April is the cruelest month, wrote poet T.S. Eliot.

Executives at Facebook likely would agree.

After it was disclosed in March that Facebook allowed its users’ personal information to be mined and manipulated by a company hired to promote Donald Trump’s candidacy, the hate-fest began.

It grew in April as the tally of those whose data was exposed rose to 87 million. The hate reached its apex when Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress, explaining and apologizing to congressmen, who seemed equal parts shocked, angered and clueless.

I don’t understand the shocked part. None of us should be surprised that internet companies are gathering, selling, manipulating, sharing, buying and otherwise monetizing our personal data.

The use of personal information for commercial purposes precedes the internet and social media. Lots of industries – for example, banks, insurance companies and real estate agencies – have long gleaned public and private records to drum up business.

Now, the internet allows companies to gather a lot more information about a lot more people. And people share so much about their personal and professional lives online that they provide oceans of data about themselves, their families and their friends.

But Facebook is not alone. And it’s not just social media and networking companies that compile, sell and use our data. Similar policies and practices also are used by internet companies such as Yahoo and Google, as well as your internet provider, cable TV company, phone company, etc.

That doesn’t mean Facebook skates because, well, everyone is doing it.

Facebook’s troubles got everyone’s attention. The news that the pro-Trump company Cambridge Analytica allegedly violated Facebook’s policies and rules to sway a political campaign underscores the need to do something.

What should happen – but won’t – is the adoption of sensible regulations for internet companies.

It won’t happen because too many officials excuse misconduct as free enterprise.

For example, the Federal Communications Commission under Trump is killing regulations that required internet companies to treat all content and customers equitably. Eliminating net neutrality will drive up costs for consumers and make it harder for new and small companies to compete.

On the issue of privacy, the Trump administration appears similarly disinclined to act. Republicans have steadfastly refused to support measures to safeguard people’s privacy and make internet users (not just companies) more accountable.

Sensible means for doing both exist.

On the privacy side, better rules are needed to restrict what information companies can sell or share. Clicking on that “terms of service” box shouldn’t mean we agree that a company can compile, share, sell or otherwise barter the information they glean from us. And that’s not just information we disclose while using their service, but much more, perhaps even including your entire email and phone contact lists, depending on what apps you use.

Second, and more importantly, the internet should be subject to the same accountability rules as other media when it comes to political advertising. And those rules need to be strengthened across all media.

Whether they are official campaigns, affiliated political groups, foreign agents or billionaires masquerading as nonprofits, those who pay to play in American politics (or are paid by others to play) should be required to identify themselves.

It’s outrageous that neither Congress nor the administration has acted to prohibit the anonymous and fraudulent internet activity that was used to trick and mislead people throughout the 2016 campaign.

It’s easy to hate Facebook because it’s gigantic and pervasive and Zuckerberg is really, really rich.

But punishing Facebook doesn’t address the real problem. To do that, we need to put additional safeguards in place to protect Americans, individually and collectively.

While conservatives argue more regulation of any kind is bad, history proves that regulation sometimes provides the framework necessary to support sustainable growth and innovation.

Examples might include oversight of food and drug safety, or regulation of the radio frequency spectrum. The record shows smart, limited regulation can protect citizens while enhancing the environment for development.

The alternative is a nation of people growing increasingly mistrustful and cynical, not only about what’s on the internet but about one another.

We are taught as children that anyone can grow up to be president of the United States.

And while many argue the point, I believe it’s true. The U.S. has fewer class distinctions and fewer obstacles for the ambitious – be they entrepreneurs, politicians or artists — than most developed nations.

But just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should.

And unless voters figure out that fame is no substitute for competence, we are in danger of being ruined by dilettantes and neophytes.

In New York, actor Cynthia Nixon is running for governor. Her credentials are that she’s liberal and well known for playing Miranda in “Sex in the City.”

Twenty years ago another actor who ran for New York governor as the Green Party candidate tried (unsuccessfully) to be listed on the ballot as his TV character. “Grandpa” Al Lewis wanted – and needed – to remind voters of the character he played in the 1960s show “The Munsters.”

On the national scene, there’s buzz about presidential 2020 runs from Oprah, Kanye West, The Rock and other celebrities. And the list of celebrities who have run, are running or might run for Congress is longer than one of those weekend cable TV marathons.

