A Modest Proposal

I’ve long said that air conditioning was the beginning of the downfall of the Republic, because it made DC habitable, and attractive to all manner of power-hungry grifters.

Well, Glenn Reynolds agrees, and has some suggestions to allow our betters in the federal government to set a good example for the rest of the benighted:

…it’s hard to expect Americans to accept changes to their own lifestyles when the very people who are telling them that it’s a crisis aren’t acting like it’s a crisis. So I have a few suggestions to help bring home the importance of reduced carbon footprints at home and abroad:

  1. Extend Smith’s bill to cover the entire federal government. We have Skype now, and Facetime. There’s no reason to fly to meetings. I’d let the President keep Air Force One for official travel, but subject to a requirement that absolutely no campaign activity or fundraisers take place on any trips in which the president travels officially.
  2. Obama makes a great point about setting the thermostat at 72 degrees. We should ban air conditioning in federal buildings. We won two world wars without air conditioning our federal employees. Nothing in their performance over the last 50 or 60 years suggests that A/C has improved things. Besides, The Washington Post informs us that A/C is sexist, and that Europeans think it’s stupid.
  3. In fact, we should probably ban air conditioning in the entire District of Columbia, to ensure that members of Congress, etc. won’t congregate in lobbyists’ air-conditioned offices.
  4. Speaking of which, members of Congress shouldn’t be allowed to fly home on the weekends. Not only does this produce halfhearted attention to their jobs — the so-called “Tuesday to Thursday Club” — but, again, it produces too much of a carbon footprint. Even if they pay for the travel out of campaign funds, instead of their own budgets, they need to set an example for the rest of us — and for those skeptical foreigners that Obama mentioned.

Exactly.

32 thoughts on “A Modest Proposal”

  1. I think Congress should be limited to a 3-Day work week and laws only be written or amended by Congress or convention of the states.

    Further, I’m tired of hearing from people protected by firearms that citizens should give up their firearms. If firearms are the danger, then set the example. No more armed secret service detail for politicians. This would have the added bonus of freeing up traffic whenever politicians decide to travel, thus reducing carbon emissions. Besides, when Air Force One goes somewhere, it’s not just one 747, but two, plus several C-5s, a fleet of cars and trucks, and helicopters. One plane for travel is more than sufficient. Rent a car like everyone else when you get there, or better yet, try the mass transit system.

    1. No more armed secret service detail for politicians.

      You would start seeing calls to ban martial arts training, boxing, MMA, and other physical activities while politicians maintain platoons of ninjas.

    2. I think Congress should be limited to a 3-Day work week and laws only be written or amended by Congress or convention of the states.

      To reduce the amount of legislation they run off?
      How about all laws having a 10 year limit, after 10 years they have to go through renewal, read, in the house, voted on, pass etc, that would slow down the flow of new laws.

      1. I’m good with sunset laws, but not as a modest proposal. It is something that should be done. Texas has this law. Texas also has a legislature that meets only biennially and then only 140 days.

    3. One plane for travel is more than sufficient. Rent a car like everyone else when you get there, or better yet, try the mass transit system.

      Well I’m not surprised that the POTUS brings his own vehicle considering what happened in the late Cold War in the US Embassy at Moscow. IIRC the whole building was bugged and the bugs were even inside the concrete walls. They eventually tore down the building and brought contractors from the US to build the embassy again.

  2. Congress is protected by a police force, and ordinary Americans are their local police force. If you feel you aren’t protected as well as Congress, you should advocate for increased protection by your local police (and advocate for higher taxes, if necessary.) Just as Congressmen don’t walk around carrying weapons, you shouldn’t either… ha ha ha! Just kidding.

    As for Air Force One and the associated fleet of vehicles, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s part of our nuclear deterrence policy, and I wouldn’t domestic gun politics to influence how it is handled.

    1. Agh. I left out the word “by” in the first sentence, and it changed the sentence’s meaning to be more like something you’d say.

      1. No, the police don’t protect you. They punish the person who harmed you after the fact. Many politicians have their own personal (armed) security, as the capital police just protect the buildings they work in.

    2. The police are there to protect the criminals from the first responders.

      The fact that the rich are able to pay others for the service of personal self-defense doesn’t mean it is a sane or sustainable model for everyone.

      It is aiming for the goal: “Everyone (every single body) has a full-time bodyguard, everyone has a full-time nurse, everyone has a full-time doctor, everyone has a full-time lawyer, everyone has a full-time plumber, …” All with the necessary certifications, licenses, and bonds. Naturally.

    3. “Congress is protected by a police force, and ordinary Americans are their local police force.”

      Congress should have no special police force. They should be protected by the local police forces wherever they are and only to the extent that a citizen is protected by the local police force. That is to say – no escorting police at all. Ever. No special police details.

      I don’t get a police escort when I go to work so why should they?

      If there’s a problem let them call 911…just like a regular citizen.

      And then they can wait for many minutes before help arrives…just like a regular citizen.

      And if that makes them feel somewhat unprotected…the congress-critter is free to go through all the same training and paperwork and frustration that a regular citizen has to go through to get a license to carry.

      I bet you’ll see them shut up about gun control then….oh wait maybe not:

      “Rowan gained public notoriety on June 14, 1988, when he shot an unarmed teenage trespasser, Neil Smith, who was on his property illegally. “The interloper was a near-naked teenager who had been skinny-dipping with friends in Rowan’s pool, and the columnist’s weapon was an unregistered, and thus illegal, .22 caliber pistol.
      …………..
      Rowan was charged for firing a gun that he did not legally own. Rowan was arrested and tried. During the trial, he argued that he had the right to use whatever means necessary to protect himself and his family.”

