10
Nov
2014
Gruber Is OK With “Non-Transparency” Because Americans Are Stupid and He Wanted Bill to Pass
You think I’m paraphrasing unfairly, don’t you? It’s short, watch this. It’s Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who was one of the go-to guys modeling and touting the Affordable Care Act.
It seems he exactly understands what he’s doing and still wants to do it. At least he’s honest about being dishonest.
We are so confident that we know what’s best for you that we will pull out every trick in the book to keep you from finding out what that is until it is too late.
Among the many other advantages of AnCap, contractual promises contained in contracts for government-type services would be enforceable. Fraud and misrepresentation are breaches of such contracts and thus would/could be enforceable. Alternatively, one cannot now sue a lying politician for detrimental reliance and/or fraud regarding their false promises.
Further, the biggest impediment to enforcing contracts presently is the insane civil litigation system and the horde of incompetent and biased judges (who are immune from suit for failing to perform their appropriate duties).
GRUBER: This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies, okay? So it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are gonna pay in… If you made it explicit the healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, okay? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.
Yep. Even worse in writing.
As for “widespread greed and selfishness ” in fact governments are often kept to a higher standard than private businesses, since private firms’ activities are often shrouded in secrecy, whereas governments’ tend to be much more open.
That fact remains generally true. Exceptions — and the United States is the outlier amongst many western nations in this respect, as I have said before — do not refute the general rule.
Isn’t a general rule a priorism, at least to some degree?
Also, no one who watched Glenn Beck when he had his show on Fox is at all surprised by the ObamaCare news.
One does not need apriorism to justify general rules. Some general rules can be justified empirically
What about the proposition that empiricism is the only valid method to acquire knowledge about the real world?
If you believe empiricism is the method by which that proposition is known, then you would just be saying that empiricism is valid because empiricism is valid.
Yet if we advance the proposition that empiricism is not the only method to acquire knowledge of the real world, and we analyze that proposition, we find that we don’t run into circular referencing. We can identify it as a priori, and then when asked to validate a priorism as a valid method to acquire knowledge, we do so by including both empiricism and a priorism, and taking both sets of propositions, we can validate a priorism not by circular referencing, but by identifying the limits of empiricism and the limits of a priorism.
Monism self-contradicts. Solving the contradiction leads to the existence of (some) a priori knowledge.
“Solving the contradiction leads to the existence of (some) a priori knowledge.”
lol.. only an ignoramus would claim that modern empiricists in the analytic tradition of philosophy reject the existence of a priori knowledge.
LK,
Off-topic….but do you really “laugh out loud” when you read a post by an ignoramus? I’ve always pictured you as the scoffing-type; or is scoffing considered a form of lol-ing?
I mean a priori knowledge of the real world, which YOU reject.
You need to read more carefully.
Furthermore, apriorism is in no sense a credible method for understanding the external world.
The proposition that the best way to obtain knowledge of the world of our sensory perceptions is a posteriori is ultimately justified by inference to the best explanation, since there is no other remotely credible alternative method.
That inference to the best explanation is non-deductive and a type of inductive argument of course does raise Hume’s problem of induction, but the most straightforward solution for this is that, despite Hume, we have no rational reason to reject it, given how successful it has been in the past, and because there is no remotely viable alternative.
Only if we started to find that empirical evidence and inductive argument began to be a highly unreliable way to obtain knowledge of the external world would be justified in rejecting it.
Finally, a priori knowledge has its place: e.g., pure mathematics and tautological definitions and deductions using these, but the idea that apriorism is any credible rival to empiricism as a method of obtaining knowledge of the external world is utterly laughable.
LK,
“Furthermore, apriorism is in no sense a credible method for understanding the external world.”
I am not concerned with what you personally find credible or not credible. I am concerned with what is true and not true, logical and illogical, sound and unsound.
And again you contradict yourself. The way your minds works is a part of the real world, and yet you arrive at what it can and cannot do a priori with that comment.
If you were consistent, at best all you could say is that up until now, you have not accepted the existence of synthetic a priori knowledge.
You can’t even say there has been no evidence of it yet, because the very concept of evidence carries with it a priori concepts not derived from observation, such as the concept of observation itself. Observations are not valid based on observations. That would be akin to saying A is valid because A is valid.
