Transparency and Friction

Free markets are effected by interested parties only if the market has complete transparency and resources move in a friction-less manner. 

Some actors will try to control every market by removing transparency or bringing friction into the market.

When ever a body of people is able to shade the market or place friction into it, the market ceases to be free.  

What ever institution monitors the market, in order to ensure its both friction less and transparent  is by default called "the government".  One can name it committee or congress or agency or what ever we wish, but each market's monitor will be it's "government".

Some would have the "free market" be "the government".  For select markets, being free may be just the right institution for that market best meet the needs of humanity.  However, not all markets can be absolutely free.

Libertarian and anarchic ideas, in general,  aim to make markets governed by Adam Smiths "blind hand".  This view advocates letting markets go to "the natural order of things".

However, one must first prove that the "natural order of things" is the best existence for humans.  I maintain that this simply and obviously not so.  Rather, we manipulate our environment constantly in order to improve for ourselves.  Our markets are just another form of human manipulation.

There is no natural law that says markets will self balance optimized to human needs any more than there is any law that says campfires will burn at the right temperature for cooking.  The unaltered natural order is not what is always best for us.

What I have yet to see from these viewpoints is how, in a realistic manner, with out some form of "government" markets will work properly.  What systems will actually effect pragmatic and practical transparency and friction-less movement in markets?

It appears to me that humans will always be struggling to find a balance between "controlling" markets and allowing them to be free. 

Bearing Arms

 The constitution is neutral about what kinds of arms we choose to bear.   

We citizens, however, seem to have a preconceived notion of which kinds of arms we want to bear. 

The debate never seems to get to chemical, nuclear, biological, weapons.  No one is advocating we all should be able to buy tanks or aircraft carriers.  

The strongest and perhaps most dangerous arms we possess are our minds, which we often choose not to bear at all.

It seems rather that we have a narrow historical view of "the good old days".  An imaginary past that we wish to cherish for its strengths and ignore for it failures.

Shocking!

Is the US Becoming Despotic?

"Avoid the comfortable idea that the mere form of government can of itself safeguard a nation against despotism." ~ Harold Laswell, PHD of Yale University in 1946

Democracy and Despotism

At the end of World War II, Encyclopedia Britannica's film division produced a film exploring how societies and nations rank on the spectrum from democracy to despotism.

Having fought such a violent struggle against fascism, there was much thought given to what had happened and how it might be avoided in future.

Reflecting upon their experience, the warning signs of despotism were noted:

1. Concentration of power into a few hands
2. Fewer people considered worthy of respect

These cautions operate in our current era.  They also suggest we should keep power divided and respect other's right to hold different viewpoints.


Concentration of Government Power

We have divided government today.  The supreme court and congress are not concentrations of power at this time.

Divided power

The supreme court is often divided in its decisions with none getting their way all the time.  Most decisions are split and few unanimous. Debate and dissension seems standard operating procedure.

Congress is divided between the left and right; the Senate is Democrat controlled and the House Republican.  Divisions within parties even constantly struggle to gain tactical advantage.  A push and pull between competing ideas is a daily battle which unfolds before us.

Many individual states trend toward one ideology or another.  Many other states have divided ideologies.  There is no clear concentration of political power across the states, although a few states may not be divided.

Distribution of U.S. wealth

Concentration of Economic Power

There appear to be business, individuals or other interests that have concentrated power.

Economic power has become very concentrated.  Fewer and fewer people control the wealth of the land.  This slanting of the distribution of wealth allows hidden political power to accumulate.  While voting may continue, the laws are drafted by those with money to influence more often than the those who represent the electorate.

Over the past 50 years, economic power has become concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

A strong middle class would be a good counter balance to coalescing economic interests.  Taxes, law and purchasing power can be used to counter balance those whose economic interests attempt to control the people.

The idea that only a few of us should have earned the wealth of the land is warning sign that despots could be near.  I do think there is some secret plot, rather fear a trend that puts our democracy at risk.