In the current environment, in which science, expertise and experience are demeaned daily, it’s worth asking whether voters prefer fame to proficiency.

No doubt, U.S. voters rejected expertise and experience when they, first, nominated Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for president and, second, elected him president.

Trump is the first U.S. president who entered the White House with no experience in government or the U.S. military.

If you wonder whether military experience is relevant, consider the career of Dwight Eisenhower. His critics claim that his long Army career left him unprepared for the White House. But those 30-plus years helped him develop knowledge of Washington, as well as skills in diplomacy, negotiation, accountability, budgeting and personnel management.

So while Eisenhower was elected largely because of his fame and popularity, his successful military career provided skills for the job – more so than work in the entertainment industry.

Some may object to that claim, using the example of Ronald Reagan. But Reagan served both in the military and as governor, and he was active in union, state and national politics for decades before being elected president.

The example of Reagan does underscore the fact that in recent decades, we have had numerous celebrities who have run for Congress, governor and the White House. Increasingly, Americans opt for celebrity over expertise and experience.

Many Americans proudly sneer at candidates with such attributes, calling them elites and blaming them for what they think is wrong with America.

Unfortunately, some of those elites sneer right back. Consider the recent comments of 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

“…So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward …” she said, proceeding to suggest that Trump won the votes of racists and misogynists, and the oppressed wives of misogynists.

When politicians advertised as smart and seasoned insult the voters who cost them an election, it’s easy to discount the value of knowledge and experience.

But we shouldn’t. In other fields, Americans appreciate both. When we sign up for open-heart surgery or are driving over a bridge, we want to believe responsible experts are behind those endeavors.

Yes, it’s true that our government is designed to be run by citizen lawmakers. That was one of the foundations of our government. No kings for us; Americans would serve their country in public office and then return home.

But from the start, many of our greatest patriots spent most of their adult lives in government. And it’s worth noting who those first Americans selected as president. George Washington had served in the Virginia House of Burgesses, as commander of the Continental Army, and as president of the Constitutional Convention.

He was an experienced expert about American politics.

As celebrities saturate our media trying to sell us health products, insurance, makeup, real estate and the latest fashions, let’s draw the line at politics. Let’s make clear we value expertise over bombast and choose character over fame.

 

More than a third of all Kansans live within 60 miles of Kansas City. More than half of Kansans live within 60 miles of either Kansas City or Wichita.

Those are demographics that western Kansans ought to keep in mind as the state considers a constitutional amendment to solve long-standing school funding issues.

A conglomeration of business groups wants to bar anyone from going to court to challenge the Legislature’s school-funding decisions. They are working with legislators to amend the state constitution.

If they succeed, metro-centric, eastern Kansans will decide how much money will be spent on western Kansas schools. The Legislature could, theoretically, shut off funding for every school district west of, say, Great Bend, and then deny Kansans recourse in the courts.

OK, nothing that dastardly would happen. But the amendment erodes basic rights and puts rural Kansas at risk.

The legislation reads in part: “The determination of the total amount of funding that constitutes suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state is exclusively a legislative power.”

It also states: “No court, or other tribunal, established by this constitution or otherwise by law shall alter, amend, repeal or otherwise abrogate such power, nor shall such power be exercised by, either directly or indirectly, by any such court or other tribunal. “

Undoubtedly, we are all tired of the long battles over school funding. We are frustrated with the courts, with lawmakers and with schools.

But the solution being pushed through the Legislature is dangerous, especially for western Kansas.

That’s why it’s stunning that groups such as the Kansas Farm Bureau and Kansas Livestock Association have joined with the state Chamber of Commerce and other business groups to push the constitutional amendment through the Legislature.

It’s not necessary to view eastern Kansans as villains to understand why rural and western Kansas communities are risking their futures with this constitutional amendment.

All lawmakers are champions first for the school districts in their own legislative districts. They may be pro-education and want additional funding for all students, but their own school districts are their priority.

Those lawmakers are chosen by voters based on population. With every U.S. census and subsequent redistricting, western Kansas and rural parts of the state lose representation because the state’s population is shifting east, mostly around Johnson and Sedgwick counties.

The Wichita Eagle recently noted that according to U.S. Census estimates, only 17 of Kansas’ 105 counties gained population between 2010 and 2017. Most of the growth was around the state’s two largest metro areas.

