The fire is long out at Gene Cranick's house. But the rhetorical battle continues over the symbolic significance of the South Fulton Fire Department's decision to let Cranick's home burn because he hadn't paid a fee that those living outside the town must pay. Some commentators say Cranick was a classic "free-rider" who should have followed the Obion County "pay for spray" policy, a set-up that's not uncommon in rural areas. Others look to the burning house and see a civic sphere gutted by "small government" ideology, beholden only to the privileged few. The Huff Post warns that this is what a Third World America would look like: a libertarian's dream, in which bare-bones, a la carte government threatens to become a stark reality, not just in rural towns, but across the country.
We would argue that government, on the federal level, has already been upended by small government ideology, beholden to private interests as never before in our memory. But you can't just blame the Tea Party, which wasn't around when this revolution in governance took hold, or even just mainstream Republicans who were. Both parties share the blame for handing over government work - and by extention, public power - to private companies. The irony is that, for all their talk of fiscal austerity, politicians have created the very opposite of an Obion County-style, lean-and-mean operation: what we have now is a sprawling shadow government - one that is often less efficient, less visible, less accountable, and even potentially dangerous in nature.
The liberal website Think Progress shows vividly how the small government rhetoric collapses on close questioning: here you can see journalists press GOP leaders touting budget cuts on just what they would slash. No one should be surprised that they don't have an answer: for decades, politicians have avoided real cuts, upholding the facade of contained government, by shifting work to contractors.
It was President Reagan who famously said: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Reagan thought that government should do less, and what it did do would be done better by private business. And so the "Reagan revolution" sanctified what was already an entrenched practice: contracting out government services to reduce the headcount of the federal workforce, giving the appearance of austerity but not the reality.
Those hoping a Democratic president might reverse course were very much disappointed by the Clinton administration, whose stated aim to "Reinvent Government" made clear that small government dogma had been firmly embraced by both parties. The injection of business principles into government was reflected in the language: recipients of state services become "customers" and citizens "shareholders". Contracting accelerated and assumed new incarnations during the Clinton years, and outsourcing exploded during the Bush era. The cost of services alone provided by contractors soared from some $125 billion in 2001 to an estimated $314 billion-plus in 2009. The advent of ever more complex technologies, which the government largely outsources, tipped the balance even further.
Today private companies are increasingly performing not just government work but inherently government functions. Those are the things deemed so sensitive and vital to the public interest that they should be carried out only by federal employees. Oversight of all this (one of those inherent functions) is severely lacking, leading to potential breaches of public and national security. And ironically, outsourcing often costs more, not less - hardly the "reinvention" and "efficiency" that voters were sold on.
Most troubling, the federal government is now perfectly primed for 21st century-style political corruption, and not in the old fashioned sense of blatantly buying influence. This is more insidious, in which a new kind of power broker, what Janine calls the shadow elite, can exploit the ambiguity that is now rife throughout the system, able not just to evade but actually write the rules governing their own conduct. This new breed works bureaucracy to their advantage, preferring to operate by means anathema to official, legal, and procedural objectivity. Meanwhile, taxpayers are only dimly aware that they are paying into a public system that is both bloated and often dictated by personal agendas.
Taxpayer Gene Cranick, for his part, knows all too well what it means to be a "customer", in the parlance of government "reinventors", for what most of us take for granted as a basic public service. He also knows something about the cost of government ambiguity and lack of standard process. Cranick said he had forgotten to pay his fee 3 years ago, but firefighters still put out a chimney fire and let him pay the fee afterwards. This time, firefighters were told to do nothing. We're guessing Cranick would have been thrilled to hear those words that so spooked Ronald Reagan: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Follow Janine R. Wedel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/profjanine
Government would ordinarily arrest Cranick for non-payment of tax, right? Why then should his house be allowed to burn just because he's not paid up the requisite fees? I don't envy the government in this one.
The citizen must come first and this is one area politics is totally incapable of dealing with. Thomas Browne: Government is too big and important to be left to politicians.
Instead we watch our jobs being outsourced, our teachers getting paid next to nothing, our middle class losing their homes and jobs, our police departments constantly battling for funding, our fellow citizens going hungry, etc. If these things can be prevented -if that house and the pets inside could have been saved- then in my humane mind, there is no justification to stand by and watch.
Yet look at the millionaires working against such legislation. Look at Wall Street. Look at what corporations do in third world countries. Look at our mindless consumerism. Look at all of the energy put in to denying rights to LGBT and not into more import endeavors. Really? Wake up!
Focus on what is important here, please. (*cough* humanity)
He offered the money. It appears it was not about the money. It was about protecting what amounts to a good old fashion protection racket where if you did not pay your "fee" for protection some goon would come by in the middle of the night and smash your windows to make an example of you.
What if someone had been in the fire as were his pets? Would he be dead now as they watched him burn alive?
When your motto is "protect and serve" where do you draw the line and who decides?
We already have several layers of "proof" in car insurance. Banks demand insurance to protect the car. States demand insurance to provide liability. Drop either and you can lose the car or your right to drive. The system to keep everyone informed of you status is not free...you pay for it.
That ads another level of "proof" that makes it harder for banks to qualify people for loans.
It is best to keep fire and police as a government function and remove all doubt.
The T-Party itself is funded by special interests like Koch industries.
If you want to point a finger at real hypocrites point them at the T-Party for claiming they hate the same special interest that run their "party".
If they are not hypocrites then they are too dumb to be allowed to vote !
Which is it?
Let's talk about what makes us angry...really! http://www.angrycitizens.us
This is very common when CITY fire Depts have fires out side of the city limits. if they opt out all the fire dept can do is sit and watch. this is also why many areas have thier own Fire depts that are unpaid that would put out this sort of fire. why should city tax payers have to service people out side of city limits? the police would not have went out there from the city, it would have had to be county police. same goes for fire depts.
Most cities won't drive out and watch your house burn as a form of entertainment. When you give your address they will tell you it is not in their jurisdiction but they won't come out for the show but they will call the proper authority to get you help or at least give you the correct number. 911 service should do that automatically.
In this case Cranick's property was in that fire department's jurisdiction, they did drive out then watch. Guess they did not have a poker game going on back at the station at the time.
//
Cranick is attempting to be a free-rider. He knew about the fee and choose not to pay it with the belief that he could do so later if he had to.
That was a stupid risk. He felt that he could game the system and he failed.
This is not about the government as much as it is about people trying to moralize the government. What they say is that even though Cranick made a choice that adversely affected him society owes him services and protections anywise
Will these fees for service start to become part of your escrow payment?
This ads another layer of expense to the fire department keeping all those banks and insurance companies up to date on who pays and who does not. They will then have to increase the fire protection subscription to cover that expense as well.
But forget about that, right? I am sure that critical thought is a foreign concept to you and that everyone else based all their decisions on emotion just as you do.
The failure here is Cranick's and his only. Society does not owe anything to people who choose to live outside of it except when they need assistance. Philosophically and morally it just does not work any other way.
but Nebreska and the word subsidy comes to mind....
http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=31000
Just fly over dropping all that dough as you go......
Concentrated power as you call it prevents local power barons, often far more ruthless and uncaring than any so called outsider, from running the show..
What exactly do all these regulations provide people? Where is the benefit of the services that you say are here? What happened with Katrina? Or the oil spill? Or that egg problem? Where was the government to prevent these tragedies and lessen their impact?
Regulation in itself does nothing. It makes people feel good and gives an illusion of safety.