Author: CS Admin

Categories
Accountability incumbents term limits

Calling Hatch Home

Senator Orrin Hatch, term limits, congress, Senate, hypocrisy,

Back in 2012, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch pledged that, if elected, his current six-year term would be his last. On Election Day 2018, Hatch will be 84 years old — and have spent more than half his life in Washington.

Still, Utah’s senior senator just announced he intends to run for re-election for an eighth term.

Why? Our newly-elected president, Hatch told a Salt Lake City TV station, “is all over me to run again.” And so is the leadership in the Republican Senate — and even in the House. Or so he says.

But what about the people of Utah? A poll this past January found that 78 percent of Utahans “definitely” or “probably” did not want Hatch to seek re-election — with 58 percent in the “definitely” camp.

“Hatch’s bid for an eighth term is an endorsement of term limits,” argued Richard Davis, a political science professor at Brigham Young University, yesterday in the Deseret News.

“For many years, I opposed term limits because I felt legislators needed the time to gain knowledge and handle the long-standing bureaucracy and the power of interest groups,” Davis wrote. “However, I have concluded that such knowledge can be gained relatively quickly and would become more effective if there were not highly senior politicians, like Hatch, who dominate a legislative body for many years.”

In 1976, Hatch challenged an incumbent with the line: “What do you call a Senator who’s served in office for 18 years? You call him home.”

Today, having spent over 40 years in power, Hatch only wants more . . . and calls Washington home.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Escape from New York

New York, Cuomo, college, tuition, Bernie Sanders,

“New York City is a walled maximum security prison,” exclaimed posters for Escape from New York (1981, R). “Breaking out is impossible.”

Now, as part of new legislation giving “free college” to New Yorkers, politicians take the same high concept from the film and extend it to the entire state.  

What, you ask, does Escape from New York have to do with free college?

First, it’s not actually free college, but only free tuition for state and city colleges.* And note that tuition costs currently run less than half the price tag of room-and-board, books and fees. Moreover, the freebie is only for students whose parents earn less than $100,000 annually, beginning in Fall 2017. In 2018, the threshold jumps to $110,000 and to $125,000 in 2018.*

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a likely 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate, pushed the idea of bestowing free tuition in his State of the State address months ago. He also brought in Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who dangled free college during the 2016 campaign and has now introduced legislation in Congress.

But the Empire State Legislature amended the bill. Knowing full well the economic climate created by their previous policies, these venerable solons feared New Yorkers might take the free tuition, earn a degree and quickly move.

To someplace with jobs, perhaps.

So, the legislation requires student recipients of the free money to remain in the state – not escape – for as many years as they received the free moolah.

How will they keep graduates from leaving? Well, the movie trailer hyped that, “The bridges are mined. The rivers are patrolled.”

And those who leave also must pay back the tuition as a loan.

If caught.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

 

* There’s also a subsidy program for those attending private institutions of higher learning, if those colleges match the $3,000 the State puts up.

** New York state ranks 16th in median household income, at $60,850 in 2014. Therefore, the cap will deny this benefit to quite a few upper middle class and wealthier families.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies property rights too much government

What’s Being Forfeited

asset forfeiture, banks, banking, IRS,TIGTA, Bank Secrecy Act

What do you call those who prey upon the innocent, illegally snatching their money?

Thieves? Muggers? The Mob?

Government.

Last month, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) issued a report on the Internal Revenue Service’s use of civil asset forfeiture against Americans accused — well, not accused . . . more like suspected . . . well, not actually suspected of doing anything wrong, but willy-nilly deemed guilty without charge, judge, jury or conviction — of “structuring.” That’s depositing less than $10,000 in cash into a bank to avoid all the paperwork demanded by the United States Congress at that amount.

Congress passed the Bank Secrecy Act, making structuring illegal, supposedly to trip up drug traffickers and money-launderers. But that is obviously a ruse, as the TIGTA report makes abundantly clear. The IRS is simply snatching money — they won’t tell us how much — right out of individuals’ and businesses’ bank accounts.

Pity the cash-oriented business that doesn’t accumulate at least $10,000 to deposit.

The TIGTA report highlights that an incredible 91 percent of the time, the IRS acted “against individuals and businesses whose income was legally obtained,” and whom the IRS did not suspect of criminal activity. Also, through the IRS’s process of thievery “the rights of some individuals and businesses were compromised.”

Why is the IRS using the law to pilfer from the innocent, instead of the guilty?