I am also not advocating socialism as a solution.  An equal playing field for all citizens to compete fairly will allow wealth and incomes to remain unconcentrated.  Capitalism must be regulated, greed should not be the means for political power.


Worthy of Respect

In the arena of respect however, our society may be at a higher risk of becoming despotic.  People of strong views are often not listening to one another.  We tend to group together in insulated bubbles of ideology.

Respectful?

With many options in media, people flock to political identity groups.  In doing so, we have begun to regularly disrespect one another.

Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh would be examples of voices that frequently show disdain for their opponents on the right.  How they speak to others illustrates incivility.  Using disdain,  interruption, and ridicule as tactics; their lack of esteem for others as human beings is easily heard.

On the left we have examples in Steven Colbert and Huffington Post.  Frequent coarseness, flippancy, and impiety are used to present their political opponents as being less than human.  Often cloaked in humor, the negative impacts can be devastating to persons rather than ideas.

Of course all humans are within their rights to be biased.  It is not the bias that leads to despotism.  It is the lack of respect for others that can do so.

Casting political stones

Mental Violence

While it may be fun to use Ad Hominem (to the person) attacks, they are dangerous when they become the standard means of communicating with each other.

Ridicule, dismissal, disdain, interruption, rudeness, and impoliteness are not tactics that mature, reasoned adults should use in discourse.  Verbal abuse is a form of mental violence.  Allowing constant and frequent verbal abuse leads to devaluing human beings.

Despots thrive in an environment of hate.


What Not To Do

One should not question the moral character of a person who disagrees with us.  Actions  and opinions can be found immoral by one or many of us.  Holding an idea by itself is not immoral.  It is our duty to help others become moral, not dismiss or persecute them as unworthy of morality.  

When a person's circumstances are used to define their views by others, it is a sign of lack of respect. Saying "They only passed that law to gain votes" or "only the uneducated listen to that idea" are disrespectful means of attacking a person rather than an idea.

Guilt by association is another frequent way of disrespecting other people.  This fallacy says "This person thinks a thing and another person we all know is evil thinks the same thing, therefore they both must be evil."  These arguments devalue the person rather than the idea.


Disagreement is Normal

No one has perfect morality, circumstance or association.  We all fail at somethings.  People who claim perfection are acting dishonestly.

Every man is a sinner

When we are all made to agree with one opinion, we risk despotism.  Disagreement is healthy for all of us to learn better ways of thinking and being.  Dissent is healthy and required for a democracy to thrive.

Divided political power is a strength of democracy.  Dictators can not control divided power.  Kings do not prosper when people contend for different views.  It may not be a pretty form of government, it is the best we have found so far.

Divided economic power is also a strength that keeps away despotism.  A strong, vibrant middle class is necessary in order to not allow one or a few to control the land and its laws.

Ridiculing people rather than ideas demeans us all.  Disagree, debate, and vote.
Do not demean people for their ideas, good or bad.

Prioritizing Freedoms

Illusion of Freedom

Are we free?  Can we be free?  Is freedom a given?  Or perhaps freedom is only an illusion?  Can any freedom not come at a cost to another?

One view of freedom

High above a police drone flies, camera pointing down upon a young couple as they skinny dip in a secluded park.

Buying a pack of cigarettes at the local gas station, purchase data is analyzed for poor health choices and insurance coverage denied.

Attending the start of school, a child’s hand is placed on heart and pledge recited while peers and teacher watch, ensuring compliance to accepted behavior.

Pushing a broom on Saturday, the Jewish laborer knows there will be no future employment for him if he does not.

Another view of freedom

Blowing his nose, the old man wishes he was free from the pain of allergy.

We use the word “freedom” frequently in our culture to mean that we are able to act on our will.  Our expectation of deeds without restraint leads us to believe we are at liberty to live our lives.

The reality is we are only free in part.  Actions have consequence.  Freedoms are not equal. 

Each thinking person finds their own view of how to live their lives.  Each living person is driven by causes beyond their control.  Freedom is a goal that may never be fully reached by all people, all the time.

Assumed Freedom

Our culture assumes we have some degree of free action.  Custom holds us responsible for deciding what we do.  Fate and destiny are assumed to be generated, at least in part, by each person.