“The proposition that the best way to obtain knowledge of the world of our sensory perceptions is a posteriori…”
So you now you’re saying a posteriori knowledge of the external world is no longer the sole method, which of course is self-contradictory, but rather it is “the best”.
Well, for you to believe B is the best way does not imply A is not a way.
“… is ultimately justified by inference to the best explanation, since there is no other remotely credible alternative method.”
Again you use that word “credible.” Credibility is just another way of saying what you find persuasive, but the argument is not over what you personally find persuasive or unpersuasive, but rather what is logical, sound, and follows the right rules of reason.
It makes no difference to what is true that someone does not find arguments “credible.” Credibility, while important in some respects, is not the ground of knowledge. I know energy cannot be destroyed not because I find the argument credible. It is credible but that is not why or how I know. Even if the argument was percieved as incredible by individuals in a primitive tribe, that does not mean the argument is false.
“That inference to the best explanation is non-deductive and a type of inductive argument of course does raise Hume’s problem of induction, but the most straightforward solution for this is that, despite Hume, we have no rational reason to reject it, given how successful it has been in the past, and because there is no remotely viable alternative.”
We do in fact have a rational reason to reject empiricism as the sole, monistic means to acquire knowledge about every real world phenomena in the universe.
The rational reason to reject that claim is that it leads to contradiction when applied to learning and action, i.e. the subject matter of the social sciences, such as economics.
If a method for acquiring knowledge is claimed as universally valid for all real world knowledge, then it should not lead to contradiction. But empiricism does lead to contradiction when applied to the real world subject engaging in empiricism. For learning and actions, these presuppositions not only do not apply, but are tacitly presumed by the empiricist to not apply to his own empiricist activity!
Just because a method is successful in one field of inquiry, it does not logically follow that it must be the only method in all fields of inquiry.
“Only if we started to find that empirical evidence and inductive argument began to be a highly unreliable way to obtain knowledge of the external world would be justified in rejecting it.”
But it has already been proved as not only “highly unreliable” but quite flatly contradicts and cannot be in any way reliable for individual learning and actions!
“Finally, a priori knowledge has its place: e.g., pure mathematics and tautological definitions and deductions using these, but the idea that apriorism is any credible rival to empiricism as a method of obtaining knowledge of the external world is utterly laughable.”
Drunk people laugh at serious issues too.
The idea that empiricism is the sole means to acquire knowledge about the real world is a contradiction. There is no rational reason to believe in a contradiction.
“So you now you’re saying a posteriori knowledge of the external world is no longer the sole method, .”
False.
“But it has already been proved as not only “highly unreliable” but quite flatly contradicts and cannot be in any way reliable for individual learning and actions!”
Since a posteriori knowledge or direct experience includes knowledge of your personal states of mind or perceptions, that is a laughable claim.
LK:
“So you now you’re saying a posteriori knowledge of the external world is no longer the sole method, .”
“False.”
Right, because when someone asks which two integars can be multiplied together to get a prime number, we all say “Well, the best two are the prime number itself and 1.”
Because people say “the best way is…” all the time when they are referring to what they believe to be the only way.
Lol
“Since a posteriori knowledge or direct experience includes knowledge of your personal states of mind or perceptions, that is a laughable claim.”
Without using any analogies, please explain how the proposition that knowledge of the real world is only derived from experience, is justified, without presuming that conclusion true in your premises.
LK, the reason why the US is the “outlier” is precisely because it is closer to being the ideal territorial monopolist, which is what a state is.
Other states in the world are checked to a greater degree than the US. But because the US is the world’s remaining superpower, US statesmen can do pretty much what they want without any other state seriously challenging it.
The same principle applied to the world is the world having a world territorial monopolist with NO other state to check its power. Then there is nothing except successful revolution from within to check it.
Since the world is pseudo anarchy, in that there is no world territorial monopolist, but there is a local territorial monopolist without much check, the inexplicable conclusion is that ideal statism is the reason why the US us an “outlier”, and anarchism is why “many western” states do not behave ideally statist.
Remember the horrors taking place in the USSR when it was a second world superpower?
Or the atrocities under Ghengis Khan when he ruled much of the world?
