Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Matthew 7:3-5
Lex Anteinternet: The Candidates and Office Holders, how much are we...: Earlier this past week, Wyoming's voters learned, if they're paying attention, a little about the personal life of a candidate that ...
We ran this just the other day, and then the WyoFile revealed:
August 7, 2022
WyoFile, the Trib reports, has revealed that a host of Wyoming candidates and political figures took PPP money in spite of their generally anti Federal Government positions. This includes Frank Eathorne, Robin Belinskey, Rex Rammell and Anthong Bouchard or their businesses. There were more, but these were the ones for statewide offices that were notable due to their positions.
Harriet Hageman was not among them, but the WyoFile went deeper and noted that members of her family had. A spokesman reacted accusing WyoFile of "journalistic malpractice".
PPP money was in the form of loans, but generally they were loans that were subject to be forgiven and were more often than not.
Which gets back to our original point.
Indeed, that point was already sort of made in regard to Chuck Gray, who the news earlier revealed somehow exists on next to no reported income. That does matter as right wing Republicans have a sort of rugged individualist, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, ideology, and if you are getting by without having to pull on those, your authenticity, as well as that of your point, is certainly in question.
And here we have something like that.
A whole host of candidates has been campaigning on the evils of the Federal government and its money. But then they take it. Earlier, Wyoming GOP head Frank Eathorne had been shown to take some substantial money from the Federal government in his livestock operation. He declared that to have been a mistake and that he now eschews it. But it turns out that when PPP loans were there, the bulk of which have been forgiven, he was ready to take it as well. And Rex Rammell, who is ready to expel Federal employees of some offices by force if he's elected Governor, which he will not be, didn't have to be forced into taking PPP money.
This gets to an interesting phenomenon that's evident in this race on all sorts of level of various candidates loudly proclaiming that the Federal government, and indeed all government, needs to get out of the way, unless they rely on the government somehow themselves, in which case that personal reliance is somehow fine. Without getting into it too deeply, any candidate who is campaigning on the "hate the government" or "get the government out of the way" is really open to examination on this topic. If they're backing a pet law, or rely on the government for enforcement of something that aids their personal interest, business, or well-being, well. . . .
Indeed, there are entire industries in the state and nation which complain about regulation, but basically exist only because the country subsidizes them in one fashion or another. Agriculture gets slammed that way but really basically doesn't fit into this category, or at least not much, but other industries most definitely do. We've dealt with it before, but we're so used to it, we can't recognize the subsidies but would be in a world of hurt if they were gone. For example, Wyoming couldn't pay for its highways and airports but for Federal funds, and it only just begins there.
And certain industries exist only due to Federal license, with those licenses having become more and more in the nature of private property over the years. Work, in some fashion, at a family radio station? Well that radio station exists only because the Federal government lets you treat it like property, rather than regulate it to keep it local, or open it up to bidding every few years.
Indeed, taking just one, radio licenses for commercial stations used to be subject to a set of regulations that, for competition purposes, basically required them to be local. Not anymore.
Would Chuck Gray be for that?
In reading the article, the one anti-government crusader who didn't show up in the PPP list, as noted, was Harriet Hageman. Frankly, I thought the WyoFile article was a bit of a cheap shot, partially, in that regard, as it mentioned her husband's law firm, but that firm is a firm and the fact it took PPP money doesn't really say anything about him or her.
Her family's ranching operations, on the other hand, taking PPP money. . . .
Anyhow, Hageman is a lawyer, and she keeps campaigning on taking on the Federal government. Mentioned in the list of Federal terribles are such entities as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife. An article endorsing her by former Congressman Barbara Cubin cites that she's quick to sue.
Frankly, in many of these instances average Wyomingites would probably come down on the other side, if they knew the issues. Agencies like the U.S. Fish & Wildlife help keep Wyoming what it is.
And Hageman hasn't limited herself to just matters such as that. She represented Susan Gore in a lawsuit that included a claim against at least one local contractor. Maybe the suit had merit, but we shouldn't really buy too much into the common lawyer propaganda that they only represent the innocent, just and virtuous. A lawyer with a practice like that would starve. Lawyers represent their clients and their interests.
The ultimate point on all of this is this. At some point, a person has to be honest about these things, and a person can in fact be honest about taking government money while opposing it. That defense is, "well, this is the system and I have to operate within it, but I'll vote to take it down even if it hurts me."
And frankly, with some of these offices, that would mean basically destroying the highway system and wiping out airports.
Indeed, how far along on the "less government" path is anyone really willing to go? Not all that far, I'd wager. Wyoming didn't have driver's licenses until the 1950s. Would we propose returning to a non license state of affairs? Wyoming's liquor trade was unregulated right up into Prohibition, and the current licensure system only came about after Prohibition's repeal. Would we be willing to return to an unregulated liquor trade? Wyoming was a pioneer in wildlife and hunting laws, but that means that there are laws. Would we want to go back to unrestricted taking of wildlife?
And on property "rights", they exist solely because the government says they do. One candidate campaigning against the government is a significant landlord, an occupation that you actually can't have unless the government lets it happen.
Indeed, quite a few of the "anti-government" candidates that have a problem with the Federal government don't otherwise have a problem with the government at all. That shows in how they'd handle the Federal domain, they'd transfer it to Wyoming. Wyoming is a governmental body, rather obviously.
Of course, they feel that Wyoming would regulate things less than the Federal government does, which isn't all that much to start with. Some of them would just transfer that domain to private landowners, with it often being the case that those in the agricultural sector think it would simply be given to them, rather than being sold to somebody with a rich hair dressing chain in New Jersey.
Which brings us to the point that most of us only feel the government is being too restrictive or intrusive if there's something we personally want to do that it's impinging on somehow. Otherwise, we're fine with it.
Which also means that a person needs to be pretty careful what they wish for.
No comments:
Post a Comment