In 2011, the Russian journalist, Alexander Golts, articulated what he called the Golts Principle. He was criticizing a Russian Defense Ministry plan to develop a space defense program, in order to thwart what the Russians considered a planned U.S. attack. (It was to be Russia’s equivalent of Reagan’s “Star Wars” fantasy.) Golts ridiculed the concept, and the Golts Principle was born. It stated: “[T]he more absurd the idea, the more likely it is that the Russian bureaucracy will embrace it. The motive is clear: By adopting impossible goals, bureaucrats can milk the state budget indefinitely.”
Here in Oakland, the best example of the Golts Principle—"milking the budget indefinitely”--is the progressive argument concerning the “root causes” of crime. Radical leftists from Cat Brooks and Carroll Fife to Pamela Price and Sheng Thao all cite “root causes” in order to create, finance and justify schemes that purport to address these “root causes” but in reality are nothing more than perpetual, absurd funding mechanisms. The following factors usually are included as alleged “root causes” of crime:
- low family income
- poor housing
- poor nutrition
- chronic health care problems
- poor school performance
- psychological disorders
- racism
- capitalism
One can easily see that resolving these “causes”—even if we agree that they are the actual causes of crime (which I don’t)--would be impossibly expensive, and explode Oakland’s budget for the foreseeable future.
If you fully funded interventions on all the “root causes” on the list, you’re talking hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars, year in and year out for who knows how long? Forever.
Of course, Brooks, Fife et al. don’t propose to throw all this money at once at all these problems. They know it’s impossible, and that taxpayers wouldn’t stand for it. Instead, they devise single-issue programs in order to make their goals more bite-sized and thus politically digestible. But collectively, their programs turn into Golts Principle schemes on steroids, requiring enormous expenditures over enormous periods of time to perpetuate absurd, unachievable goals--in other words, milking the system indefinitely. The goal posts keep receding, which to Brooks, Fife & Co. merely means that yet more money and time are needed. We thus have a perfect illustration of Ronald Reagan’s adage: “The nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth is a government bureau.”
Creating Golts Principle programs is also, and necessarily, an excuse for keeping progressives in power. As the years glide by with no success, they argue that we need to give their programs more time. This requires, of course, giving them more time in office. If the people, or the press, become restive (“Where is all the money going?”), they promise that wonderful results are just around the corner; we have to be patient and continue to keep electing them. If you continue to ask why their schemes aren’t working, they call you a racist. If there are problems or stalls along the way, they allege, it’s the fault of rightwing billionaires and MAGA extremists who are interfering. Trust us, the progressive say. We know what’s best, because we’re experts.
These woke politicians are frauds. Most of them have never had a real job in their lives, until they got elected to public office. They’re grifters who see an opportunity for money, and they seize that chance with the tenacity of a pit bull. When they achieve public office, they make a couple hundred thousand a year, with healthcare and generous pensions. No wonder they’ll do anything to prolong their cushy careers.
Here’s a suggestion: Let’s declare Golts Principle programs illegal. Every expenditure of taxpayer dollars in Oakland, every program, must have a guaranteed ending date—in no case exceeding three years--together with an iron-clad means of evaluating its success or failure. If the plan is a failure, then the bureaucrats who pushed for it must resign their jobs, publicly apologize for their lack of judgment, and be banned forever from holding public office.
REQUEST FOR DONATIONS
For years I’ve refrained from asking for contributions. We’re all inundated with requests for money and I didn’t want to become part of that clamor. And besides, I hate asking for anything. But there’s so much more our Coalition could be doing if we had more spending cash. Many of the officers and members of CBO are retired and living on fixed incomes (I certainly am); there’s only so much we can afford on our own (and by the way, none of us gets paid a dime). The main thing I’d like for us to be able to do is make campaign contributions to candidates we support. So please, consider making a donation by clicking on the “Donate” button. Thank you.
Steve Heimoff