If you really did care about induction, and empiricism, then such evidence is consistent with the theory that most ng closer to ideal statism leads to…more lies, less transparency, etc.
Do you honestly believe that if say the Norwegians or Swedish government became the sole world superpower, that they wouldn’t do the kinds of things that the present world superpower is doing?
“Since the world is pseudo anarchy, in that there is no world territorial monopolist, “
That there is no “world territorial monopolist” does not prove that the “anarchist” vision of international affairs is remotely credible
In fact, if there was a strong international force which made nation states respect international law and other treaty and human rights obligations, the system would be much better and individual “outlier” governments would not get out of line in the first place or would be quickly corrected.
That’s MF’s point.
A strong international force, aka a world territorial monopolist, will be and is the “outlier” government.
LK:
“That there is no “world territorial monopolist” does not prove that the “anarchist” vision of international affairs is remotely credible.”
I didn’t say that was the proof.
That there are real world local territorial monopolies does not prove that the statist vision of international affairs is optimal.
Again, I am not concerned with what you personally believe to be “credible.”. What is credible to you is not identical to what is correct or logical.
“In fact, if there was a strong international force which made nation states respect international law and other treaty and human rights obligations, the system would be much better and individual “outlier” governments would not get out of line in the first place or would be quickly corrected.”
States violate human rights by virtue of existing.
Besides that, what if that “strong international force” was itself an “outlier”? You called the US an “outlier” when the context was your preferred state aggression, I mean preferred behavior for violating civil and property rights.
Then what? And what if there was a world state that behaved tyrannically even to you? Then what? What if you can’t convince the majority if the world state was democratic? Then what?
sigh
The only reason a private business is not precluded from invading others’ property, stealing and/or getting away with a breach of contract is due to incompetence, bias and corruption in the government’s judicial and legal system.
Austrian analysis is, in fact, relentlessly empirical. Keynesianism is relentlessly anti-empirical, depending upon lies and social intimidation. Keynesianism meticulously and purposefully excises from consideration the empirical observations of a) prices as essential information; b) the differences between voluntary exchange and violent intervention and c) the impact of central monetary distortions associated with WWI as the cause of the problems following 1929.
In Defense of “Extreme Apriorism” By Murray N. Rothbard:
Actually, despite the “extreme a priori” label, praxeology contains one Fundamental Axiom–the axiom of action–which may be called a priori, and a few subsidiary postulates which are actually empirical. Incredible as it may seem to those versed in the positivist tradition, from this tiny handful of premises the whole of economics is deduced–and deduced as absolutely true. Setting aside the Fundamental Axiom for a moment, the empirical postulates are: (a) small in number, and (b) so broadly based as to be hardly “empirical” in the empiricist sense of the term. To put it differently, they are so generally true as to be self-evident, as to be seen by all to be obviously true once they are stated, and hence they are not in practice empirically falsifiable and therefore not “operationally meaningful.” P. 3
Mises assumes nothing whatever about the rationality of human action (in fact, Mises does not use the concept at all). He assumes nothing about the wisdom of man’s ends or about the correctness of his means. He “assumes” only that men act, that is, that they have some ends, and use some means to try to attain them. This is Mises’s Fundamental Axiom, and it is this axiom that gives the whole praxeological structure of economic theory built upon it its absolute and apodictic certainty.
Now the crucial question arises: how have we obtained the truth of this axiom? Is our knowledge a priori or empirical, “synthetic” or “analytic”? In a sense, such questions are a waste of time, because the all-important fact is that the axiom is self-evidently true, self-evident to a far greater and broader extent than the other postulates. For this Axiom is true for all human beings, everywhere, at any time, and could not even conceivably be violated. P.5
Statement 1 of roddis:
“Austrian analysis is, in fact, relentlessly empirical.“
Statement 2 of Rothbard:
“Incredible as it may seem to those versed in the positivist tradition, from this tiny handful of premises the whole of economics is deduced–and deduced as absolutely true. Setting aside the Fundamental Axiom for a moment, the empirical postulates are: (a) small in number, and (b) so broadly based as to be hardly “empirical” in the empiricist sense of the term. To put it differently, they are so generally true as to be self-evident, as to be seen by all to be obviously true once they are stated, and hence they are not in practice empirically falsifiable and therefore not “operationally meaningful.“
————————
Truly priceless. But I’m sure roddis can’t see the contradiction.
