Author: CS Admin

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment government transparency incumbents term limits

The Smoking Russian Donut

Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.), corruption, Hallandale Beach Mayor Joy Cooper, Dunkin Donuts, FBI, Russia, Russian

“Politicians in prison garb,” headlined a recent Sun Sentinel editorial, “shake trust in government.”

It was not a fashion statement.

“What is it about a long career that makes some politicians — not all, let’s be clear about that — feel the rules don’t apply to them?” asked the paper, which serves Florida’s Broward and Palm Beach counties.

This week, after spending the last 24 years in Congress, former Rep. Corrine Brown (D‑Fla.) began serving a five-​year term in federal prison. Brown was convicted of 18 separate fraud and corruption counts stemming from her use of a public charity to benefit herself. 

Not to be outdone, last week the FBI arrested Hallandale Beach Mayor Joy Cooper on various corruption charges following a six-​year undercover sting operation. “From what is now known,” the editorial board judged “the case against Cooper” to be “devastating.”

There are taped conversations, reportedly, between FBI agents posing as “wealthy land owners [seeking] political favors” and the mayor, discussing pay (her) to play (with the city). At one point, undercover agents say a bribe was delivered to the mayor in “a Dunkin’ Donuts bag stuffed with $8,000 in cash and checks from people with a ‘bunch of Russian names.’”

Russians?

“If not so tragic,” the paper wrote of the corruption, “it would be laughable to imagine Russians colluding to control the Hallandale Beach city election.”

Humor is needed, truly. Yet, the Sun Sentinel concluded instead that “term limits are needed in Hallandale Beach.”

Of course.

And needed for Congress. 

Now more than ever.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom too much government

Bank on It?

marijuana, bank, California, California State Treasurer John Chiang, Federal Reserve

It took me a moment. And I assure you, I wasn’t high.

When I read that California State Treasurer John Chiang was considering a “marijuana bank,” my first thought was that he was talking about warehousing bud and leaf.

Well, no. That would be stupid.

So, maybe reporters and bloggers shouldn’t call it a “marijuana bank.” What these government officials are doing is trying to determine “the potential of a public bank to service the cannabis industry in California.”

A state bank, in other words. Not unheard of.

But would it be stupid?

Not according to Treasurer Chiang.* But his notion is not just about serving an industry that the federal government still tries to suppress — and continues to use its regulatory powers over banks to monkey-wrench. 

Chiang defends his move in part on anti-​capitalist grounds: “We see deepening public dissatisfaction and cynicism over the private banking system — a dissatisfaction that can be traced to the financial excesses of Wall Street, which triggered the worst recession since the Great Depression.”

Was the financial crisis the result of “bad actors” in the industry alone? No. The American banking industry is heavily regulated, the government-​created Federal Reserve is very hands-​on in its control of money and banking, and federal regulatory and financial bodies have exerted similar influence over housing industry financing for scores of years.

So of course a Californian politician wants to solve a government-​induced problem by creating more government.

That’s what’s stupid, if you ask me. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* He’s going forward with a big study to “answer questions about costs, benefits, risks, and legal and regulatory issues, including the needs for capitalization, deposit insurance, and access to interbank transfers of funds.”

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom ideological culture media and media people Popular term limits

Let There Be Light

Washington Post, Democracy, term limits,

The Washington Post sports a new masthead slogan: “Democracy Dies in Darkness,.”

A story in last Sunday’s Metro section suggests that the editors are yet to fully implement the slogan’s implicit mission — providing impartial, unbiased illumination. “Term limits for Maryland legislators?” reads the headline. “Here’s why that’s unlikely,” it immediately answers.

“Term limits seem highly popular in Maryland,” begin the article. 

Seem?

What produces that elusive sensory perception? I mean, other than every poll ever taken and, as the Post elaborates, “Voters in the state’s two largest jurisdictions, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, strongly endorsed them at the polls in recent years.” 

Add to that three other counties, which had previously enacted term limits, the paper informs.

Still, the idea is “widely considered dead on arrival.” 

Why? you ask.

“It’s very difficult,” explains Gov. Larry Hogan, “to convince people to willingly give up their power.” 

“People” not as in “the People” but, instead, such as Senate President Mike Miller, a 46-​year incumbent and the Senate boss for three decades running, and Speaker Mike Busch, a 31-​year incumbent and the longest serving speaker in state history.

But wait … why didn’t politicians in those five Maryland counties block term limits like state legislators “likely” will? Did their lack of experience cause them to forget to be self-​serving jerks?

No. Counties in Maryland have a ballot initiative process whereby citizens can petition term limits directly to a democratic vote. Their elected servants simply cannot ignore them. 

The Post piece could have pointed out that very difference — between the democratic outcomes in those counties and an unrepresentative one at the state capitol. 

It did not.