As I explained Sunday at Townhall.com, it is easier and more profitable to make “quick hits” against innocent businesses rather than devious criminals.

When those responsible for protecting the innocent from criminals, instead, illegally twist the law to victimize the innocent, it’s called tyranny. And what is forfeited is much more valuable than mere money.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability folly incumbents national politics & policies term limits

Authority and Accountability

Congress, war, powers, branches, checks and balances, Syria, Trump, accountability

Roll, Founding Fathers, roll over. The situation with Congress is grave.

You designed three branches of government, each to check the others’ power. The first branch, and the most essential, is Congress. It not only controls the purse strings, but also the power to declare war.

But today’s Congress cannot even muster the courage to regulate the use of military force through legislation such as the War Powers Act or by passing an AUMF — an Authorization for the Use of Military Force.*

Yesterday on NBC’s Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd raised the issue of whether a new AUMF was necessary after the attack on Syria, especially for any further action. And would Congress dare to debate a new AUMF? 

“I don’t think anybody wants a vote on this,” remarked Danielle Pletka, a defense and foreign policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute. She pointed out that any action would put Congress in line for blame should problems arise. “Look, the problem for Congress is . . . There’s no percentage for them.”

“If Congress doesn’t exert its authority here,” Todd offered, “then they’re ceding it.”

“Yes,” agreed National Review Editor Rich Lowry. “This is something the founders never counted on, that you’d have one branch of government that didn’t want to protect its prerogatives because too much accountability would be involved.”

Must the very foundation of our Republic always take a backseat to the personal political interests of professional politicians? Career congressmen disdain leadership, preferring to lead the cheers when things go well and criticize when they don’t.

Another important reason for term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

 

*The AUMF passed after 9/11 gave the president authority to go after Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. It has become a catch-all authorization due to congressional fear of being held accountable for authorizing — or not — any new use of military force. Instead, Congress has simply pretended that President Obama’s regime-change military intervention in Libya and the military actions against the Islamic State fit under the post-9/11 AUMF. 

Printable PDF

 

Illustration includes photo by Petras Gagilas on Flickr

 

Categories
Accountability folly ideological culture media and media people

Gender Offender

Elizabeth Warren, wage gap, gender, gap, hypocrisy, sexism

Tuesday, April 4, was Equal Pay Day. It’s the day 20 percent into the year some use to mark the supposed fact that women earn 79.6 cents for every dollar earned by a man.

This “gender pay gap” is concocted by taking the median pay for all men working 35 hours a week or more and comparing it to the median pay for all women working 35 hours or more — without regard to the actual number of hours worked* or occupation chosen.

It’s a ridiculously phony statistic. I know that; you probably do, too. But does Sen. Elizabeth Warren?

“The game is rigged against women and families, and it has to stop,” the Massachusetts Senator proclaimed on last year’s Equal Pay Day. “It is 2016, not 1916, and it’s long past time to eliminate gender discrimination in the workplace.”

Gender discrimination. That’s bad, no? Sen. Warren fervently argued that the “gap” is the result of evil, insidious sexism.

The money-grubbing misogynists perpetrating this crime against women certainly deserve to be called out and held accountable!

Thank goodness, the folks over at The Washington Free Beacon did just that. Using public records, the Free Beacon found a U.S. Senator exacerbating the problem with an even bigger gender pay gap — women making a mere 71 cents on every man’s dollar. This Senator has hired five men at six-figure salaries, who make more than all the women employees, with only one woman besting the $100,000 mark.

That Senator? Elizabeth Warren.

On Tuesday, each of her 15 female Democratic colleagues took to the Senate floor to jaw about “equal pay.” But not Warren.**

Not even a tweet.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Men, on average, work more. The “gap” also ignores work history, and similar factors that have more direct bearing on the choices of women than the discrimination of employers.

** It is worth noting that Snopes.com “debunked” the Free Beacon’s charge using the same arguments economists and others have used to debunk the “gender wage gap” itself — without acknowledging the ominous parallels.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
folly media and media people responsibility too much government

The Missing Links?

president, presidential, golf, leisure, media, controversy, scandal

Is giving presidents a hard time for playing too much golf itself a pastime?

In Fahrenheit 911, filmmaker Michael Moore portrayed then-President George W. Bush, as more golfer than president — as if W. had secured the nation’s top job as a ruse to convince his wife to let him golf more.