Rothbard differentiated between the self-evident “empirical” and the traditional “empirical” in a manner that foregoes the endless and pointless debates about “a priori” but makes the difference clear. It would naturally follow that LK would obfuscate and call names.
I’ve tried to point out that I am not big fan of economic models or jargon when simple concepts can be best explained in plain and understandable language.
LK is capable of little more than name calling. His posts always devolve to that level in short order.
The crazy part is that even ardent statists will cringe at this … It won’t change their mind, but at least they’ll cringe, and then most likely look forward to the next election (I guess).
Another bad apple….in the mount Everest sized basket?
Statism is a religion. It doesn’t matter what happens on Earth, as long as the ideal of pure and perfect government persists, there can be bad apples up to our eyeballs.
“Anarcho-capitialism is a religion. It doesn’t matter what happens on Earth, as long as the ideal of pure and perfect anarcho-capitialism persists, there can be bad apples up to our eyeballs.” lol
What an arch of capitalism on Earth?
Lol
Sorry, tablet changes spelling.
Meant to say
“What anarcho-capitalism on Earth?”
Lol
Let us not forget:
“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” – Obama
Related: “DoorGate”
The crime is getting caught.
Those hard drives won’t just shred themselves you know.
Openness and transparency will certainly promote efficiency and effectiveness in government; it’s to bad nobody asked Obama if there was a distinction between government and the state.
Another good one.
“Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.” – Obama
Haha “self-rule”.
So that is what Obama calls “My admin rules you”.
If A rules over B, then it is self-rule for everyone!
Hah yes, you see, because I am ruling myself I imposed Obamacare on myself by…not voting for any politician who voted for it ?
It is November 10, 2014 right now, and I predict that the true believers, the Obamacalytes, the progressives, the leftists, the socialists, many will spin this in their favor to make it seem like they have the moral high ground.
Something like “It is a good thing we have people like Gruber willing to go into the trenches against the evil fascists, by doing whatever is necessary to get what is at the end of the day a good and moral healthcare system up and running. His actions wouldn’t be needed if it weren’t for inhuman a$$hole Republicans who hate poor unhealthy people and want them dead.”
If there is one thing I have learned over the years about political pundits, it is that when things go off the wall crazy, like when I think there is no way an apology can work on THIS one….the apologies do come out, and the depths of absurdity the pundits will go no longer surprises me. It is something I expect now.
Wait for it.
Keshav, where are you?
I’m here. If you want my opinion of Jonathan Gruber’s admission, I think it’s despicable. Selling a bill by manipulating public ignorance of the contents is completely dishonest. That of course does not address whether Obamacare was a good thing on its merits, but I’m not the kind of person who believes that the ends justify the means. Just because you’re trying to pass something good does not make it OK to make the American people think that the bill is something it’s not.
Meh.
It’s not Constitutional, anyway; So, no big deal.
Called it!
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/11/gruber-is-ok-with-non-transparency-because-americans-are-stupid-and-he-wanted-bill-to-pass.html#comment-1251673
J/k,
Too soon.
So will you be advocating for Obamacare to be repealed in light of its fraudulent enactment?
I don’t see how that follows. The means that were used to persuade people to support the bill may have been immoral, but they certainly weren’t illegal. So I don’t see how there would be a reason to repeal it on those grounds.
If a politician knowingly made false claims about the effects of tax cuts on the economy, would that be a reason to repeal those tax cuts? I don’t see why it would be.
Ok, so substitute immoral for fraudulent.
Anyways, I was wondering because you said it was despicable and that the ends don’t justify the means, so I thought maybe you would want to repeal it on those grounds alone. But if you don’t, it just seems like it’s really not that despicable and that the ends do justify the means. Am I wrong here?
I should at least be able to return the “product”, right? You know, for customer service reasons.
“Ok, so substitute immoral for fraudulent.” Well, did you mean fraudulent in a legal sense, or did you mean you just mean deceptive? Because I don’t see how anything Gruber talked about was fraudulent in a legal sense. It was certainly deceptive though, and thus immoral.