Democracy dies in darkness.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

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

Farce and Fury

Grammys, hypocrites, Hillary Clinton, Michael Wolff, Fire and Fury,

NBC’s Today covered Sunday night’s Grammy Awards — the music industry’s shindig that I mark my calendar each year to be sure to miss — under the labels “The Grammys Get Political” and “Music & #MeToo Movement Take Center Stage.”

Reuters declared that “the surprise star of the night was former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reading from Michael Wolff’s controversial book Fire and Fury.”

That the music industry wraps their product in partisan politics? Their business. And to be fair, Hillary’s part of the skit was actually kinda funny. 

What’s not so funny? Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Wolff lionized as exemplary #MeTooers … while being the opposite.

First, were Grammy organizers oblivious to the breaking story that Hillary Clinton overruled her 2008 campaign manager to keep, rather than fire, a male employee accused of sexual harassment, ultimately reassigning the female victim, instead? To make matters worse, in tweets Mrs. Clinton seemed to take great credit for the young woman being “heard.”

Liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus called Hillary’s response “head-​exploding stuff.”

Second, CNN reports that the author of Fire and Fury, Michael Wolff, “has been spreading a rumor that the President of the United States is having an affair, and in a coyly worded exchange on Real Time With Bill Maher implied that it was with [U.N. Ambassador Nikki] Haley.” Wolff told Maher that he was “absolutely sure” of it … but not quite certain enough to put it in the book.

Haley, the former South Carolina Governor, called the rumor “false” and “disgusting,” noting it is an age-​old, sexist slap against women. 

So, why were Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Wolff celebrated on this stage? 

And not Nikki Haley?

Makes no sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly general freedom local leaders moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies Popular privacy Regulating Protest too much government

The Last Straw

plastic straws, nanny state, fine, crime, California, freedom

How much should we fine waiters who destroy our planet?

For how long should they go to jail?

I don’t know where you would hold such an evildoer after the earth has been destroyed. Or where he’d go when released. But we’re speaking hypothetically. Assume that planet-​destroyers can be imprisoned on the moon, which let’s just say still orbits the earth’s decimated remains. Or assume that after being destroyed, the planet can be reconstructed. After serving his sentence, then, the waiter would be released to a reconstructed earth.

In that case, a maximum $1,000 fine as suggested by Ian Calderon, Democratic majority leader of the California State Assembly, seems only fair. However, a maximum of six months in jail is excessive. In my opinion, planet-​destroying waiters should suffer no more than 100 days in jail.

Calderon has proposed a bill, AB-​1884, to fine and/​or imprison waiters who offer unsolicited plastic straws to restaurant patrons. In response to criticism of his silly and vicious bill, Calderon says hey, it’s “NOT a ban” on straws! Oh, okay. Anyway, “Penalties are based on the code section the bill is currently in, which it will be amended out of,” which sounds like Calderon was prior to the uproar … what, joking?

As long as we’re amending, let me amend my own implication that people who offer, use, make or sell plastic straws* are in fact helping destroy earth. Just kidding!

The earth will survive plastic straws. Will it survive the Calderons of the world? 

Open question.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Not that I’m confirming or denying ever using one myself. 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility term limits too much government

The Politics of Inertia

Frankenstein, monster, shut down, shutdown, Congress, government, deep state

Congress’s failure to establish, last week, any semblance of budgetary responsibility led to one of those “government shutdowns” that the press likes to yammer about so breathlessly.

Then, early this week, Senate holdouts caved, allowing a short-​term fix to bring the federal government fully back to life, like the monster in Dr. Frankenstein’s lab given a defibrillator jolt.

Usually these government shutdowns are caused by Republicans not playing along — Obamacare being the sticking point most recently — but this time the desperate negotiators were Sen. Chuck Schumer (D ‑NY) and his Democrat gang, whose “heroic” stance was all about immigration reform and “the Dreamers.”

After they folded, and the Monster was bequeathed new life, CNN’s Brooke Baldwin asked former Democratic National Committee chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz what her party had gained from its temporary obstructionism.

Her answer? “Potential for momentum.”

That had to be one of the more bizarrely drawn happy faces over complete and utter failure that we have witnessed since … well, the last one. 

Even Ms. Baldwin was incredulous.*

The Democratic Party’s disarray is astounding. If any party has momentum on its side, it is the party of Andy Jackson and William Jennings Bryan, the party of the elitist media, insider government and the Deep State, and the resistance to Trump.

So why its current pathetic fortune? Because the Democrats have rested so long upon their “momentum.”

Inertia can sure have its downside.

On the “bright side,” Democrats will have occasion to revisit this, for no real budget has been established. All Congress even tries to do these days is provide temporary fix after temporary fix.

Call it potential for catastrophe.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* The CNN anchor may have been nonplussed by the specter of entropy in the odd Newtonian metaphor.

PDF for printing