As we reported back in 1999 (issue #134), the political quote of the decade comes from former economics professor turned politician, House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R. TX): "I have identified three groups of people who have the privilege of taking and spending other people's money. They are children, thieves and politicians, and they all need more adult supervision."

Four and a half years later, nothing has changed.

"Public relations charades like 'Reinventing Government' cannot change the way Washington works," said Dick Armey (who, incidentally, has a Ph.D. in economics). And Armey was absolutely correct. Al Gore's "Reinventing Government" program did nothing to remedy any of the problems in government. In fact, it made things worse. On the other hand, the 'Government Performance and Results Act of 1993' (the Results Act) may have actually helped a little.

Under the Results Act, federal agencies are evaluated on 10 factors:

1. Mission statement
2. General (strategic) goals and objectives
3. Strategies to achieve general goals and objectives
4. Relationship between general goals and annual performance goals
5. External factors
6. Program evaluations
7. Treatment/coordination of cross- cutting functions
8. Data capacity
9. Treatment of major management problems/high-risk areas
10. Congressional and stakeholder consultations

Most federal agencies, as was first reported, could not even answer numbers 1 and 2 properly. Some agencies set goals well beyond their statutory authority. For instance, EPA said it wanted to measure success as the number of acres grabbed up as wetlands. Other agencies set goals that defied common sense -- such as the Department of Agriculture's goal of resolving the Year 2000 computer problem (food stamps) by the year 2002. HUD said its mission included empowering people but, in that plan, they give up on those who were 30 years or older and who were not employed in the economy. And the Department of Labor proposed measuring its success by counting the number of people indicted.

Grading was from 0 to 100. The agencies ranged from GSA, with only a 14, to Transportation, which received a 71. The average of all federal departments and agencies was only 42.2 -- a failing grade. If these were school grades, only Transportation would have passed, and then just barely.

The federal government's books were so messed up that they received a "disclaimer" from the auditors. Which means, the books were so bad that the accountants could not make a determination about much of anything. For a public corporation, this would be disastrous. The company's stock would tumble, and most heads in the front office would roll.

That was 1998. Little has changed.

But, this is government. Hardly anyone cares how many billions of our tax dollars are lost. Worse, very few bureaucrats know or care.

Over the years, this little publication has reported this "news" but few in the major media ever picked up on it. And, those that did usually reported on only the Department of Defense, which has always had obvious problems.

The National Center for Policy Analysis(1) probably has one of the best running accounts of the problem over the years. They also point to some excellent in-depth reports, for anyone interested in real extent of the problem.

Nowadays there is a Republican administration. Which means, The New York Times suddenly decided to report on this ongoing problem.(2)

Quoting directly from the New York Times we learn:

"Year after year, auditors studying the financial records of federal government departments find many of them so disorganized, even chaotic, that the agencies cannot account for tens of billions of dollars. What is more, when many agencies realize that they have made major accounting errors, rather than looking back to see where the money went, they simply enter multibillion-dollar balance adjustments, writing off the money." . . .

"In the last year, the Office of Management and Budget has taken on the financial accounting problem in something like an auditor's holy war. In a letter to Congress on Oct. 7, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the budget office, said the federal government's accounts would 'never be tolerated in the private sector,' adding that 'repair of a system so badly broken will not happen overnight.'"

This is good reporting by the Times. Sort of. But, by their fifth paragraph, it gets very typical. The Times, of course, wants to harangue the Department of Defense, so they report:

"The Department of Defense routinely makes the largest financial blunders. In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2000, auditors found, the department entered unsubstantiated balance adjustments totaling $1.1 trillion. That was an improvement over the previous year, when the figure was $2.3 trillion. 'They just made the adjustments up,' said a senior official with the Defense Department's inspector general's office."

In fairness, The Times did mention that there were also very serious bookkeeping problems in the Agriculture Department, NASA and the Agency for International Development. All had unauditable books. The Internal Revenue Service, too, of course.

According to The Times, "Treasury Department entered a balance deduction from the government's general fund of $17.3 billion to make up for financial errors throughout the government. The government also recorded at least $33 billion in erroneous payments last year, like improper Medicare payments of $12.1 billion."

Congress has passed many laws about accountability in government, but none have any teeth to them. Those in government who are negligent must be prosecuted and sent to prison. Else, this waste, fraud and abuse of public funds will never end.

Punish negligence and fraud. It's as simple as that.

1. http://www.ncpa.org/pd/budget/budget.htm

2. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/14/politics/14ACCO.html

Really, I'm writing this with a straight face . . . sort of. Yeah, sure, I did laugh. But, I stopped laughing before starting to write this article -- mostly, anyway. . . . .

It's just that this is the safety advice from public servants to the citizens of our nation's capital -- a city that actually beat out Detroit for the title "Murder Capital USA."

Except for politics and lobbying government, Washington’s primary industry is tourism. Actually, it's tourism and a healthy dose of lawbreaking, both in and out of the halls of government.

In 1991, when the homicide rate for the U.S. was 9.6 per 100,000 population, it was 80.6 in our nation's capital. Which means, tourists always had to watch their step there. Michigan, by the way, had a murder rate of 9.6 then and Kentucky was down to 6.6 per 100,000 population.

Anyway, back to the D.C. Police Department's advisory: their seven "Tips for Staying Safe" while in Washington -- with, of course, just a little commentary offered to spice things up some. These were published (without my comments, of course) on October 16 by the Washington Post:

** "If you must remain in one place in an area where you feel vulnerable, select the darkest part of the area to sit or stand in."

That's cool. Everyone hide! That'll make the tourists -- and armed federal officials with itchy trigger fingers -- feel really, really comfortable.

