn't matter what
form they take. The only thing that matters in this regard is whether or not
the government has the ability (the resources and power) to buy votes. If
they have this ability, no amount of capping of its hiring capacity will dent
government's cost and scope.
The problem with government isn't with where and how it allocates the money
it steals. It will always allocate that stolen money to its own end, regardless
of whether caps on its hiring capacity are implemented. The problem is that
it is sanctioned to steal the money in the first place. If it has (or seizes) that
sanction, there will be no shortage of outlets, no shortage of those lining up
for a piece of the pie.
Tim Condon <tim@...
(FURTHER DISCUSSION: A PER CAPITA GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE LIMITATION...)
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gary Snyder <gsnyder15@...> wrote:
> Doesn't address government contracts. If the government is capped in its
> hiring capacity, it'll simply dole out contracts and accomplish the same
Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
That may be, Gary, but private contractors don't establish a
phalanx of direct, unionized government employees demanding more money and
more power...and willing to go out on the streets to make it a reality.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Gary Snyder <gsnyder15@...> wrote:
Correct, their "establish[ment]" instead consists of an army of lobbyists
demanding the same thing. ---Gary
TIM CONDON NOW RESPONDS TO HIS FRIEND GARY, AT SOME LENGTH:
Lobbyists are not unionized. Lobbyists are not "feet-on-the-street."
Lobbyists are not the shock-troops that public employees and their unions
are. And lobbyists tend to cluster in Washington, DC and state capitols
In my estimation, the premier issue that has faced all human beings since
the beginning of civilization is how to restrain some groups (usually thugs
and criminals) from amassing ever more power, declaring themselves
"governments," and living off of the productive efforts of all human beings
who are not part of the resulting "government class." The Founding Fathers
made a valiant and largely effective effort to solve this problem in 1787
with the U.S. Constitution. It was effective for about 150 years (nothing to
dismiss lightly), until about 1936 under Roosevelt, when the Constitutional
plan started to unravel and the walls were breached. By 30 years later, in
1965, the break in the walls had become critical, enabling a
government-growth tsunami. This process of the growth of government is
driven by one thing: Ever more people becoming dependent upon government for
their financial sustenance. It includes welfare and social security
recipients, but most of all what is driving it is employment at all levels
of government, local, state, and federal. Long-term welfare recipients
cannot be depended upon to go "into the streets" to make demands for ever
more money. For the most part they are (thankfully) either unwilling or
unable. Social security recipients make a huge political constituency, but
they are overwhelmingly elderly, and also cannot be depended upon to do the
work "on the streets" necessary to create conditions for continued political
victories which ratchet up demand for government taxing, spending, and
power. The single most important constituency to continually expand
government power at all levels is through unionized (and thus disciplined
and organized) government employees. They have the most direct interest in
continued government growth. They are generally younger, more educated, more
energetic, and more aware of what conditions need to be created and what
political victories must be won to benefit themselves and their families.
The above dynamic was exactly why Sen. Tom Daschle fought tenaciously (and
successfully) against President George W. Bush to make sure that the latest
huge new federal bureaucracy, "Homeland Security," would be federal
employees instead of privately contracted companies, as was originally
favored by Bush (probably because he was so advised by those who understood
the problem). But Bush had no real understanding of the stakes, and probably
no great desire to prevent further government growth anyway. His tepid
objections were easily defeated by Daschle and the Democrats, who knew
exactly what they were fighting for. The same dynamic is behind the
insistent and continued Democrat demands for amnesty for illegal aliens:
They see future welfare recipients, voters, and even feet-on-the-street
political activists who will support the continued growth of government
taxing and spending.
The problem identified above is that there exists a "Government Class"
consisting of all who look to government (at any level) for their
sustenance. The Government Class feeds off of all who are not part of the
class, i.e. everyone else (those who are independent, who work, who pay
taxes, and who support their families and communities). Let's call them the
"Working Class." The problem for the Working Class is to figure out the best
way to stop the apparently inevitable growth of government taxing, spending,
and hiring at all levels driven by the above dynamic. Past attempts have
involved state constitutional tax limitations (such as Prop. 13 in
California), statutory spending limitations (such as Gramm-Rudman, which was
easily pushed aside), and constitutional spending limitations (such as TABOR
plans, including that which passed in Colorado...which has easily been
breached by the Government Class in that state).