“Anyways, I was wondering because you said it was despicable and that the ends don’t justify the means, so I thought maybe you would want to repeal it on those grounds alone. But if you don’t, it just seems like it’s really not that despicable and that the ends do justify the means. Am I wrong here?” I really do think it’s despicable, and I don’t think the ends justify the means. You should not do a bad thing to achieve a good goal. If the only way to achieve the good goal is to do a bad thing, then it may be better not to try to achieve the goal ag all. But that doesn’t mean that once a bad thing has already been done to achieve a good goal, you should try to undo that goal. It may be wrong to tell a lie just to save your life, but after having told the lie, that doesn’t mean that you now have a moral obligation to kill yourself.
Ok Keshav, I think I understand. It’s true that you don’t believe the ends justify the means, but since you weren’t convinced of the greatness of Obamacare based on despicable lies, why should you advocate to repeal it? Is this right?
Yeah, if the only reason you thought Obamacare was a good thing was because you believed the lie, then it might make sense to advocate its repeal. But for those who think Obamacare is a good thing for reasons other than the lie, it wouldn’t really make sense for them to advocate repeal.
“If a politician knowingly made false claims about the effects of tax cuts on the economy, would that be a reason to repeal those tax cuts?”
Only if he was an Austrian; I don’t see how you could prove that a positivist knowingly made false claims about the effects of tax cuts; he could always claim that he was going by a working hypothesis.
Unless you just mean that the politician privately stated/believed that the effects of tax cuts would be different than he publicly stated.
Oh, and did he explicitly state “ceteris paribus”?
Suppose that a politician says “If you pass my tax cut bill, then government revenue next year will be higher than what it is this year.” And suppose after the bill is passed, the politician admits that he didn’t really believe that government revenue would be higher next year than this year, he just said that so that people would pass his bill. Would that admission be a reason to immediately repeal the tax cut?
Yes, it would be a reason for those who think the ends don’t justify the means.
If you tell me that I should buy this product, and it does everything you say it does, but then I overhear you telling another salesperson that you didn’t really believe that and you just wanted my money, then I would immediately return that product.
“If you tell me that I should buy this product, and it does everything you say it does, but then I overhear you telling another salesperson that you didn’t really believe that and you just wanted my money, then I would immediately return that product.” Well, what if be product was sold on false pretenses, but it turns out it’s a good product anyway. Then the mere fact that the salesman lied to you isn’t reason to return it, is it?
I admitted it was a good product, but I don’t want to deal with people I can’t trust, and I’m certainly not going to reward them for this behavior.
Or to take an example that might be more relevant to you, if a libertarian intentionally oversold the benefits of anarcho-capitalism in order to persuade people to abolish to government, would that be a reason to reestablish the government?
He doesn’t have to abolish the government; he just has to let me opt out.
Actually, I would offer a 30 day money back guarantee on anyone looking to purchase some private defense/arbitration insurance. If he didn’t like it, he would get his money back, and he could rehire Obama, I guess.
That’s not the scenario I’m envisioning. Suppose there was a popular libertarian figure who said “An anarcho-capitalist society would be far more prosperous than our current society. There would be two cars in every garage.” And suppose that on the basis of that, the American people decide to abolish the US government. And after they do so, the libertarian admits “I didn’t really believe that. I just said that so that the government would be abolished.” Would that be a reason to put the US government back in charge of the country?
If people wanted to voluntarily establish their own US government then I’d have no problem with that as long as they can’t force me into their club. Same with Obama Care, since people were lied to about what it was, they should be free to opt out. How could you possibly say you don’t believe the ends justify the means if you aren’t even willing to let the people opt out after they were lied to in order to get it passed?
“Same with Obama Care, since people were lied to about what it was, they should be free to opt out. How could you possibly say you don’t believe the ends justify the means if you aren’t even willing to let the people opt out after they were lied to in order to get it passed?” Dan, if a politician advocates for welfare reform by saying that everyone kicked off the welfare rolls will be able to easily find high-paying jobs. And suppose that on the basis of that statement, poor people support the politician’s bill. If after the bill is passed the politician admits that he didn’t really believe that, then should the government continue to give welfare checks to all the poor people who were misled?