** "When moving outside, walk briskly in a zigzag pattern."

Cool again! Citizens of Washington, meander. Work like government employees and don't be direct about anything. Never mind if that makes you look something like the most interesting target in a shooting gallery, zigzag.

** "If you must stand outside, try to keep some type of protective cover between yourself and any open areas where a sniper might be located. For example, if you are fueling your car, stand between your vehicle and the gas pump and bend your knees to lower your profile."

Right. Hide. Actually, though, standing between the car and a gas pump would offer some protection from the winter wind, too.

** "If you are fired on in an open area, drop to the ground and roll away from where you were standing. Look for the closest protective cover and run toward it in short, zigzag dashes."

Drop and roll, drop and roll -- just like Army training. Then, acquire your target and kill. Except, good citizens in D.C. are not allowed to have guns. That's why only crooks and government agents have them. So dropping, without getting behind something, actually only provides the shooter a longer target.

** "Be constantly aware of your surroundings while outside. Note any suspicious vehicles or activities, move away from them and report them to the police."

That'll work. Pay attention. Move in an unorganized manner to cover -- while, at the same time, watching the suspects and taking mental notes.

** "Remember that a sniper with the right equipment can shoot accurately from about 500 yards away, the equivalent of five football fields."

But, any observer to the side or behind the shooter is relatively safe and has plenty of opportunity to observe and compile useful information. And, if they are armed, put an instant stop to that foolishness -- insuring the perpetrator is still there when the army of police get to the area.

Of course, any good citizen shooting that perpetrator in D.C. will probably themselves get arrested for being armed.

Also helpful last week was Maryland's governor, Parris N. Glendening. Just at the opening of the muzzle- loading deer-hunting season, what does this bright light do? The governor suspended all recreational shooting, except at approved firing ranges, in a four-county region where there was sniper fire -- until the sniper is caught. "We don't want our officers chasing false alarms of shots fired," explained Doug Duncan, the Montgomery County executive.

Sure. Instead of getting more good citizens armed, they suspend practice for those who have the means of self protection. Typical liberal claptrap.

Police -- even an army of police -- cannot be everywhere. They usually show up after the fact. The best deterrent to violent crime is an armed citizenry. An armed citizen may not have stopped this sniper -- yet. But, they certainly have made a desirable difference in hundreds of other situations.

The State of California seems to have a problem with English. As our common language, English should be used for all government business. However, some special interest groups out west feel otherwise.

For instance, a quick look at the California Secretary of State web page(1) shows that voters there do not need to read and write in English in order to vote. Among the languages in which California will provide voter information are English, Spanish, Japanese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Chinese.

Of course, those who do not understand English obviously also do not know the issues and have little or no idea what they are voting about. But, evidently that is acceptable there.

Even worse was those groups demanding that children of resident aliens be taught in the native language of their parents. All that does is hold the student back from learning properly. Thirty years experience with bilingual instruction proved that. No matter what these special interest groups may wish, our language is English. Therefore, English is what all children should learn.

So, when a group proposed Proposition 227 on the California ballet in 1998, it was approved by 61 percent. More interesting, according to published reports, was that Proposition 227 was supported by 84 percent of California's Latino voters.

However, not everyone liked the idea of teaching in English instead of the student's native language. So, into federal court went a coalition group called the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). Meanwhile, kids were educated in English and results were compiled.

When California's public schools implemented English-only instruction, critics said students with limited English-language skills would fail miserably. But, they have not.

Conservative activist Linda Chavez called the program "a whopping success," and she was supported by official exam scores. Within a year, elementary test scores rose significantly more in schools that adopted English-only instruction than at those that got waivers to retain bilingual instruction. According to The Washington Times, from 1998 to 2001, the official statewide STAR testing of second-graders showed a steady upward trend of scores in spelling, language, reading and math for children in English- immersion programs. The percentage of Latino students in the top half of the statewide grade scores in spelling almost doubled from 21 percent to 39 percent; in reading 35 percent were in the top half, up from 21 percent; and math standing rose 19 points with 47 percent of students exceeding the 50th percentile.

The MALDEF coalition lost in federal court and appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- the most reversed appeals court in the nation.

This time, however, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals got it right(2). On October 7, they affirmed the ruling of the lower court and (it appears) the people at MALDEF suddenly dispersed and became unavailable for comment.

The case is posted as "Angel v. Davis" (01-15219). Below are a couple significant excerpts from that opinion.

On behalf of a class of California public school students and their parents, Angel V. appeals from the district court's judgment, entered after a bench trial, dismissing plaintiffs' claim that California's Proposition 227, which replaces bilingual education programs with a curricular program designed to teach students in English, facially violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. . . .

On June 2, 1998, California voters approved Proposition 227 by a margin of 61 to 39 percent. Declaring that "[t]he government and the public schools of California have a moral obligation and a constitutional duty to provide all of California's children . . . with the skills necessary to become productive members of our society, and of these skills, literacy in the English language is among the most important," Proposition 227 dismantled California's public school bilingual education programs, which taught limited English proficient ("LEP") students in their native language. . . .

Proposition 227 replaces bilingual education with a system of "structured English immersion," in which children are "taught English by being taught in English." The initiative provides that LEP students of similar English proficiency be taught together and that "[c]hildren who are English learners shall be educated through sheltered English immersion during a temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one year." Once LEP students become proficient in English, they are transferred into mainstream English language classrooms. . . .

Given Proposition 227's facial neutrality, and the lack of evidence that it was motivated by racial considerations, we hold that Proposition 227's reallocation of political authority over bilingual education does not offend the Equal Protection Clause.

1. http://www.ss.ca.gov

2. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/Opinions+by+date?OpenView&Start=1&Count=100&Expand=1.1

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2001 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron.htm. Revised 10-12-02. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.