In short, neither constitutional nor statutory spending limitations, nor tax
limitations, have worked. Nor have state constitutional prohibitions against
state income taxes such as exist in Florida, Texas, and three or four other
states. State government size and spending in those states have grown
greatly, although not as fast as in those states that have far more taxing
So what are other potential solutions? What other machinery can be
constructed to slow, or even stop and eventually reverse the accellerating
growth of government in America?
I would like to examine state constitutional limits on government employment
per capita. That is, state government (and, ideally, local governments also)
would be prohibited from having more than X number of employees for a given
population. It could be expressed as a percentage ("the number of state
government employees may not exceed .1% of the population") or as a ratio
("no level of government in this state shall have any more than 1 emloyee
per 1,000 residents"). Of course, the Government Class would strive to lock
in the present bloated size of government by measuring what the current
ratio of government employees to population is. This is why I'd like to
gather information on the ration of government employees to population in
America in, say 1860, then 1932, then 1965, then 1980, etc. My guess is that
a reasonable ratio would be found on one of those earlier years.
The constitutional imposition of such a limitation would create many
salutary effects: (1) It would deprive government of disciplined, organized,
public employee union activists; (2) it would decrease the ostensible "need"
for ever higher taxes; (3) it would decrease the ostensible "need" for ever
higher government spending; (4) and it would inevitably decrease the number
of votes for more government growth, taxing, and spending.
Such a plan might work...or it might not. However, we know that taxing and
spending limitations have failed, and usually can't even get passed due to
the increasing size and power of the Government Class. Per capita employment
limits might even be an easier "sell" because existing government employees
would get a larger share of tax monies for themselves. In fact, the proposal
could be coupled with a carrot for current government employees: If the per
capital government employment limitation is passed, every government
employee remaining could be promised a handsome raise. Generous buy-outs of
existing government employees could also be made part of the plan, in order
to decrease opposition and effect huge savings into the future.
One difficulty in passing such a limit would be that existing government
employees and their unions would create as much pain and disruption to the
public as possible, passing it off as the natural result of a terrible
"unworkable" idea. The solution to *that* problem might be to include a free
hiring-and-firing proposal for government employees (since they are, after
all, employees of a monopoly, which introduces all kinds of additional
considerations for the protection of the public and their "customers," the
taxpayers). Thus, government employee saboteurs and disruptors would be
allowed to be expeditiously replaced.
The best case scenario is this: A state constitutional limitation on number
of government employees at the state level, the county level, the town
level, and the school district level is put in place. The resulting decrease
in the number of government employees causes a decrease in agitation and
activism in favor of taxing and spending at all levels of government in the
state. As a result, opponents of increased taxing and spending gain power,
and manage to stem and reverse the tide. With a decrease in taxing and
spending, the state's economy and standard of living surges. Similar
limitations are taken up in other states, with similar salutary effects.
Ultimately a United States Constitutional amendment is passed, with the same
effect on the national scene that individual states have experienced, led
by New Hampshire. America then experiences a rebirth of individual and
economic freedom, resulting in an explosion of work, creativity, invention,
entrepreneurialism, and growth reaching all the way through the 21st century
and into the future.
Call me a dreamer if you want to. That's a common epithet directed at
Freestaters. Nevertheless, nothing else has worked up to this point. It's
time to try something new. And it might just work. Not only work, but
provide a template for freedom and justice into the future.
WRITTEN BY: ---Tim Condon (Who wishes to thank Gary Snyder for making the
objections he made above, thus stimulating further thought and sparking this
> > Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
> > NEED SOME DATA
> > I'm considering the idea of a per capita employment cap for government
> > employees as a way of stemming the growth of government in the Free
> > Most attacks on the seemingly unstoppable growth of government in the
> > have been through either tax caps or spending caps. I'm unaware of any
> > state that has a government employee cap tied to state population. One of
> > data points that the Free State Project used prior to voting on the state
> > that of government employees per capita. But I need a series of figures,
> > for any state that has them, and/or for the federal government. That is,
> > was per capital government employment prior to 1932 when Roosevelt was
> > elected? What was it in 1960 when Kennedy was elected? What was it in
> > when Reagan was elected? What was it in 2000 when Bush was elected? And
> > what are the current figures?
> > Instead of the spending caps and taxing caps, both of which are
> > breached when the government constituencies get large and loud enough, a
> > per capita government employment cap would prevent the constituencies
> > themselves from growing. Plus it attacks the socialists at the heart of
> > their plan, i.e. to have as many people dependent upon government money
> > possible, and to constantly fight to increase that number.
> > Can any direct me to where I can find out the above information?
> > Timothy Condon
> > 12 Liberty Lane
> > Grafton, NH 03240
> > Email tim@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]