Let’s Change the Debate Formate

Watching the most recent debate between Bob Stefanowski and Ned Lamont the CTMirror reported that there were a “few zingers” but little substance. The audience, although frequently admonished, added to the casual atmosphere that we were attending an entertainment event rather than a political debate, by hooting, whistling, and applauding.

Let’s face it, debates are forums in which each candidate tried to get the best, as the CTMirror puts it, “zingers” and hammer home one point whether it is factual or impactful or not. Stefanowski’s mantra was “taxes” and the inevitability that Lamont, being a Democrat, would raise taxes. On the other hand, Lamont described how his opponent would rip the very textbooks from our children’s hands, take grandma’s life-saving medicine away, and resurrect the long-settled issue of pre-existing conditions. The only problem is that none of it is true. It is basically 90 minutes of what we common folk refer to as bullshit.

Who, “won” the debate? On my scorecard I had Steph by a “nose”. Not that his plan was any better, but he was more comfortable and more entertaining. WRT whose plan was better, neither man provided any useful information which would aid in a responsible voter’s evaluation.

As such, these debates fail to provide useful information, to the contrary, any information that they do provide is misleading or incorrect. In fact, that is a strategy that some pundits teach in debate preparation and which we saw both Stefanowski and Lamont employed.

To wit, if it is your question, you have two minutes. So, you answer the question and then end with a statement about your opponent that you know or should know is untrue. This forces the opponent to exhaust his/her rebuttal time to correct your statement. Check it yourself. (You can see Ned Lamont expertly wield this technique if you go to 37’00” of the debate replay on CT-N). It is done in every political debate.

In addition, as we saw from the 2016 primary and presidential debates. This format is subject to misuse and can be easily corrupted or exploited. We know that Donna Brazil and CNN shared questions with Hillary Clinton to the detriment of poor hapless Bernie Sanders, who still doesn’t know what hit him. Now, these two points should be enough for scrapping the whole idea. However, there is some value in having the opportunity of seeing and hearing the two candidates answering questions side by side,

So, with all that in mind. Here is my idea for a new debate format.

  • The debates are structured like Hoover Institute’s “Uncommon Knowledge” (check it out on YouTube) and issues are discussed in intimate detail with 2 or 3 interviewers and last 2-2½ hours each.
  • There may be two or three interviews focusing on biography and education, political values and why these are important, and specific plans and programs which they intend to implement. This will allow a deep dive into the candidate’s plan.
  • The interviews are done simultaneously, but separately, and without an audience.
  • The candidate’s writings, advertising, position papers, and resume should be examined in detail by the interviewers who are selected from the public with one left leaning and one right leaning. N.B. that the interviewers are citizens, people from business and industry and not pundits, not reporters, not editors. We want the interview to be as unbiased as possible, and for the questions to be substantive and informative, not “gotchas”.

Here is what I consider the clincher! The interviewers will ask the candidates to provide a metric by which we can evaluate success or failure for each of their initiatives. Something definite and objectively and accurately measurable. Lamont says that he will close the “achievement gap”. How then will that be measured and what is the goal? Steph is going to phase out the personal income tax which will reduce taxes and increase revenue. When and by how much?

The interviews should be edited very basically and uploaded for viewing on CT-N and YouTube as well as TV (Maybe the News12 or WTNH gets a first showing option to recoup some money).

What do you think? I believe that everybody will support except the candidates.

We Need to Let Them Know That We Are Here

Someone asked me recently, “What is a Conservative?”

Not all Conservatives are Trump supporters. Out of the original Republican field, Trump, was, for most of us, our 17th choice. I don’t like some of the crudeness of the man but most of us felt we had no choice. Hillary said that she wanted to use, “force of law to change people’s deep-seeded religious beliefs.” Even if I were not a religious person, that frightened me to death. With that said, I do like most of what Trump has done. I didn’t like Barack Obama. I still believe that he was the worst president in my lifetime. I will admit that I voted for him in 2008. I liked his message of unity, of “can do it”-ness and of hope. I didn’t vote for him in 2012, and would have voted for Mickey Mouse, if he was running against him. He was a divider not a unifier, and race relations were much worse in 2016 than they were in 2008, or perhaps even 1965.  And worst of all, he overreached his powers, like no other president before him. For him to the federal government to ignore laws duly passed by congress because he didn’t agree with those laws, was equally as frightening as Hillary’s threat to religion. As a Vietnam Vet, I felt bad, about Obama’s apology tour. I didn’t think that we were responsible for the war in Vietnam and I don’t believe that we were the origin of the, “great evil that was done here (Hiroshima)”.

