Categories
folly ideological culture national politics & policies

No Red Flag?

The Iowa caucuses were pretty much a dead-​heat for the Democrats, with Hillary Clinton winning a number of precincts by the flip of a coin and barely edging out Sanders.

Leaving aside conspiratorial notions like trick coins, the Democratic results are most interesting in one obvious way: half of the Democratic activists in this Midwestern state proved themselves just fine with voting for a self-​proclaimed “socialist”; the other half were apparently hunky-​dory to cast their ballots for an ethically-​challenged political insider most often described by voters in an ABC News survey with the word “liar.”

No red flags, Dems?

Though Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly keeps talking about Mrs. Clinton’s possible indictment, partisanship being what it is, how is that going to happen? Despite a rising swell of support for Sanders, Clinton’s juggernaut seems fated to roll over the land.

But really, which is more disappointing:

  1. Lack of revulsion or censure for Clinton’s haughty incompetence and disregard for the law? or
  2. Lack of incredulity at someone identifying his Big Gov redistributionism as “socialist”?

Monday wasn’t a red letter day, it was a red flag day.

On the Republican side, the establishment took a drubbing. Former Gov. Jeb Bush, son and brother of former presidents, received less than three percent of the Republican vote — even though, including SuperPACs, he has raised the most money. By far — his campaign shelled out $2,884 for each Iowa vote.

Moreover, Ted Cruz, the GOP establishment’s worst nightmare, won. Let’s hope his success overcoming attacks from the governor and the crony corn lobby will help others find the political courage to oppose ethanol subsidies and mandates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Primary, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, red flag, Common Sense

 

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Giving Up on the Future?

Both Germany and Japan now transfer money, on net, from the young to the old. Austria, Slovenia, and Hungary, The Economist reports, do the same.

The instrument of this transfer? Well, the elephant in the room: those nation’s entitlement programs — their versions of our “Social Security.”

John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law at Northwestern University, explains how unnatural the direction of the transfer is. Normally, societies “give more to the young than the young can ever repay.” Remember the truism, “the children are our future”? Families, McGinnis explains, “exemplify this principle. Socially too, the intergenerational flow of resources is what creates civilization as each generation receives benefits from the previous one.”

Taking from the young to give to the old, on the other hand, is not just counter-​intuitive. It stifles innovation, entrepreneurship, progress itself.

What drives the trend? It is complicated. But the politics behind redistributionist programs is the main culprit:

The elderly vote more than the young, who have more distractions, and politicians are thus all too eager to give them goodies. And while individually the elderly would like to direct more resources to their young relatives, when they act in politics they face a kind of tragedy of the commons. They cannot prevent others from living off the state, so they might as well do themselves.

As my generation, the infamous Baby Boom, retires, the demographics turn Social Security against society’s main purpose: building a future. The culture refocuses on retirement … preparing for death.

Another way — on top of growing debt and increasing regulatory burden — we’re leaving our kids with less than we had.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Social Security, wealth transfer, young, old, elderly, Germany, Japan, baby boom

 

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets moral hazard porkbarrel politics too much government

Crony Corn

The presidential campaign officially begins in Iowa. The Hawkeye State is also the nation’s corn-​growing champion. Each year, Iowans sell 47 percent of that crop to produce ethanol, which accounts for a not-​insignificant 8 percent of the state’s gross product.

Ethanol has friends in Washington, too. Congressional wizards have mandated that the gasoline pumped into cars throughout the land be diluted with ethanol — talk about a market guarantee!

At National Review, Jeremy Carl explains that “energy-​policy experts of all political stripes can agree … mandates and subsidies to promote the use of corn ethanol (a policy first implemented by Jimmy Carter) are wasteful boondoggles that harm our environment and food supply while imposing billions of dollars of hidden costs on consumers. However, most energy-​policy experts are not running for president in the Iowa caucuses.”

In 2008, both Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain flip-​flopped to support the ethanol subsidies they had previously opposed.

But, this year, Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul haven’t pandered along.

When Cruz rose to first place in the polls, Gov. Terry Branstad attacked, arguing, “It would be a big mistake for Iowa to support [Cruz]” because “his anti-​renewable fuel stand … will cost us jobs, and will further reduce farm income …”

Yesterday, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Cruz, “Why should [Iowa] voters side with you over the six-​term governor of this state?”

“I think there should be no mandates and no subsidies whatsoever,” Cruz replied.

In today’s Iowa caucus, can Cruz overcome the forces of crony corn?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

pig, port, corn, ethanol, subsidies, gas, fuel, Common Sense, Paul Jacob

 

Categories
meme

Maybe they don’t know what they believe…

In one breath, they mock anyone who thinks that Bernie is a “classic” socialist. In the next breath they celebrate the (dubious) successes* of the public take-​over of industry.