Likewise, Republicans attacked President Barack Obama for incessantly hitting the links. In 2014, when ISIS came frighteningly close to Baghdad, Obama went golfing, causing Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank to bemoan the fact that “Obama’s golf habit needlessly hands his critics a gimme.”

An amusing website documented all of Obama’s golf outings . . . and plays audio of him pledging not to rest “until the dream of healthcare reform is finally achieved” and “until every American who is able and ready and willing to work can find a job,” etc.

Note: Obama never promised not to tee off.*

“Between 2011 and 2016,” SB-Nation reports, Donald Trump “tweeted at least 26 complaints, jokes, or scoldings about Barack Obama playing golf while president.”

Now, President Trump is getting the backswing scrutiny. While Obama didn’t golf during his first four months in office, Politico informs that Trump went golfing after two weeks and, in nine weeks, has already played a dozen rounds of golf.

Good. I wish all the politicians in Washington spent more time on the course and less “governing.”

Even more so as Republicans consider taking a mulligan on healthcare . . .  and Mr. Trump invited Sen. Rand Paul to join him on the fairway.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* In the closing days of the Obama administration, Golf Digest published a story lauding Obama’s “deep commitment to supporting the golf industry.” However, the publication informed readers that, while Obama golfed more than his immediate predecessors, Presidents Clinton and Bush 43, he didn’t hit the links nearly as much as Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Woodrow Wilson.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment government transparency responsibility

Ferguson Finally Wins

Ferguson, body camera, lapel camera, video, vote, election, police

Yesterday, on the 49th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination,* voters in Ferguson, Missouri, passed a charter amendment requiring police to wear body cameras while on duty. The measure also provides the public access to that footage, along with reasonable rules about privacy.

In August 2014, Ferguson came to the nation’s attention — and the world’s — when a black resident was shot and killed by a white policeman. In the aftermath, the nation witnessed a militarized police response to senseless riots that destroyed 17 local businesses.

People there and across the country jumped to fact-free conclusions about who was at fault: the deceased Michael Brown or the policeman, Officer Darren Wilson.

“If there’s one thing that I think everybody in Ferguson would agree on, it’s that we’d like to have a video of what happened on Canfield Drive back in August of 2014,” remarked ballot measure proponent Nick Kasoff.** “If we had that, Ferguson wouldn’t be a hashtag. It would be just another quiet suburb of St. Louis.”

Police began wearing body cameras after the Michael Brown shooting, and the consent decree the city reached with the Department of Justice set some useful parameters. But the rules in the just-enacted charter amendment go much further to guarantee the public access to the video.

Not to mention that just this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a review of all such consent decrees nationwide. Without yesterday’s victory at the ballot box, the police cams policy might simply be abandoned.

Not now. The voters have spoken, 71 to 29 percent.

Spurred by Ferguson, there’s been a ton of talk about reforming criminal justice in recent years. But I like action a whole lot better.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Yesterday also reminds me of 1984, George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel, because the book’s protagonist Winston Smith begins his diary on April 4, 1984.

It’s my favorite book, and has enjoyed quite a surge in sales since last November’s election. Yesterday, the movie was shown in nearly 200 theaters in the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Croatia and Sweden.  

** Nick Kasoff led the six-resident committee that drafted and petitioned the measure onto the city ballot, with assistance from Liberty Initiative Fund (LIFe). Regular readers may remember that LIFe is where I have my day job — and that without contributions like yours, fewer successful measures like this Ferguson body camera initiative get off the ground.

 

More on the issue

Townhall: “Finding Ferguson”

Townhall: “First Step for Ferguson”

USA Today: “Ferguson residents push for body cameras”

Townhall: “The Citizens Are In Session”

Printable PDF

 

Categories
free trade & free markets individual achievement

Not Just a Recycled Rocket

SpaceX, Space X, space exploration, private, privatization, Elon Musk, landing, rocket, spaceship

Last Thursday, SpaceX successfully re-used a previously flown rocket to launch a payload into orbit.

Sure, NASA had re-cycled rocket parts before. That is, the U.S. space agency had recovered spent rockets.* But those were rebuilds.

SpaceX’s most recent triumph was to launch a “stage one” rocket that had gone into space before —and returned. Last April it delivered a payload to the International Space Station and then safely touched down vertically** — just like in 1950s sci-fi!

You could see the evidence: the weathered look of the rocket fuselage.

This Falcon 9 rocket not only placed its Luxembourg-owned SES-10 into orbit last week, it then returned — again! — to its ocean “drone ship” platform.