Yes, there are conservatives in the state of Connecticut. This is a fact of which you would never be aware if you just read the Hartford Courant or the Connecticut Post, or listened to NPR and the likes of Colin McEnroe. These people don’t know it, but they do not speak for much of Connecticut. McEnroe told and interviewer that conservatives are people who post comments and they are “reading at the 4th grade level in Mississippi, you can’t spell anything, your minds are full of hate”, etc. etc. I thought of what Hillary Clinton said about conservatives being “deplorable”, and “irredeemable”. I watched Michelle Wolf belittle and berate Sarah Sanders sitting ten feet away from her, calling her “fat” and a “liar” while a roomful of liberal elitists laugh as if it is the funniest thing they have ever heard, and then go home to write about how stupid, and mean and full of hate the conservatives (or just about anyone who disagrees with them) are. I hear Governor Malloy tell us that we need to give them more money because “its the right thing to do”.  In a nearby school district, boys are girls are forced to write about “White Privilege” and they ingrain in the white kids that they are “oppressors”, and the other kids that they are the “victims”. How can that help anyone? And then they call us “uninformed” voters.

Well, I am sick of it.

Colin McEnroe, Hartford Courant, Governor Malloy this is what a conservative is:

Unlike Liberal, Conservatives have an ability and a preference for “thinking for themselves”. As such, there are a lot of different types of conservatives. In general, we believe in independence and free though and freedom, in the absence of the bonds of a repressive and overreaching federal government. We believe that we have ceded far too much of our liberty to government.

Unlike the other parties, we do not have a litmus test for our participants and, as such, we have people with differing beliefs. But, here are some of the things that conservatives are not:

We are for limited government. We support the 16 or 18 roles of the federal government enumerated in the constitution and as the 9th and 10th Amendment (See graphic below) and reserves ALL other roles are reserved to the states. – That does not make us Nationalists or Populists

We believe that all men and women, “are created equal”, regardless of the race, color or creed and don’t believe that one race should be granted privileges that put them higher on a hierarchy of victimization while presenting all white men as oppressors – That does not make us Racists. Yet, you will read some elitists who would claim otherwise

We believe that a baby is a baby, 24 weeks after conception or 24 weeks after birth, but we don’t consider a woman who has had an abortion as a murderer – That does not make us Anti-Women.

We are not climate change deniers. We understand quite well that climate change has been going on for 4.6 billion years and it will continue to change regardless of what we do. We do believe that there is sufficient good science to make a level of skepticism about the most dire predictions are quite sound. This does not mean that we are anti-environment.

We believe that there are millions of fellow Americans who need and rely of help from the rest of us and we are perfectly willing to provide such assistance, but we don’t believe welfare should be a way of life, we need to provide opportunity and all the accouterments necessary to enable someone to take advantage of those opportunities rather than “making poverty more comfortable.” – This does not make us haters of the poor.

We believe that the law should apply to everyone, including Hillary Clinton, Rice, Power, Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Obama, Bill Clinton, Lynch, Lerner, Strzok, and ALL elected officials  – This doesn’t make us Haters.

Michelle Wolf had a series of jokes about abortion at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner, saying “don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.” Lisa Dunham said, I have not had an abortion but I wish I had.” Now, most of us think abortion is wrong but some say that, “Hey, I am against it but it needs to be safe, etc.” However, none of us make light, joke, or recommend such a difficult and sensitive topic –  This doesn’t make us Anti-Women.

We really have to get organized and let our local government know that we exist, that we are fed up, and that we are angry.

Yesterday, the State of Connecticut joined several other states in suing President Trump over changes in automobile emission regulations, prior to that, we sued Betsy DeVos over delaying regulation for for-profit colleges (which is actually all of them). Prior to that, we (Connecticut) joined the same states in suing President Trump over Congress’s cuts in the Affordable Care Act and for forcing Congress to codify DACA (If anyone should be angry about this it should be we Conservatives). Now, I am a citizen of the State of Connecticut, and I didn’t OK these lawsuits. They are useless, senseless, and expensive. Just more grandstanding and following the party lines.