I have no problem with allowing people to opt out of the requirements a bill imposes if they were misled into believing it was designed to do one thing when in reality it was designed to do something else entirely. How about you?
You can’t get a “We are the elite and know whats good for all” any clearer than that. Very democratic this line of thinking. Let them vote for me, and then I’ll treat them like mushrooms, keep em in the dark and feed em shit!
As Hayek said the worst get to the top…
And just for information, usually the worst don’t tell you that they are…
Listen Skylien,
The US is generally pretty open and transparent, most of the time.
Just because you have a specific example of a highly placed and powerful bureaucrat talking about how good governance means lying to the stupid electorate in order to put things over on them, doesn’t mean you can contradict the completely unfalsifiable generalizations L K likes so much.
I would like to note right now that if there was video of Karl Rove saying something as misanthropic about governing as this guy did, everyone to the right of L K would join in talking about what an asshat undeserving of power or authority he is. We all pretty much do now, without a video. But here is POTUS’ guy saying it, and L K is right there to back him up. (If I were generalizing, I would suggest that that speaks to what L K thinks of the electorate, and governing them.)
It’s amazing how suddenly nuanced and complex governance becomes when a leftist steps into the oval office. Put a conservative there, and every homeless guy on the street was a specific decision made by the guy at the top. But replace him with a socialist, and good god, can’t you see how intricate and impossible to maneuver the ship of state is?
And just because POTUS’ advisers and aides are almost to the person misanthropic tyranny sorts, doesn’t contradict some completely unquantifiable generalizations L K can never be held to account for.
So, shut up.
Cody,
Well, I am well aware that I didn’t disprove LKs completely unquantifiable generalizations, because that obviously is not possible with unquantifiable generalizations.
I guess you were being sarcastic when you did the same as LK when you said “The US is generally pretty open and transparent, most of the time.”.
Whatever, the only thing I did was putting Gruber’s thinking in plain English. I don’t understand why I shouldn’t say that. Maybe your “shut up” was sarcastic as well?
I think he was being sarcastic when you think he was. 🙂
Ok. Then I facepalm over myself.
😉
“The US is generally pretty open and transparent, most of the time.”. Speaking of non-falsifiable generalizations.
I was thinking the same thing.
“We don’t know everything that the US government is doing, but because they let us know they are doing some things, then it follows that the percentage of what we do know is greater than the percentage of what we don’t know.”
I would also think that a generally open and transparent government wouldn’t have to be pushed to pass the Freedom of Information Act.
The really funny thing about it is that the electorate wasn’t fooled- they opposed and still oppose the bill after all. The stupidity Gruber is celebrating belonged to the Democrats in Congress.
Why did they even bother lying to us? It’s not like we had a vote in the matter. The ACA would have passed through Congress whether they lied to us or not. And the midterm elections couldn’t have gone any worse for the supporters of the ACA if they had told the truth. Whether they had said, “Hey, you know that thing you don’t want? Well, its actually pretty great!” or “Hey, you know that thing you don’t want? Well, we’re gonna ram it down your throat anyway!” They still would have had the votes to pass it through Congress and they still would have gotten killed for it in the midterms. It just seems like a wasted lie to me.
Socialism isn’t inevitable.
But Socialists are.
It seems to me that he was being honest in his comments, defending dishonesty in politics as an unfortunate but necessary means to get what he considers good legislation passed. His “stupidity of the American voter” comment was wrong, but he was speaking impromptu and in brief, so didn’t get around to replacing it with “the rational ignorance of the American voter.”
My guess is that a considerable majority of people involved in politics, both politicians and politically involved academics, would agree with him, although many would be careful not to say so. My loss of innocence on the subject occurred forty-some years ago when I was working as a very junior part of a GWU project (also a JEC project and a Governor’s Conference project) on state and local finance. The purpose of the project was to produce a fact book to tell voters what they needed to know about the subject. I pointed out a fact that was unquestionably true (demographics about people already born) and unquestionably important (relevant to school expenditure, the largest expenditure of State and Local governments). The people in charge of the project refused to include it in the factbook, not because they disagreed with its truth or its importance but because it pointed in what was, from their standpoint, the wrong direction, implied less need for money not more.