It looks like somebody needs a dictionary.

Click image below for a high resolution version:

What's Up With That, socialism, Bernie Sanders, checklist, So you don't like Democratic Socialism, meme, illustration, response

 


*Examples of “successful” American Socialism. What’s not to love?

Social Security
Insolvent and teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Essentially a massive Ponzi scheme.

Medicare /​ Medicaid
—Insolvent and teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. So overburdened with bureaucracy that doctors routinely limit these patients to minimize red tape and maintain profitability.

Prisons
—Over-​populated racist hellholes … an inevitable result of the government’s ill-​conceived failed “war on drugs.”

Police
—Notoriously out of control, over-​militarized, brutal civil rights abusers.

Military
—A corrupt and expensive acquisitions process on one end, with the VA on the other — serving as a useful example of some of what can go wrong when government runs healthcare. In the middle, an infamous stonghold of insanity, if useful for politicians seeking to kill lots of people quickly. (SEE CATCH 22)

Public Education
—A widely acknowledged failure, excelling mainly in the production of ill-​informed, unskilled, brainwashed dullards.

Click image below for a high resolution version:

What are you so afraid of, people love it, people love socialism, American socialism, success, Bernie Sanders, real socialism, socialism, meme, American Socialism, public ownership, definition, meme, illustration, Jim Gill, Paul Jacob, Common Sense

 

Unintentionally funny examples of clueless “Democratic Socialism”

5 Ways America Is Already Socialist

Socialism. Seems Like a Scary Word…

 

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers U.S. Constitution

Faces Veiled, Fallacies Unveiled

A real-​life politician has admitted to having been wrong, even going so far as to dismiss his own previous comment as “stupid.”

He wasn’t abject about it — didn’t “apologize.” He simply explained how and why he had erred.

This … from a presidential contender.

No, it wasn’t Hillary Clinton, she of many errors and untruths. It wasn’t Bernie Sanders, whose love of Big, Intrusive Government is an error in and of itself. And it wasn’t Trump, known hyperbolist.

The erring politician? Gary Johnson, a former two-​term Republican governor of New Mexico.

Johnson, who is currently running for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination, told Reason last year that banning the burqa would be a reasonable step in protecting the rights of women. Here in America.

Sound sort of Trumpian?

Earlier this month, Johnson retracted his statement. Last week on Fox Business Network’s Kennedy, he explained why prohibiting the face-​veil wouldn’t work.

“We need to differentiate between religious freedom, which is [sic] Islam, and Sharia law, which is politics,” he said — and I add a “sic” there because he is obviously driving at this point: religious freedom means we cannot prohibit the religion of Islam, but Sharia law amounts to a religious intrusion into the legal and political realm. And thus must be opposed as “contrary to the U. S. Constitution.”

The reason Johnson had earlier floated the banning of the Islamic face-​veil was to save women from Islamofascist enforcement of Sharia’s mandate to go around in public only when completely covered.

“We cannot allow Sharia Law to, in any way, be a part of our lives.”

I’m with him. Let’s hold tight to both religious and political freedom. And how refreshing for a politician to admit an error.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Gary Johnson, libertarian, burka, Common Sense, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability folly ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Hard Words, Soft Left

“The word ‘socialist’ is a really hard word,” warned former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

“Now, I love Bernie Sanders, really,” Granholm added, acknowledging she’s okay with his socialist policies — just not the term.

Not in mixed company.

The former governor of the Wolverine State was responding to a question — “How about the charges ‘he’s a socialist’?” — from Martha Raddatz, who was hosting ABC’s This Week that week.

“The socialist label is something that he applies to himself, right,” Granholm noted. “So the question is how does that play across America?”

Armed with a Gallup poll, Granholm answered that socialism doesn’t play very well at all. Voters are “even” less apt to vote for a “socialist” than for an “atheist.” In case you wondered.

So, what is the difference between a socialist and a Democrat?

“You’re the chairman of the Democratic Party, tell me the difference between you and a socialist,” Chris Matthews had implored Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on MSNBC months ago.

“The relevant debate we’ll be having over the course of this campaign,” dodged the DNC chair, “is what’s the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.”

Chuck Todd, noting that Bernie Sanders “is an unabashed socialist” who is always praising European social democracies, echoed the question on Meet the Press: “what is the difference?”

“It’s always fun to be interviewed by Chris Matthews and I know that he enjoys that banter,” bobbed an answer-​less Wasserman Schultz. “The important distinction we’ll be discussing in this campaign [blah, blah, blah] …”

Earlier this month, Matthews likewise asked Hillary Clinton to state the difference. Mrs. Clinton said she wasn’t a socialist but, instead, “a progressive Democrat.”

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz wouldn’t answer the question either,” Matthews replied.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

socialism, democrats, Hillary Clinton, Common Sense