We have given up too too much. It is time to take it back.

We are going to be focusing on the Governor’s race next week.



Conservative Party of CT Platform

Abstract word cloud for Party platform with related tags and terms

Pulling It Out of The Ditch

We have relinquished too much control to our elected officials. They have become arrogant and many look down upon us as the riff raff, the hoi polloi. It is time to rein them in. Initially, this can be done by providing more citizen oversight. The elected officials are public servants, employees.

As their bosses we need to start demanding more, and holding them accountability.

Connecticut, as a business would be an entity of about the size of Nordstrom. The Company called Connecticut is somewhat smaller that the Hartford Financial Group which has about 17,000 employees. Connecticut has well over 60,000, but there is another important distinction. The Hartford Financial group and Nordstrom need to produce their revenue. The great majority of the employees of The Hartford and Nordstrom need to produce something of value to sell to people to make money, they also need to spend money and hire people to sell whatever they have produced.

Connecticut does not even have to do that. The government of the state of Connecticut produces nothing, all the revenue that come into the state are taken from the earners. All the state must do is redistribute the money. And, for the most part, it has the capability to do this simple task pretty good. The problem is, the state does not limit its role to that of a redistributor of money. It is when the state gets into the process of providing the services that the system breaks down.

Consider this. Food stamps and housing assistance. Many people need help, from time to time. Most reasonable people will say, I would like to help and do so. So, the taxpayers, give the state some money. The state figures out who needs assistance and it gives them food stamps. The people take the stamps to the store buy stuff and for the most part. The system works fine.

But, what if the state of Connecticut decided to set up stores and not only be limited to just redistributing the money, but also providing the services. What happens then? Well, the DMV for one. It turns out your get one big fat megillah, complete with long lines, snail’s pace service, cost overruns, maximum errors and closed on Columbus Day, MLK Day, Washington’s B’Day and some other days on which the rest of us are at work.

So, the DMV is bad enough, but, in the worst case, people wait a few extra days or weeks for a driver’s license on which their picture looks more like their thumbprint. What about the Department of Children and Families? Here is a critical function which the state is neither qualified nor structured to fulfill. In these cases, kids die.

The solution is to utilize the state government for the function they were designed to provide, the redistribution of wealth. I have some libertarian ideas, but I don’t buy the radical objectivism a la Ayn Rand. There is a place for pure altruism and there is a place, with the consent of the governed, for limited, forced altruism.

And if there is someone who is well-off, fat, happy and comfortable and if another one is hurting, or hungry, or homeless, or sick it is ok to take some fruits of the labor of the former to relieve the latter. However, I am talking about food, and shelter and life-saving surgeries – not Obamaphones, or errand-running services.

I don’t agree with the Democrats who are saying that they are helping to poor by, making poverty more comfortable

Set the government up more like a corporation. The CEO is the governor, but the citizen oversight committee is the board or directors. We elect the directors and the director appoint the governor. The governor service at the pleasure of this board

  • Privatize everything that can be privatized. The government should do nothing except oversee the redistribution of wealth.
    • Example thousands of people are helped with food stamps, because the state determines the need and the private sector provides the service. What would you get if the state decided to own and operate their own supermarkets? The result would be the DMV or the DCF
  • Eliminate funding of political races but make it easier for people not connected to one of the two major parties to seek office (i.e. less signatures needed, less paperwork, submissions)
  • Scrap SEBAC even if we need to try to declare bankruptcy to do it (although states are prohibited from going bankrupt, there may be a workaround), and enter into fair contracts with the remaining employees (after extensive privatization) that emulate employees in the private sector. Enter into PPP for most assets that the state owns that are reasonably applicable (XL Center, municipal parking and buildings).
  • This should shrink government by a two-thirds.
  • Establish some accountability for elected employees and eliminate their pensions and perks if they don’t meet certain established goals and objectives.
  • Encourage third, fourth and fifth major parties to break the monopoly of the Dems/Reps (Dems and Reps only have loyalty to the party not to us, it is the party that gets them elected, and it is the party to whom they are loyal)
  • Establish a Citizen’s Review Panel for contracts and bills in which there would be an inherent conflict of interest, as well as travel (Malloy went to Afghanistan, Paris, Kuwait, Virginia, LA, DC, China, and Zurich) with nothing to show, useless expenditures.
  • Segregate all expenses related to State Employee’s Unions including unfunded pension liabilities and establish a separate tax apart from income tax for these expenses so that taxpayers can see directly how much this cost. Esp. effective if SALT is eliminated from fed income tax.
  • All finstats in accordance with GAAP (or as close as possible)
  • Outside accounting firm to maintain all financial books and records. It is just ridiculous that there is no consensus on the actual amount of the deficit. Every single CEO can tell you what the company earned or lost during the last period.
  • Review all non-constitutional departments (non-constitutional NOT unconstitutional), agencies, boards, councils and commissions for ROI, duplication, and necessity.
  • Eliminate Office of Policy and Management (OPM, otherwise known as Other People’s Money). No more hiding expenses. Real transparency. Just like the SEC requires for publicly traded companies.
  • Bring back CT-N, and a summary of expenditures and bills passed along with costs (privatized, of course).
  • Legalize marijuana and tax it.
  • Introduce and Pass the No-Sanctuary Bill