We expect economic freedom to make contracts, buy and sell, and keep the money we earn.

We desire the freedom to worship or not as we choose.

We want to move freely about without interference.

We expect privacy in our persons and homes.

We demand freedom from harm; to protect ourselves, loved ones, and property.

We aspire to freely choose government and laws it creates and enforces.

We wish to make free choices for ourselves so long as no one else is hurt.

We insist upon speaking freely, to express our views, and join the public debate.

In all these cases, the independence of action, the ability to express our individual will is taken for granted.

Freedoms Conflict

Freedom during war is different

Each freedom does not exist alone.  They are co-dependent and conflict with each other.  The price of one freedom is often the limit upon another.

Our desire for protection causes us to desire police.  Giving police the tools they need to protect us limits our freedom of movement, our freedom of choice, and cost part of our economic freedom.

Our desire for pleasure has consequences on others. Smoking, gambling or drinking have a cost in resources beyond our own persons.  We limit our movement and privacy to ensure our pleasures do not harm others.

Our desire for lawful governance costs money taking away our economic freedom.  We give up our free movement to ensure regulated transport.  Our desire for protection from government means giving up privacy.  We limit our choices in order to allow the whole to prosper.

Our desire for freedom of speech allows bad ideas to be aired.  People with foolish thought or hostile intent can harm us all.  We limit our speech when it causes the society to suffer. 

Freedom in the Balance

Our balances of freedoms are the result of choices we make as a society.

We prioritize one freedom over another. 

Freedom during peace is different

Screaming “FIRE” in a crowded theater when there is none is forbidden.  Such speech is prohibited so that fear does not cause a stampede of injury.  Freedom of speech is sometimes limited for freedom of protection.

Unwarranted searches of our homes are not allowed so that we can maintain the privacy of our lives.  We sometimes value freedom of privacy more than freedom of security.

Not paying transportation tax is prohibited so that we can move more freely.  Moving about freely has a cost we sometimes value more than economic freedom.

We choose freedoms differently with circumstance. 

At one time we thought limiting the vice of alcohol was necessary for other freedoms to endure. 

Feeling our security was threatened in time of war, we limited economic freedom so that money and material could be directed to the soldiers and battles.

Freedom Struggles

Any one freedom can trump the others.  Each of us has a different view of how we prioritize freedom at any time.  When enough of us want one freedom to override another we can collectively make it so. 

Struggling to define the next freedom balance

The balance between freedoms is under constant change.  First one type of freedom will dominate then another.  Later a different freedom will become more important to us.  War, disaster, or even our dreams of the future change our perspectives and thereby our priorities of freedom.

At no time will freedoms be equal.  Trade-offs are searched for in each time and place. 

We use our politics and government to move the balance between freedoms.

Freedom is not an absolute.  Freedom is a balance between competing desires and needs.

Next time you say you are “free”, stop and consider what you mean by it.  Is “free” what you meant before?  Is “free” what you will mean again?  What new balance of “free” are you willing to make?


Be sure to subscribe to Philomeme!

The U.S. is a Socialist State!

 Several people have told me over the past year of their belief that the United States is becoming a socialist country. 

Many believe Obama is a socialist

Pundits on radio and television proclaim that we are redistributing wealth through taxes from rich to poor.  Claiming liberty is under threat, it is said we are losing our capitalism and becoming a socialistic country.  

Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin seem to take this for granted.  Rush Limbaugh preaches that a socialist trend will bring the country down.  On the political right, the national move toward socialism is taken as a goal of the political left.

There are two basic themes being espoused.  One is that the United States is socialist already.  The other is that the United States is becoming socialist.

Let us examine some data to see if these claims are warranted.

What is Socialism?

Socialist countries try to achieve and maintain an even balance between the poorest and richest citizens.  One of the major aims of socialism is to ensure that people are economically equal.   Non-socialist countries will have very rich and very poor segments, where wealth and income are distributed unevenly.

A common thought

Socialism in its purest form is an economic system where a collective of people or government owns the means of production and distribution.  

