![]() | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Bredesen Administration Gets to Hide More Documents | Main | Obamessiah Update » June 28, 2008Representative ImmunityU.S. Rep. Jim Cooper gets a password he isn't supposed to have, downloads documents from a members-only website he isn't supposed to be on and .... he may have immunity from prosecution for what appear to be criminal acts because: he's a congressman. The incident involves the National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association. The NRECA is a fine organization. Four years ago they flew me to Washington as one of three finalists for a job in their communications department. It's a highly professional button-downed kind of organization, quite different from the wild "antics" description Cooper is throwing around. Incidentally, just because Cooper is immune from prosecution that doesn't mean his actions were ethical. He accessed a computer system that he was not authorized to access - burglary is still burglary even if the door is left unlocked - and stole documents. If Cooper suspected the NRECA was involved in some kind of wrong-doing, he should have tipped off the proper authorities, not played detective. Posted in Campaign Season
Comments
It's good to hear a Republican say kind words about the NRECA when the organization was part of FDR's New Deal in the 1930's. They opposed it tooth and nail then, calling it socialized electricity. At every turn, Republicans have opposed it. It's good to see at least one Republican who's coming around. How refreshing. Posted by: Bill Newsome at June 29, 2008 7:23 PMRural electricfication was a good idea and was one of the last times that an economic development idea actually paid for itself. The fact that an idea was good 80 years ago does not mean that it is good now nor does it mean that it cannot be turned into something bad by basic human depravity. Rural Electrification is highly similar to the depression era gas tax that allowed the construction of farm to market roads. In both cases, urban areas had more electricity or roads because both roads and power were easier to distribute among a compact(and richer) population. There might come a point however, in any scheme to commonize costs, that the next increment of alleged benefit does not come at a reasonable cost. Commonizing costs does not make a program cost less or cheaper. It does not make the benefits larger. The danger of government programs to commonize costs lies in the definition of need. As soon as needs become rights unmodulated by reason, the system is in danger. Commonizing costs does not repeal basic economic laws. We are operating our highway system as if there was a perpetual right to live anywhere and to be able to drive anywhere within the same reasonable period of time for decades. Also, we are operating a system of highways that makes it a right to have asphalt even if the first cost in difficult terrain is ten times that on the flat lands. Even though Tennessee populations live mostly in urban environments,the taxes paid into the Highway Fund are still going largely to rural areas. Congestion is an urban phenomenon even though urban areas have the most financial capacity to rid themselves of congestion. The legislature has locked fuel related income transfers from urban to rural areas into the law in such a way that nearly every county is using property and sales taxes on their local road systems now. Toll roads are being proposed for urban areas, not rural areas as a result of the excessive transfer to the rural counties. An income trnsfer that was originally good now has turned into a malignant policy that bureacrats and polititians want you to believe can only be fixed with more money. Any scheme to commonize costs is risky and has particular risks that vary from scheme to scheme. The convention center fiasco is an example of an attempt to commonize costs that not only attacks our wallets but goes after our property rights. Income transfer schemes should never be viewed as perpetually good or perpetually bad. Even rural electrification can turn to the dark side as it is used to provide real power to imaginary or unmaterialized industrial developments throughout the 98 acres of empty land in Tennessee waiting for the next factory. The incremental benefit-to-cost ratio can be altered by the slightest policy change or even the failure to change policy. Whoops! I should have said 98 square miles not 98 acres. This number moved up three square miles in the last six months. Posted by: Danny L. Newton at July 1, 2008 6:08 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||