How a "Social Contract" is supposed to work.

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

The riveting 345 page Government Accounting Office bestseller is hot off the presses!

For those of us who wonder what S510 was really for in the first place, don’t worry – there is no mention of “harmonizing” the entire food system under one “super-stellar ultra-powerful” (SSUP) governmental organization to starve the little people into submission – the proposal presented is just to save money!

According to Representative Rosa De Lauro from Connecticut:

“… the study provides additional evidence for the need to consolidate food safety oversight into one independent agency.
“I have introduced legislation that would establish such an agency since 1999 and believe that this is a critical step toward preventing foodborne illnesses and protecting public health,”

If one should choose to waste a few hours perusing this interesting PDf entitled “Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue,” (ORPDGPSTDER)  (alternate Text option here) look for such stirring passages as:

Although reducing fragmentation in federal food safety oversight is not
expected to result in significant cost savings, new costs may be avoided by
preventing further fragmentation, as illustrated by the approximately $30
million for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 that USDA officials had said they
would have to spend developing and implementing the agency’s new
congressionally mandated catfish inspection program.

To implement a new Agency is a costly concept through Studies, Blue Ribbon Panels, Congressional Hearings, and employment of MORE Federal workers to run the yet-un-named new Agency does not seem to register with these people.  I know, why don’t we call it Freddie and Fannies Food Force? Then one could really save money by re-using business cards or stationary from the almost defunct housing agencies which have been so wildly successful.

Of course the report does not just refer to Food Safety, it also discusses:

Centralization of DOD Health Care (Page 18)

Centralization of Intelligence Overseas Intel Gathering (Page 31)

Consolidation of Water Control in the U.S.-Mexico border region (Page 57)

Consolidating Federal Data Centers (Page 71)

…and the list continues most notably with hundreds of “could”, “might” or “may”s contained within the presentation. As usual this language provides an opt out for responsibility when/if the centralization of power into several agencies fail.

I always wonder what the point of Centralizing power into large ineffective agencies is designed to do. Theoretically in the United States we have a type of “Social Contract” in which the majority consent to be governed through tacit consent. Of course this theory also applies in Egypt, Tunisia and some countries that seem to be having issues on who is to govern, how it is to be done and if “consent” really applies.

Consolidation or Centralization is not always such a positive concept. Especially when those who will hold the reins of political power are not answerable to the people nor fiscally responsible.

With QE3 possibly on the horizon, maybe it is time for a “timeout” ala Government Shutdown to allow the American Citizens to speak to their Legislators.