Maggie's Farm

Some more about this talent.

At age 15, Mark is already a veteran of the industry. His late Grandfather, Bruno Riccio OAM, realised Mark's talent as he sang along to Andrea Boccelli albums at the family's Italian restaurant at age nine. The boy soprano was soon taking singing lessons and before long Bruno was ferrying him to performances at markets, hospitals and charity balls, Mark's repertoire expanding to include swing and musical theatre numbers.

There's lots more at Youtube.com

Taxpayer funds are redistributed to other levels of government and to private organizations that use the funds to lobby for more, and more.

The Pacific Research Institute just completed a 92-page study of such "State-Level Lobbying and Taxpayers."

The study delved into lobbying disclosure laws in all the states, finding that on average the states scored a “D”, 59.3%, on disclosure.

Little wonder. Using the example of California, as the authors summarized in an op-ed:

When it comes to government-to-government lobbying, we’re not talking about small amounts of money, as California confirms. Direct government-to-government lobbying constituted the single largest category of state-level lobbying. Specifically, it represented $92.6 million of the $552.6 million California spent on lobbying, or 16.8 percent.

If that amount is expanded to include other taxpayer-funded organizations that are not directly government, the number increases to almost one-in-four-dollars of lobbying. Perhaps most telling, the level of taxpayer-funded lobbying at the state level, using California as a case study, is two-and-a-half times the magnitude of similar lobbying at the federal level.

While governors lobby the federal government, taxpayers in 50 states are staring down the barrel of April 15. Most do not intend their hard-earned money to fund lobbying activities on the part of government. All citizens have a right to expect that government-to-government lobbying will be subject to the same level of scrutiny and reporting as lobbying by the private sector. All states should make improvements in disclosure, accessibility and equal treatment.

The study points out, “A shocking 44 states provide specific exemptions in their lobbying laws for public agencies and public officials.”

Why?

The study continues:

For example, a bureaucrat’s prestige, power, and resources are ultimately a function of the importance of their area, the resources allocated to their department or agency, and the visibility of their work. Bennett and DiLorenzo argue that bureaucrats can and do indirectly create pressure on government to increase the resources and priority of their own depart­ments by funding private organizations. The funding of these organiza­tions creates a self-reinforcing dynamic: the outside group receives gov­ernment money in part used to lobby the government for more programs and services in the area the funding department is responsible for. This creates pressure for the government (generally) to allocate greater funds to the department, which then in part allows for even greater funding of outside groups to continue lobbying.

Bennett and DiLorenzo describe a similar situation for politicians. Funding to outside groups by the gov­ernment creates naturally strong constituencies for members of Congress. These outside groups can provide volunteers, campaign resources, and so-called independent voices of support for politicians during re-election campaigns.

A similar self-serving dynamic operates at the federal level:

The US Labor Department is going after employers of children age 13 and under.

Anyone illegally employing 12-and 13-year-olds will now face a penalty of $6,000 for each violation. The maximum fine previously was $900.

Those employing children under 12 will face a penalty of $8,000 per violation. That's up from a previous maximum of $1,150.

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis (soh-LEES') says the new fines are part of a stepped up effort to crack down on illegal child labor. The penalties could go as high as $11,000 per violation in cases that involve injury or willful and repeated offenders.

I started working at age 5, sweeping the sidewalks in front of stores, dusting stock, shoveling snow, and the myriad of other jobs I could find in the neighborhood.  Twenty-five cents for an afternoon’s work was big bucks to a poor slum kid.  More important, I learned work habits. Friends raised in rural areas worked in the fields at age 5. They learned work habits. We all feel better off today for the learning.

No one is in favor of putting kids in sweat-shops for 16-hour days, or such, as my grandparents were in the early 1900s.

But, next time you hear anyone complaining that kids don’t have work habits, or don’t value the money they have or the comforts, thank the types who feel that childhood and adolescence should be a skate or so protected as to deny kids and teens the opportunities to become adults with better work habits and self-responsibility.

Remember CBS’ 60 Minutes Mike Wallace? One of the most feared questions used to be, “I’m Mike Wallace, and I’d like to ask you a few questions,”  as Wallace showed up with camara crew at someone’s front door. As this tribute DVD to Wallace summarizes his career, “Take any great event in the last 50 years, and CBS News correspondent Mike Wallace has been there – asking the tough, frank, and even impertinent questions of the famous and the infamous.”

Now we have a young person daring to just ask a congressman whether he supported the Obama agenda, actually “"Do you fully believe in the Obama agenda?"  The congressman repeatedly asks, “who are you?” The young person repeatedly answers, “a student.”  The congressman grabs the questioner. (It is still unknown who the questioner is.)

It may be an “assault” by the congressman, punishable under law.  It is a congressman acting excessively, when he could have just walked away.

It is, also, a sidewalk interviewer, accompanied by another shooting video, refusing to identify himself.

I would ask the same question as the congressman did, and without an answer or an answer that would lead me to not talk with the interviewer, I would walk away. (Scott Johnson at PowerLine agrees, and still reminds us that the congressman acted like a “bully and a nut.” I think neither, but rather unhinged as the congressman apologized for acting.)

At least Mike Wallace identified himself.

Yes, there is fear being struck into the hearts of liberal Democrats by being exposed as fools and tools by ambush journalism. Liberal journalists are defending the congressman.

There’s also many fools and tools among Republican congressmen.

Will those who defend anonymous ambush journalism be as defensive of it when Republican fools are similarly exposed?

Anyone being interviewed has the right to know who the questioner is, and the right to not reply to questions. Anyone asking a question of another should have the civility and integrity to let the interviewee know who the questioner is, at least if asked. Unless assaulted themselves, the target of the interview does not have the right to assault the questioner. That much is clear.

What isn't clear is whether ethics, journalistic or otherwise, flow both ways.  It should.