In pure socialism there is no private property.  In pure socialism everyone shares the benefits of property equally.  

Pure socialism has never been achieved by a modern nation state.  Some level capitalism has always been allowed.

There are degrees of socialism. 

Some real-life socialist-like states have their government planning their economies, allowing businesses to operate for profit under close supervision.  Countries like Cuba, North Korea and Burma practice this form of socialism. 

Other real-life socialist like states allow workers to share control of businesses with owners.  India and Germany have variations of this form of socialism.  Where implemented carefully and thoughtfully these kinds of economies thrive.

Lastly are those countries with market socialism.  Nationalized businesses compete within a market, returning the profits to the state.  China’s recent economic boom has occurred using this form of socialism.

Distribution of Income

If we divide citizens into five groups (quin-tiles) and look at their annual income the difference between the richest fifth and the poorest fifth in socialistic nation would be small.

Current income distribution in the United States

With a little reflection, most people realize this is not the case for the United States.  When asked to estimate the balance of incomes, most citizens predicted that there was a significant imbalance between rich and poor.

When asked what their ideal balance was, citizens thought in general terms that the rich should stay rich, but not so rich.  They also thought poor people needed to earn more of the income pie.

The actual distribution of incomes is much different than expected in the survey.  

The wealthiest have significantly more annual income than the average citizen expected.  

The very poorest are much worse off than citizens thought, estimated or considered ideal.

The current distribution of income among citizens of the United States is very clearly not showing signs of socialism today.  To the contrary, in terms of income distribution the United States is not a socialist nation.

Distribution of wealth and assets
in the United States

Control of Wealth

In socialism the government or collectives of citizens control the wealth of the land.  If this is true we would see an even distribution of wealth between citizens.  The facts indicate otherwise.

One percent of the population controls 43% of the total wealth of the nation.

The bottom 80% of the population controls only 7% of the nation’s wealth.

Clearly property and money are not being redistributed to the poor in any large scale.  Rather, we see a very few people owning most of the riches.

The current distribution of wealth among citizens of the United States is very clearly not showing signs of socialism today.  To the contrary, in terms of wealth ownership the United States is not socialist today.

Income Trends

If the United States is trending toward socialism, then we would see data that showed the poorest citizens having gains in income while the richest citizens lost it.

If we examine data from 1963, before the liberal Lyndon Johnson became president and started the Great Society program, and compare it with income distribution in 2009, when the results of George W. Bush’s economic policies were in full effect, what shall we see?

During this time frame, there has been a surge in the number of citizens who are making less income and plunge in the number of citizens who are making more.  

Fewer and fewer people are earning good incomes.  More and more people are earning poor incomes.

  

If we examine the over all trend in incomes during this period, we discover that we are moving farther and father away from a socialist economy.  

In 1963, the United States was much closer to a socialist balance of incomes than it was in 2009. 

During this forty year period, the economic balance has shifted drastically away from the poor to the rich.

While the number of people who are earning good incomes is dropping, the amount of income being earned by the rich is steadily rising.

The current trend for wealth and incomes among citizens of the United States is very clearly not showing signs of trending toward socialism.  To the contrary, the United States has been becoming less socialist as time passes.

Unions and Government

If the United States was becoming socialistic, then unions of labor would be gaining power.  

Data from 1948 until 2008 shows a different trend.  Labor unions, including government and private sector unions, have dropped to less than half of their peak rate during Harry Truman’s liberal administration.

If the United States was trying to redistribute wealth, we would not see a dramatic fall in federal taxation on the rich.  In socialism, the rich are taxed heavily to support the poor.

When looking at tax revenues by source, we see a dramatic rise in taxes on payroll income.  This represents and increase in the taxation of labor.

Meanwhile, taxes on corporate revenue fallen significantly.  Businesses are given greater access to capital by reduced tax rates.

The individual tax rate is applied on money not earned by labor.   The individual tax rate includes things like inheritance taxes, stocks profits, dividends, and interest income.  The individual tax rate has remained fairly consistent.  Taxes on wealth not earned by labor have remained flat.