We Work For Them Now

As of a couple days ago, Connecticut taxpayers now have two welfare classes to pay for, for the next ten years and there is nothing we can do about it

This is nothing new, these two welfare classes that have existed for decades and have been perpetuated and nurtured by governors and legislatures of both parties, but now there is nothing we can do about it.

I am talking about first, the nonproductive welfare class, that in many cases, really need our help because of unfortunate circumstances or lack of abilities. To Democrats this means that we must focus on redistribution of wealth and income inequality. This has had the result of moving the poverty rate from 14.5 to a little below 14% over the last 50 years. The Dems seem to be satisfied with making poverty more tolerable (ObamaPhones, yeah). To Conservative Republicans (and there are a few left) and the “now extinct” moderate Democrat, this means providing more opportunity. After fifty years it might be time to try that.

The second welfare class is the bureaucracy. The now-protected species of employees who go about performing the government’s work of redistributing the fruits of the labor of those who are not fortunate to be in either of these classes – A.K.A. the Producers.

The fact that we have a union boss of the second welfare class as Speaker of the House should be evidence enough that we have become subjects to the tyranny of these protected classes – the nonproducers and the bureaucrats.

Connecticut Keep the Electoral College

by Nick Malino

Subsequent to the November 8, presidential election it has become quite fashionable to demand the abolition of the of the electoral college in favor of a National Popular Vote (“NPV”), and these objections usually start and end with the argument, “One Vote Per Person.” What can be fairer? Who can argue with that? However, why would one rich little state turn their future over to the imperial rule of a large but culturally and politically atypical state like California?

The electoral college provides small states a bit of leverage and protection from the very issues with which the framers were most concerned – the tyranny of the majority. In an NPC scenario, there would be little reason for any candidate to consider any of our concerns or issues. The only reason a candidate would visit Connecticut would be to do some fundraising.

The “One Vote Per Person” concept is not unimportant, but our country is a union of 50 states with different laws, different qualifications for suffrage and different resources, talents, and issues. The electoral college represents a balance of the differing interests of the states and the “One Vote Per Person” concept. If we were to abandon it simply because an election did not go the way we would have liked, would be a mistake. If we decide to throw our electoral votes away and give up what little sovereignty, our rich little state has left, we may as well hang a “kick me” sign on our butt, move the nation’s capital L.A. and change its name from the “United States of America” to simply “America.”

And, oh yeah, Connecticut, learn to say, “Baaa Baaa”.

Obama’s Legacy – Donald Trump

Obama’s Legacy – Donald Trump

Last night, in his farewell address in Chicago, President Obama attempted to salvage something positive in his legacy. Although his audience consisted of hardcore supporters, he may have been better served by not selecting the city which has suffered most from his failed policies.. He pushed through Obamacare which most people were against. He went on an apology tour stopping in Hiroshima and Vietnam. After every terrorist attack, rather than lashing out at the terrorist or even labelling their ideology correctly, he lectured Americans about tolerance, he invited the racist hate group Black Lives Matter to the White House three times, he preached unity but practiced divisiveness, he sent representatives to the funeral of Michael Brown but was absent at funerals for slain police officers, he said he understood Colin Kapernick’s opinion that we are a country of racists.