      Ahh laws are for little people…laws for thee but not me (Rowan).

      1. For those of you who don’t know who Carl Rowan was:

        “In 1961, Rowan was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of State by President John F. Kennedy. The following year, he served as a delegate to the United Nations during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Rowan became the U.S. Ambassador to Finland in 1963. In 1964, Rowan was appointed director of the United States Information Agency (USIA) by President Lyndon B. Johnson. In serving as director of the USIA, Rowan became the first African American to hold a seat on the National Security Council and the highest level African American in the United States government.”

        “He was called out for hypocrisy, since Rowan was a strict gun control advocate. In a 1981 column, he advocated “a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail—period.” In 1985, he called for “A complete and universal federal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns (except for authorized police and military personnel).”

      2. And if that makes them feel somewhat unprotected…the congress-critter is free to go through all the same training and paperwork and frustration that a regular citizen has to go through to get a license to carry.

        Shouldn’t be too hard, Obama said it was easier to get a gun than a book.

    4. Congress should be satisfied with the local DC PD when in DC, just like all the other residents of DC. At that PD should have no weapons not also available to any and all citizens. Relying on local PD means less federal tax dollars needed. Members of Congress are ordinary Americans.

      As it is, they are 29 uniformed law enforcement agencies in DC, including separate agencies for the Capitol, the Pentagon, the Supreme Court, the Mint, and the Federal Reserve. This doesn’t include 7 more University PDs. Yet with all these agencies, DC’s homicide rate grew nearly 50% last year. If Cops and Guns are killing people, perhaps DC should set the example and outlaw all guns for all people and reduce the law enforcement agencies to one city and perhaps one federal. Let us know how that works, and then we can talk about expanding the concept further. The rest of the country can be the control in this rational scientific study.

      1. There are more than 29 law enforcement agencies in DC. There may only be 29 directly tasked to points inside DC.

        But with 100+ federal agencies with armed, badged, law enforcement powers, hard to imagine there aren’t any inside DC at any given moment.

        The part that I still find boggling is that one would be expected to recognize a badge/ID from this many disparate groups.

        1. Al, I had to use Wikipedia, as that is the only source bob understands. If I had noted the truth as you did; Bob would then link to Wikipedia and write “nuh uh”.

          I also fully agree with your last point. How the hell is any given citizen supposed to know who is or is not a true law enforcement officer in DC. They all carry different badges and uniforms. It’s not like these things cannot be purchased.

    5. A policeman in every living room!

      Hey, that goes along with Democrats community wellness plan of putting a government minder in every house.

  3. The US Capitol Police, etc, are protecting the office, not the office-holders per se. You are in a tiny minority — most Americans don’t want gunmen to be able to easily attack our democratic institutions.

    If your plan for defending government offices and institutions in Washington DC is to have members of congress and their secretaries pull out machine guns, you’re going to be laughed at.

    1. You are in a tiny minority — most Americans don’t want gunmen to be able to easily attack our democratic institutions.

      No one wants our politicians attacked. People here have been saying they should live like everyone else, equality.

    2. You were discussing police in the role of ‘bodyguards/site security’ and equating them to police in the role of ‘patrols/general law enforcement’.

      There is no level of funding that will raise the average citizen’s personal security level to the point of “One bodyguard apiece”.

      1. One bodyguard wouldn’t even be enough. Just to maintain a single guard 24/7, you would need 6+ people.

        This is also a good example of why health care isn’t a right. It is impossible to provide every single person with the care they need/want/deserve.

        1. I grok it. Using “one each” gets the point across without arguing scheduling, vacation pay, and so on though.

          You can march through pretty much every single item of the Left and swat them with this single argument. They still can’t understand “No, every individual can’t have a full-time personal bodyguard, personal nurse, personal nutritionist, … you run out of bodies.”

    3. You are in a tiny minority — most Americans don’t want gunmen to be able to easily attack our democratic institutions.

      The tiny minority are Americans that think others should not be able to own firearms. Yet that tiny minority mostly resides among the political class that hid behind firearms. The modest proposal being made is that they disarm first. Just like the modest proposal that they cut way back on their GHG emissions by taking the bus and setting their A/C to 78 or better yet, just not installing A/C at all. They call themselves leaders, so perhaps they should take the lead.

    4. No. I just think my life is as worthy of armed protection as the person I voted into office. Since I can’t afford private security, I’d like to be able to exercise my constitutional right to own a firearm to be my own bodyguard without some hypocritical ass-wipe telling me I’m the problem.

    5. “The US Capitol Police, etc, are protecting the office, not the office-holders per se. ”

      Horses&*t – they are protecting the person in that office. Infantile response on your part.

      As for what “most americans” want I suggest you are clueless about that. Go take a poll and see of “most Americans” think congresscritters should be afforded special privileges. Then get back to us. My prediction is that *you* would be the one laughed at.

      What gets laughed at is your ridiculous strawman regarding “machine guns”. You need a special permit to own one – which a congresscritter is free to attempt to get. Even so – no one said anything about machine guns. You shouldn’t be allowed to play with matches.

  4. Professor Reynolds, as always, makes a good case for making the ruling class live by the rules they want to create.

    1. Democrats have to fabricate racist incidents and mobilize their mob through racist hatred of whoever the scapegoat of the day is otherwise people will start paying attention to the failures of their elected leaders.

      That’s why the Democrats protested at the Governor’s residence rather than the Mayor’s residence in St Paul, MN.

Comments are closed.