The current trend for government and labor in the United States is very clearly not showing signs of trending toward socialism.  To the contrary, the United States has been becoming less socialist over time.

  

Ignorance or Lies?

Clearly the facts show that the United States is NOT BECOMING SOCIALIST.  It is in fact becoming less socialist.

So why are people saying we are becoming socialist?  I will not venture to guess at their motives here, perhaps in another post.  I will suggest a course of action for we the listeners.

Those who ARE saying that the United States is becoming socialist are either ignorant of the facts or intentionally lying.

When a pundit does not know the facts, they should not be speaking about the issue.  Ignorance is not a qualification for expertise.  Listening to ignorance will only breed ignorance.   Continuing to listen to the opinions’ of ignorant speakers is a foolish thing to do.

When a pundit does know the facts and deliberately lies about them, they have broken trust and should not be listened to.  Audiences should ignore them until they leave or change their ways.  Listening to someone who lies to you is a foolish thing to do.

Limbaugh, Palin, Hannity, and others who spout that the United States is currently socialist or becoming socialist are either uninformed or telling falsehoods.  Either way, wisdom suggests, we should stop listening to them.

Give and Take

Where tax money gets spent by government matters.  Some states take in  more dollars in federal spending than their citizens pay out in taxes.

Good citizens pay their taxes to the federal government. Other citizens in greater need  receive distributions from  central treasuries.  Taxes are also spent on more generic services like  highways, military, and science research benefiting us all.  

Being a curious sort of fellow, I decided to go look at raw data and see who was taking and who was giving.  Below are documented the results of my quest.


Top 10's

The top 10 states that give more than they take from our common coffers are largely Democratic states.  Nebraska and Texas are the only two Republican leaning states in the top 10 whose citizens are net givers to other states. 

The division between those states who take the most per person does not fall into party lines.  Taker states seem to be largely rural, poor, or remote.


Total Contributions

When the total contributions by Republican and Democratic states is added together and average, there are some startling results.

The data shows that, in total, Democratic states give more in taxes than they receive in benefits.  

States that are Republican controlled states take much more benefits all together than they pay in taxes.  

Neutral states are those that have less than a 25% majority Democrat or Republican.  These states are also net takers, but less so than Republican states.

Democratic states tend to be more populous than Republican states, thus the bars are not identical in size.

Nationally, Democrats gave each spent $1,114 more in taxes than they received in benefits and services.  Republicans took $1,540 each on average.  States with Neutral party affiliation took an extra $1,467 per person.

States that Lean Heavily Democratic

Democrats Divisions

Heavily Democratic states are a mixed bag of givers and takers.  

I could find no clear trend in the most Democratic states were takers rather than givers when considered along party lines.  

The data indicates there is a broader trend for states leaning Democratic to pay more even though the most Democratic states do not always give more.

States that Lean Heavily Republican

Republican Takers

Heavily Republican states were much more likely to take more from the taxes than they gave in.  

These states are often rural or poor.  Of course not all rural and poor states are Republican. 

These taker states tend to be in the south and west.  

It is telling that there is a lack of major east and west coast states from the taker lists.  

Givers and Takers

In the chart below, the states are ranked by how much they contribute or take from the general federal taxes by large green and red bars.  The thin blue (Democratic) and thin red (Republican) bars indicated the strength of the part in each state.  Clicking on the graphic will provide an expanded view.

Conclusions 

Pundits have been saying that Democrats are a nation of 'takers' while Republicans are 'givers' whom Democrats take from.  Even Presidential candidates have used this idea as campaign strategy.  

The Givers and takers argument has become a center of our economic debate.  It now seems common wisdom that some people give more and other people take more and that they can be divided upon party lines.  

The facts, however, disagree.  It turns out that on average Democrats give more taxes per person and Republicans take more benefits per person.  Perhaps it is time to change the common wisdom?


Be sure to subscribe to Philomeme for more articles like these.



Methods and Sources

First came taxes and spending divided by how many people are in each state.  This yielded an average giving or taking by person allowing apples-to-apples comparisons.  

