Here’s a change of pace. Instead of doing separate blog posts on the following two stories, I’m curious to see which one generates the most irritation/anger/disgust from you readers. The first option comes from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, which is appropriately upset that Government Motors…oops, I mean General Motors…is back in the business of lobbying and dishing out campaign contributions. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with petitioning government and participating in the political process, but I don’t think individuals or companies should be doing it with money taken from me by a coercive government.
General Motors is 61%-owned by American taxpayers, who were less than thrilled when forced to buy GM by Presidents Bush and Obama. We can only imagine how GM’s unwilling owners will react now that the company is once again spending freely on lobbying and political campaigns. The Journal reports that the company has been particularly kind lately to Midwestern Democratic incumbents while shovelling out a total of $90,500 in campaign donations so far in the current election cycle. On the lobbying side, The Hill newspaper reports that GM has spent $7 million in the four quarters since exiting bankruptcy, retaining a who’s who of Washington hired guns. This may sound like the business model of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all over again, but remember that the failed mortgage giants at least had to shut down most of their Beltway influence operation once they explicitly became wards of the state. GM has your money and now it apparently has the license to use it to lobby Congress and support its political friends. …There’s also the intriguing legal matter of the United Auto Workers union still lobbying Congress and supporting political campaigns even after becoming a partner with the government in the automobile business.
The second option embarrasses me greatly, because it is a sign of bureaucratic nonsense from my beloved University of Georgia. A student got in trouble for sending an email to the Parking Services division to gripe about the lack of scooter parking. The snot-nosed bureaucrat who received the email apparently got the vapors because of this sentence: “Did you guys just throw darts at a map to decide where to put scooter corrals? Can I expect you guys to get off your asses and put in a corral near there some point before I fucking graduate and/or the sun runs out of hydrogen?” This led to the student being subjected to real threats and potential disciplinary action. Fortunately, the great folks at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education came to the rescue and the craven bureaucrats at UGA backed down.
The University of Georgia (UGA) has withdrawn charges of “disorderly conduct” and “disruption” filed against a student after he sent a mocking e-mail to UGA Parking Services to complain about the lack of parking spaces for scooters on campus. Although Parking Services specifically asks students for both “negative & positive” comments on its performance, student Jacob Lovell spent nearly a month under the threat of punishment after submitting his e-mail. UGA backed down after Lovell came to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help. “Jacob Lovell just wanted to park his scooter on campus, and when he found it a frustrating experience he sent a joking e-mail to the department that had asked for his feedback. But when it received his e-mail, he was threatened with punishment!” said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. “Only on a college campus could a clearly flippant response to requests for complaints about parking on campus be turned into a judicial investigation for disorderly conduct.” …On August 17, 2010, Lovell e-mailed Parking Services with his complaint about its service. His flippant and joking e-mail mused, “Did you guys just throw darts at a map to decide where to put scooter corrals?” and otherwise made fun of the department for what he perceived to be its poor job of providing parking for scooters. Four hours later, Parking Services replied, “Your e-mail was sent to student judiciary.” On September 3, 2010, Associate Dean of Students Kimberly Ellis sent Lovell a letter charging him with two violations of UGA’s University Conduct Regulations, stating, “Specifically, it is alleged that Mr. Lovell engaged in disorderly conduct and disrupted parking services when he sent an email to them that was threatening.” …The letter required Lovell to make a disciplinary appointment by September 13. Ellis informed Lovell that failure to do so would result in his record being “flagged,” rendering him unable to add, drop, or register for classes. Lovell complied with this requirement on September 13. Meanwhile, on September 10, FIRE wrote UGA President Michael F. Adams, explaining that Lovell’s grievance was protected by the First Amendment. FIRE also repeated to President Adams that UGA maintains unconstitutional speech codes in addition to the regulations used against Lovell’s protected speech, and that administrators could be held personally liable by a court for the violation of students’ constitutional rights, as a federal judge in Georgia ruled recently. On September 14, Ellis informed Lovell that she “did not find sufficient evidence to move forward” with the charges and that the matter was now “closed.”
So which story is more nauseating? In the grand scheme of things, the General Motors story is more meaningful because the company is stealing our money and then using our money to lobby for more handouts. Yet I can’t help but think the UGA story is very symbolic of arrogant and stupid bureaucracy. as many of us have experienced on our trips to a DMV or our efforts to get through security at airports. Every encounter creates the risk that a job-for-life bureaucrat may decide to make your life miserable.
I can relate more to the UGA example. My brother likes to ride bikes, but complains that roads have no bike lanes, even around a lake in a state park where he bikes. I tried to explain to him that this just exemplifies why roads should be privately owned. Just like the the UGA example, when ordinary citizens have issues with roads, parking, and the like, they are reduced to writing letters of complaint to faceless bureaucratic monoliths to petition for change, even for small things. I can’t help but think the response from a private company that owned the road and generates revenue from its use would be to make the roads more accessible to more types of users. For those who don’t want to “pay” for it, remember that you pay tax money now for roads and can’t get your grievances addressed. There is every reason that private business would not only cost less than the tax-support government roads, but that they would also accommodate people so much better that we would end up wondering why we didn’t always have private ownership.
So yes, the GM example is outrageous on a grander scale, but the UGA example is more relatable, since I imagine that many people experience frustrations with publicly owned facilities, even while they take it for granted that such facilities are publicly owned (it’s all they know).
The GM story gets me angrier, not so much for the obvious difference in scale, but at UGA, the bureaucrats were simply reacting emotionally. Unfortunately for that student, they have the power to put their emotional state into force. (The fact that they backed down so quickly shows they were not thinking when they acted. Not thinking=emotional.)
At GM, however, each act is purposeful. There is no longer a veiled hint at stealing our money; this is blatant.
Step 1. Politician takes tax.
Step 2. Tax goes to company.
Step 3. Company gives to lobbyist.
Step 4. Lobbyist gives to politician.
Step 5. Profit!
the Georgia story! no contest! GT class of 74 here! :-)
The UGA story should be the saddest.
Haven’t years and years of union leaders taking money from all their members and then funding only socialist inured us to the gm situation? If one is acceptable, then the other should be too. If one is unacceptable, then the other is too.
Mitchell: “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with petitioning government and participating in the political process…”
You should.
There is nothing that big business hates more than a truly free market.
Govenrment-created barriers to entry—in other words, regulations—are often the result of lobbying by large firms wishing to gain an advantage over smaller firms.
Big business can usually handle any extra costs or regulatory burdens. But any entrepreneur who tries to enter the market faces enormous barriers preventing them from challenging big business.
It is because of the realtionship between government and big business that so many monopolies exist – or the market so dominated by a small number of large corporations.
It is for many reasons—not just this—that I do not believe “public policy” should exist at all. Eliminate it and the only thing entrepreneurs will worry about is serving their customers. And that’s how it should be.