Rural and western Kansas counties aren’t oblivious to this trend. Among the assets that many use to keep young families and attract new residents are schools.

Smaller schools appeal to many families, and some are able and willing to make their home in small towns or in rural areas. The numbers of such families aren’t sufficient to reverse the overall trend, but they help sustain many communities.

The strain on education spending will continue, regardless of the constitutional amendment. And lawmakers will again and again be tempted to reduce spending for western Kansas to serve the greater population in the east.

They might force consolidation by tying funding to minimum district enrollment. They could put additional limits on transportation funding. And so on.

And it’s possible that the funding side of the equation also could shift – toward more property tax.

The KLA and Farm Bureau are likely betting that a constitutional amendment would mitigate the need for higher property taxes. But nothing in the proposed amendment would keep a metro-centric Legislature from shifting even more of the cost of schools to farmers through higher property taxes. That remedy already has been floated more than once among eastern Kansas lawmakers.

Few Kansans enjoy the ongoing fights over funding schools. But the proposed amendment offers western Kansans a solution that is much, much worse than the problem they had hoped to solve.

 

 

 

Listening to the president and congressional leaders, you might think Democrats, rather than Republicans, were calling the shots in Washington.

In presidential tweets and news conferences, leaders in the GOP are claiming Democrats are to blame for failing to pass immigration reform. And Democrats are to blame for skyrocketing federal deficits. They also are to blame for personnel shortages in the diplomatic corps. President Donald Trump even blames Democrats for Russian interference in the last U.S. presidential campaign.

GOP leaders have become like a 4-year-old who blames everything from spilled milk to a messy room on his imaginary friend.

Not that Democrats are imaginary, but it does take a flight of fancy to give them much clout when Republicans control the White House, Senate and House.

Consider federal deficits, which are now at a trillion dollars a year and headed still higher. The big reason is GOP tax cuts, although new spending, mostly for the U.S. military, also is adding red ink.

As the tax cuts were being proposed, Congress was warned by its own staff that they would not, as Trump claimed, pay for themselves by fueling additional economic growth.

Not even the White House believes that anymore. A year ago, White House officials vowed their tax cuts would create such energy that the country’s GDP would grow by 4 percent in 2018. A few days ago, the White House announced that it expects 3 percent growth this year.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve predicts the U.S. GDP to grow by 2.5 percent this year.

It’s also worth noting that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has argued that tax cuts – of any kind – won’t create even a 0.4 percent difference in economic growth.

The story is much the same on other issues: Changing goals, squishy principles and lots of finger-pointing substitute for achievement.

The latest spending bill pushed through late at night with little debate illustrates the lack of sound reason or policy.

After Trump cut a deal with Democrats several weeks ago, the parameters for spending increases were set. Republican leaders in the House and Senate used the parameters to put together a $1.3 trillion spending bill that could win approval in both chambers. Trump agreed to the legislation.

Some Republican congressmen, however, balked. These same lawmakers happily agreed last fall to bigger budget deficits when they were cutting taxes. But they now feigned outrage by the debt created by hiking spending for such things as defense, medical research and transportation.

Some Fox News personalities also were angry about the spending bill, and they let Trump know it with on-air comments.

Following the comments from Fox and unhappy congressmen, Trump tweeted that he was considering a veto – but not because of deficit worries.

A few hours after that, Trump signed the bill.

Here’s an excerpt from the Associated Press coverage: “Trump said he was ‘very disappointed’ in the package, in part because it did not fully pay for his planned border wall with Mexico and did not extend protection from deportation to some 700,000 ‘Dreamer’ immigrants due to lose coverage under a program the president himself has moved to eliminate.”

But, Trump added that he was pleased with the huge increases in military spending.

Trump blamed Democrats for the lack of a deal for young immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. But he has reached agreements with Democrats on the Dreamer issue in the past, only to renege after hearing from foes of immigration on TV and in Congress.

With principles and proposals changing by the hour, it can be tough to follow where this president wants to lead. But that doesn’t excuse the president or Republican leaders in Congress from taking responsibility for their decisions.

Because Republicans cut taxes and created annual deficits of more than $1 trillion, they are not credible when they claim concern about even bigger deficits caused by a spending agreement to which they were a party.

It’s dishonest to pretend you care about the national debt only when it comes to expenses, not revenue. It’s even more dishonest when you try to convince voters that it’s all the work of Democrats.