Next was counting the political parties of state and federally elected officials, including Governors.   Averaging Democrats and Republicans Congressmen at a state and federal level gave a % Party Factor. A reasonable means to indicate if a state leaned heavily to one party or another.

Wham BAM Thank You, Man!

We now have the technology to make a digital model of the human brain. We need but to will it to happen. If we do not, someone else will. Sooner than you may think. Scientists have devised a practical plan to do accomplish this amazing feat. We must fund them.

From humble beginnings in 1987, scientists began to model the human genome. They wanted to make map of the entire sequence of genes that make a human being. With government funding starting in 1990, the project was expected to take 15 years. They accomplished the project in 2003 with international assistance from scientists in the Europe and Asia.

Calling the project Brain Activity Map (BAM) the scientists propose to step-by-step build models of the human brain using software. They would start with a simple worm brain and work up through increasingly complex creatures until they can model a human brain. Brain mapping is sometimes also know by the term “connectome”.

The Science

Imaging techniques would be used to see what is happening with individual molecules in the brain's cells. This imaging technology already exists. Computer manufactures believe they can continue their decades long exponential growth in machine processing power using Moore's Law. This means the hardware to run the imaged brain models will be available before the brain model is completed.

Existing technology to image the brain at the molecular level

The well understood C. Elegans

The plan involves five major stages. Each stage attempts a more complex brain. The plan allows five years for each stage in order to image and model larger and larger brains. Several “brain observatories” would be constructed to allow for competition between research teams.

The first phase would start with C.Elegans, a simple worm that has already been under study for decades. The worm has 302 neurons with about 7,000 connections between them.

The humble Fruit Fly

Scaling up from the worm brain model, the scientists would then attempt a Fruit Fly (Drosophila) next. The Fruit brain has about 135,000 neurons. Current computer hardware is capable of this feat already, the scientists need only do the imaging to make the model.

Depending upon what is learned with the first two phases, the third phase would attempt either the common home aquarium zebrafish brain, a section of the human brain called the hippocampus or perhaps both. Both of these brains have just under a million neurons to image, model, and put into software.

The fourth stage would be to model the entire brain of an awake mouse. This would provide a brain model that could be tested in real time against live beings. Then the project would go on to the fifth stage to map and model an entire, working human brain. The 25 year estimate to finish this entire project is very conservative.  If structured smartly, competition could work for like it did for the human genome project and results could be achieved even sooner.

Costs

The plan calls for a mix of private and public funding in the order of about $300 million a year. Over the proposed 20 years of of the project it would cost about $6 billion to accomplish. This is on the same scale as was the Human Genome project. Even if the real costs double, it will be cheap at the price.

A billion dollars seems like a lot. To understand the scale of this investment, consider that just to build a single aircraft carrier costs almost $27 billion. We have 11 of these ships. The Transportation Security Administration has a budget of $8 billion annually. The Hubble Space Telescope costs $10 billion over its lifetime.

Putting in the Golden Spike

The Payoff

The human genome project has had staggering economic benefits. The under $4 billion invested over 13 years on research returned $796 billion in economic activity. The genome investment generated 310,000 jobs. It also launched a revolution in the bio-sciences that will be felt for generations to come.

The return on investment for mapping the human brain could be much, much greater. There is no accurate way to predict just how many jobs or how much new economic activity this project could generate. Even if the Brain Activity Mapping project were to only break-even in financial terms, the benefits to our knowledge, medicine, and computers will be far reaching.

A man, a plan, a canal: Panama.

Knowledge of how the brain works will have many impacts we know about and more we can only guess at. Understanding how mental illness works. Scientists believe that they can model the effects of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, schizophrenia and autism in the brain leading to better treatments and perhaps even cures.

Advances in artificial intelligence could boost our information processing capabilities. Understanding how consciousness emerges from the brain would allow to understand what we humans are even better. We may even be able to build our own new kinds of minds.



Just Do It

As when we decided to put a man on the moon, connect the Pacific Atlantic oceans by rail, and build the interstate system; this project must be done. The benefits to our country and mankind are too great to turn away from.