Americans have responded by saying, “We are tired of being told that we should be ashamed of who we are”. We are not racists, we are not miserly capitalists, we do not hate gays, or Muslims or transsexuals. While the affliction of racism certainly exists, it affects people of every race and it is revealed as localized outbreaks and not as a pandemic. Barack Obama does not exist on a higher plain than the rest of us, “Just-Plain-Folks” regardless of what he thinks of himself, his legacy will be best exemplified by the election of Donald Trump.

Despite Obama’s energetic campaigning for Clinton in the final weeks of the election, it is he who set the table for Donald Trump’s victory.

Obama reprimanded Congress for their inaction on gun control and said that if they didn’t do something, he would. Then he reprimanded the Congress that if they did not act on comprehensive immigration reform, then he would. Well, Mr. President, that is not the way it works. Congress passes the laws. The SCOTUS determines their constitutionality, and the President is supposed to enforce those laws.

The president has absolutely no ability to enact laws. You and I have just as much ability to enact new legislation as president Obama has. However, this did not stop him. However, he did it anyway. He claims to have plugged the “gun show loophole”. He passed a law via executive order which is not permissible under the constitution. Fortunately, it was a useless law since there really was no “gun show loophole”, so everybody just kind of let it go.

Then, also by executive order, he granted amnesty to millions of illegal border crossers into the country, thereby reneging on his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. If he didn’t agree with a law duly passed by Congress and authorized by the Judicial Branch, he would ignore it via executive order. Well, Mr. President, that too, is not the way it works.

The Supreme Court concurred and he was told that he could not flaunt the law, ignore the constitution, and step back on his oath of office. The frightening part was that although the SCOTUS struck down the President’s action, they did it by a margin of 5-4, meaning that 4 justices no longer believed in the constitutional separation of powers.

Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate. But she had the backing of her party which kept thumbs firmly pressed upon the scales in her favor. Bernie Sanders, the poor, doddering socialist never had a chance and to this day and he still doesn’t accept that reality. She had Wall Street behind her. Hollywood stars fell all over each other to garner her favor. Every greedy union, the Aristocracy of Labor, backed her with their strong-arms and strongarms. Print, broadcast and internet media, with rare exceptions, demonized anyone who would dare criticize her.

We were told by all of them that if we did not agree with these “gods”, we were uneducated hobbits, or gnomes, rednecks, racists, Islamophobes, homophobes, misogynists, and much worse.

We are none of those.

And finally, a couple of days before the election, Obama told us that if we did not vote for Hillary that it can only be that we were also sexists. This may not have been quite as bad as Margaret Thatcher who literally condemned all who did not vote for HRC to eternal damnation, but to many it was just another over the top elitist telling us again how bad we were.

“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” and when the force being exerted from the left surpasses good sense and enters the realm of extremism the opposite reaction is about to occur to a similar extreme. It is the law of fundamental symmetries. Donald Trump is not a alter ego of the alt-right it is a response to leftist extremism. It is one thing being told that the federal government knows more about educating your kids than the states do and certainly more than you do but to be told that you must allow boys who say that they identify as girls into the girl’s bathrooms and showers and you get Donald Trump. And when you focus more on these perceived inequalities while working people are out of work you get Donald Trump.
Mr. Obama. We are not ashamed of being Americans. We don’t need anyone to offer apologies for what we have done, because the good outweighs the bad. Mrs. Clinton, we are hard-working people not deplorables, Mrs. Thatcher, mind your own business.

I never was what you would call, a “Trump Supporter”. I am not confident that the next four years are going to be without troubles, and already have visions of Smoot-Harley-type fallout from disasterous trade wars. But the alternative was far worse, and in the end, there were only a few people that could make me cast my vote for a reality show host for president, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are two of them and Chuck Schumer, Dannell Malloy, Shaun White, Meryl Streep, Christopher Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, Al Sharpton, and Charlie Rangle are not far behind and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will be gone in a few weeks . It is time to get rid of the others and restore some reason and common sense to government before we get someone worse than Trump.

Connecticut School Funding – Whimsical But Not Unequal

Judge Thomas Moukawsher says the states funding mechanism is irrational and the state thereby failed to fulfill its mandate to thousands of schoolchildren across the state, and that the state spends this money “whimsically”, and its funding formula “irrational”, Unfortunately, this Judge’s decision can be described by those same two adjectives, and reflects a very basis failure to understand the problem, and not just this problem but the very basic fundamentals of any decision-making process. It seems that the decision was arrived at by looking at test scores and making the assumption that the only variable is that affects these scores is financial, while neglecting the fact that there are other variables which contribute to the quality of the outcomes.


