The Man in the Mirror

Found at politicsdaily.com.

Pick an Agency, Any Agency: GIPSA

As fiscal conservatives continue to seek avenues through which to derail the federal gravy train, it helps from time to time to take a look at the mind-numbingly long list of federal departments and agencies that are on board. Of course, this list is hardly exhaustive – just one that is publicly available – but it can certainly give us some concrete ideas on how and where to cut the spending.

Today: Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration

About: “The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) facilitates the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds, and related agricultural products, and promotes fair and competitive trading practices for the overall benefit of consumers and American agriculture. GIPSA is part of USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Programs, which are working to ensure a productive and competitive global marketplace for U.S. agricultural products.”
FY 2010 Budget: $84 million (Source)

You read that correctly. The USDA essentially has a marketing department called GIPSA, established in 1994. While they speak of a “competitive global marketplace,” however, they don't deal with foreign marketing or exports; no, for that, you'd have to go down a couple floors to the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). But that's another article for another day. If GIPSA is in the business of marketing, but there's a separate agency to improve American agriculture in foreign markets, then what does that leave GIPSA tasked with?

Atlas Shrugged Movie Update

After 53 years, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is finally being made into a film. In the above clip Reason TV sits down with director Paul Johansson. I was slightly skeptical when this movie was first announced.  However, after reading several interviews with Johansson it's clear that he is extremely passionate about this project.

Politics in One Lesson

If you’ve ever read Henry Hazlitt’s timeless book Economics in One Lesson, you’ll recall that Hazlitt stresses that “the art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.” Hazlitt cites the abuse of this particular lesson as the greatest of all economics fallacies.

While Hazlitt’s description is certainly accurate in regards to efficient economics, part of this principle may be well adapted in dealing with government policies on a more general spectrum. For instance, is not seemingly every piece of government legislation typically fueled by targeting a specific group for an immediate satisfactory gain regardless of the potential long term problems that may arise?

When Congress first considered the Patriot Act, was it not claimed to target only those who would support terrorists or specific groups posing similar threats? While it may have received an overwhelming amount of support initially aimed at quickly disrupting the chances of another seemingly immanent terrorist threat, the groundwork it was laying for future atrocities and abuses of civil liberties was overlooked. People were uneasy and eager to feel a sense of protection. Many were willing to relinquish certain liberties and rights for a false sense of immediate security.