Already the European Union is funding similar research in Switzerland. We should not give up on this research like we did with the Superconducting Super Collider.  We should lead the world, not follow it into this new frontier.

We should ensure our children and grandchildren benefit. It is a small investment. We should fund this now.

No Congress Left Behind

We test our students to see if they are knowledgeable enough to become citizens.  We should test the members of our Congress to see if they are fit for duty.  A basic understanding of law, economics, military arts, and science should be required in order to govern.  Those that can not pass such a basic skills and knowledge test should either be given remedial instruction, or be denied office.

A broken institution?

We Think They Stink

In the House of Representatives, our 112th Congress read the U.S. Constitution aloud.  It was a symbolic way to show the people that Congress was aware of the rules they governed under.  It was a statement that we are a nation of laws, not men.

In the reading, they claimed they would not fall short.  They claimed they would not kick the can down the road.  They claimed they would end business as usual and carry out the people's instructions.  Most of us think they failed. Miserably.

Congress has an abysmal rating among citizens.  82% of us think they are doing a rotten job.  Maybe if we had more knowledgeable people in Congress, we could get their approval rating to a stellar high of 50%?  You need about a 65% rating to graduate from high school.  Our standards for Congress have sunk so low.

Congress's behind is the butt of jokes.

No Child Left Behind

In 2001 Geo. Bush the junior signed his proposed bill into law called “No Child Left Behind Act”.  This law required states to test children in order to receive federal funding for schools.  Each state was to create and administer an annual test to its students. Each year the students must do better than the year before on their tests.

The goal of “No Child Left Behind” was to increase accountability of schools.  Since most of us do not think our government is being held accountable, perhaps a dose of their own medicine would help Congress be better?


What To Test?

How many of today's Congress people
could measure up to these standards?

The issues that confront us today require leaders who know the details.  Not all of Senators and Representatives need to be experts in every subject.  There should be some minimal baseline of knowledge that each and every member has.

Knowledge of the Constitution is a starting point.  Being able to identify the various governmental departments, their budgets and mission would be another.  An understanding of the law would not hurt.  I'm not as worried about this part of the test as about a 40% of them are lawyers.



A basic understanding of the scientific method is crucial in this modern age.  Some questions on basic biology, chemistry and physics wouldn't be bad either.  How can we have leaders able to cope with our high tech world if they don't understand the fundamentals that make it up?  Among the 435 members of the House there is one physicist, one chemist, one microbiologist, six engineers and nearly two dozen representatives with medical training.

Economics is another area that seems lacking in today's Congress.  An understanding of basic accounting, micro and macro economics seems essential to having good government.  We may not need Nobel laureates, but the basic understanding that budgets have to balance would be nice.  Each and every member should know that the government has to pay its bills on time or we all lose our credit rating.

How many leaders have even been
on an aircraft carrier?

In high school, I was required to know all 50 states and capitals by heart.  Perhaps our Congress people should know all 200+ countries, their leaders, location, capitals, and basic political structures?  As the leaders of the world, our Congress should be very knowledgeable about it.

Few who join the armed services want to let loose the dogs of war.  Veterans tend to be more cautious with use of military force.  Perhaps we should require all Congress people to go through basic training?   Baring that step, they should at least have a good understanding of military doctrine, weapon systems, and the weaknesses our military has.

There are more things we could test for, but these might make a good start.

Time out for ignorance.

Expect More

There are of course details to work out.  Who would write the test?  Who would administer it?  Should we test before they can declare candidacy?  What if they fail the test after they are in office?  These kinds of questions did not stop us from expecting more from our schools.  They should not stop us from expecting more from Congress.

Perhaps the Supreme Court can create the test?  Perhaps the President can administer it?  Perhaps states that keep electing people who fail the test should be put on probation like college athletic programs when they have scandals?

I will acknowledge my intent is a bit satirical.  There may, however, be some grain of wisdom in the idea that we need to objectively measure Congress's performance.  Starting off with measuring individual members might not be a bad way to begin.