Numerous variables affect testing outcomes and the quality of the education that they measure. The
sensitivity and responsiveness of the receptors (in this case, the students, the quality of support
network outside of the school and the environment in which the receptors exist just to name a few
should not be ignored. And to do so indicates a thoughtless dereliction of judicial responsibility and a
disservice to the children, exactly the accusations Moukawsher lodges against the State.
The poorest school districts are already by funded the state far in excess of the more affluent
districts, and in terms of absolute fiscal expenditures
more is spent in these poorly-performing
schools/students than some of the highest performing
schools/students. And note that Connecticut’s
schools are consistently ranking in the top five state
school districts in the country.
In school districts in which there is high
unemployment, frequent shootings, ubiquitous drug
presence, and in which, nearly 70% of the children
are living in single-family homes, the students
perform poorly. Correlations do exist but not between
performance and the amount of financing. I believe
that the judge and our legislature are failing to
understand that this is not a financial problem, or at
least a financial problem that will be solved by hiring
more teachers and adding more facilities. The school
budget is not the issue. This is another example of
shortsightedness resulting in the misapplication of limited resources that is so characteristic of our
state and federal government.
The entire argument that has been misrepresented by the
judge and by most news outlets has been that wealthier
school districts are being subsidized at the expense of
poorer school districts. Even to extent of one commenter
stating that this is “another example of the rich screwing
the poor.” This should be evident from the first table but
just in case further clarification is necessary, the second
table represents the amount that the State and the federal
government is actually subsidizing these communities. The
CTPost says that the system has been “inequitable for
decades”. However, while the formula for funding does not
seem to be founded on a sound basis, it is not inequitable
or at least there is no evidence, statistical or otherwise to
make that conclusion. And, to further imply, as the CTPost seems to do, that there is a racial basis
for these fanciful inequities is unfortunately typical of misplaced perceptions from the President on
Facts don’t lie but they certainly can be misleading especially if not presented in context or not
presented completely. For example, the State initially responded, and I think correctly, that there is
no evidence that additional funding would have any impact on the ameliorating the differences in
school/student performance among school districts. Consider the following table.
Correlation is a statistical measure of
interdependence or how two or more variables are
related and how they behave in relation to each
other. Correlation can be positive (i.e. if one moves
up, the other moves up) or negative (if one moves
up the other moves down). Correlation ranges from
+1 (a perfect positive correlation) to -1 (a perfect negative correlation). Thus, zero indicates no
correlation. Based on the limited data in the tables above, there is an extremely high correlation
between income and good school performance as well as with the amount of local funding. That is to
say, when the parents pay, the students perform. However, when the state pays there is a high
negative correlation. This indicates that the greater the state funding – the poorer students
perform. State funding goes up performance goes down. The relationship between overall funding
and performance is fairly weak.
Now, the first thing that one learns in the study of statistics and the thing that is drilled in constantly
as one progresses in the field of statistics is, “correlation does not equal causation.” But what this
data suggest is simply as stated above that there are other factors that influence a school’s
performance and it is foolish to think that additional funding is going to have any positive impact.
One thing that is shown in other unrelated studies is that there is a relationship between the price
paid for something and its perceived value. Things that are received gratis are perceived as being
less valuable even if the two things are exactly equal. When people pay for something, as in the
case of the better-performing schools it achieved higher perceived value, when the state pays and
the beneficiary doesn’t, then, the value is diminished.
But an important point to make here is that, the government, whether it be state or federal, doesn’t
give anyone anything. The government only takes. The state generates no revenue, it provides
nothing of value, it simply takes money from its individual constituents and buys things that those
constituents may or may not want or need, and redistributes those things. Sadly, it does so in an
inefficient, ineffective and self-serving manner, principally as a result of the same concept of
associating value with price. The government expends no level of effort, it exists solely as a result of
the value of the labors and toil of others, and the same concept holds. That which was not paid for
as a result of my labor is of diminished value.
I can go on, but; the point here is that throwing more money at a problem in the absence of any
evidence that such action will produce improved outcomes is foolish, to do so in disregard to
compelling evidence to the contrary is reckless, and; to ignore impact of any other variable is
ignorant, in the original meaning of the word i.e. “to ignore”.