A new age in space commerce thereby hit a new landmark.

Or would that be “spacemark”?

Re-using a rocket is like how airlines re-use jet aircraft. Less waste, expense. Making the whole industry more viable. The technology and expertise to safely land and recover the rocket is astounding.

Alas, videocasting of the most amazing part of the effort, the landing and recovery of the Falcon 9 rocket, failed — noticeable by its lack in both the live Periscope feed and the YouTube archive. But we had seen that very same rocket land last April, onto SpaceX’s charmingly named droneship, Of Course I Still Love You.

Ocean mark? Drone mark? It hit the mark, whatever you call it.

Elon Musk, head of SpaceX, had every reason to breathe a sigh of relief, as well as engage in some apt exultation, after the mission.

We can, too. Space industry privatization and progress? Actually happening.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* The Space Shuttle was a different technology entirely, a re-usable spacecraft. What we are talking about today is the powerhouse stage-one booster rocket, like the old Saturn V that the Apollo program famously exploited.

** The Space Shuttle, remember, landed horizontally, like an airplane. Future re-usable manned spacecraft will no doubt do this. A private return-entry spacecraft, like Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShip Two, put into orbit by a re-usable Falcon 9 rocket, would be the next logical new achievement. Though, obviously, these are different companies with tech that is not, I think, meant to work together.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
education and schooling folly nannyism national politics & policies too much government

D.C.’s Diaper-Dandy Regulation

Washington, D.C., daycare, day-care, licensing, regulations, bureaucracy, laws, rules, accreditation

Where is child care most expensive?

In America, it is in our shining, shimmering national swamp. Yes, in Washington, D.C., infant care averages nearly $1,900 a month, more than $22,000 a year.

So naturally, if you’re a politician, you see that as too . . . low?

It has been decreed, since last December, that workers caring for infants and toddlers must upgrade their educations to keep their licenses. The District’s brave new world-class day-care regulations, the Washington Post informs us, are designed to “put the District at the forefront of a national effort to improve the quality of care and education for the youngest learners.”

Yesterday, at Townhall.com, I provided the details on

  • which day care workers or home caregivers must acquire
  • what type of college degree in early childhood education or,
  • if currently degreed in another field, how many semester credit hours in early childhood education they must have, or
  • whether a Child Development Associate (CDA) would suffice, and
  • by what date . . .

. . . just to keep their relatively low-paying jobs.

You may be shocked, but these new regs do not apply to the politicians and bureaucrats regulating the “industry.”

The costly credentials required to provide child care will certainly raise prices that D.C. parents already can ill afford. And won’t help those newly credentialed, either: “prospects are slim,” the Post admits, “that a degree will bring a significantly higher income.”

In a perfect world, every child-care worker would wield a Ph.D. in early childhood development. Be a pediatrician. As well as a psychiatrist.

And a former Navy SEAL, to fend off terrorists.

But who can fend off this regulatory attack on common sense?

I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

 

Illustration based on photo by Carolien Dekeersmaeker on Flickr

 

Categories
ideological culture local leaders national politics & policies responsibility

From Brexit to Calexit

CalExit, Brexit, UKip, Nigel Farage, Euro, California, Arron Banks, secession

When last we touched upon the strangely over-the-top Californian reaction to the Trump presidency, the secession movement, I took the occasion to bring up the rather less radical separatists in the north. “Already 21 of the 23 northernmost counties,” I wrote, “have made declarations to form the State of Jefferson.”

But now there is a new wrinkle.

“Former UKip leader Nigel Farage and Leave backer Arron Banks recently helped raise $1 million for Calexit, which would split California into eastern and western regions,” we learn from the Daily Mail and the World Tribune. Banks, citing the high disapproval ratings Californians give their government, said that “he and Farage wanted to show people in California ‘how to light a fire and win’ the Calexit referendum.”

Their proposal is distinct from complete secession. It would amount to a California split, with the west coast (Los Angeles and north to the border) splitting off from the rest of the state. This would form an East California and a West California.

Politically, this might appease the conservatives and moderates who live in more rural east and Southern California, especially since they are coming to increasingly despise Left Coast “liberals” (read: progressives). Whom they not implausibly blame for ruining the state.

But it leaves some Jefferson secessionists stuck with those “liberals.” This, if an oversight, is a big one. Would this not doom the scheme?

While the failed initiative effort of 2014 to split the state into six separate states was far too complicated to wrap one’s head around, the new Calexit effort seems too . . . simple.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF