Author: CS Admin

Categories
folly free trade & free markets general freedom moral hazard too much government

When Parasites Collide

Apple, EU, tax, Europe, Ireland, illustr

There are times I wish I were a tax accountant.

You know, just so I could better understand the news.

The European Commission has handed Apple, Inc., a $14.5 billion tax bill.

Owed to Ireland.

Apple, the tax commissioners said, had paid too little in taxes to Ireland, amounting to a mere 1 percent of the company’s European profits.

The Emerald Isle’s normal corporate tax rate is 12.5 percent.

On first read, this sounded like a tale of crony capitalism, with the EU’s tax authorities riding in, heroically, holding aloft the gonfalon of fair play, on the side of truth, justice, and an even playing field.

Well, the story gets complicated. The U.S. Treasury has protested the ruling as unfair. And Senator Chuck Schumer called it a “cheap money grab.”

The Wall Street Journal opinion page comes out on Apple’s side, too, but gives some specifics. Apple paid all the taxes it owed under Irish and EU law, but the ruling wasn’t about law, it was, we are told, about politics.

I can believe that.

So, as near as I can make out, what we have here are three sets of governmental interests, each intent on sucking the most out of a rich, innovative, and wildly successful multinational corporation.

It’s hard not to side with the target, Apple, and think of the other groups as mere parasites.

After all, my non-accountant’s spidey sense suspects that Schumer objects because the U.S. government isn’t going to get any of that $13 billion.

Preferring an “expensive money grab,” I suppose.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.  

Printable PDF

Apple, EU, tax, Europe, Ireland, illustr

 

Categories
Accountability ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies political challengers Regulating Protest

The Media’s Job

debate, debates, candidates, media, illustration

Do nearly two-thirds of Americans want Libertarian Party presidential nominee and former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson in the presidential debates?

Snopes.com, the hoax-busting website, investigated the truthiness of a widespread Internet meme making just that claim.

The verdict?

It’s true.

An August 25th Quinnipiac University poll showed 62 percent of likely voters saying yes, “Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, should be included in the presidential debates.” Among 18-to-34-year-olds, a whopping 82 percent felt Johnson deserved a podium.

Or perhaps more accurately, these voters want an opportunity to hear about all their choices, not just Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton —deliciously dubbed “the unloved presidential candidates” in the Quinnipiac news release. Which leads to the most important number in the survey: 68 percent felt they “haven’t heard enough” about Gov. Johnson to even form an opinion.

He still garnered 10 percent support overall and was the only candidate with a higher favorable* than unfavorable rating.

Voters are dissatisfied with the major party choices, so why limit the debate to just Trump and Clinton? Because the Commission on Presidential Debates is a crony organization, a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC and the RNC. With 68 percent of the public totally uninformed about Johnson, he’d have to win nearly a majority of everyone else to hit the 15 percent support required to get in the debates.

Where’s the Fourth Estate? Doesn’t the American voter deserve enough information about Johnson and Stein to form an opinion?

Or will they be broadcasting rigged debates?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* By the way, once again, the contest was closer when the polling included Libertarian Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. While head-to-head Mrs. Clinton bested Mr. Trump by a full 10 percentage points, 51-41, with Johnson and Stein included, Clinton’s advantage shrank to 45-38 percent, a seven point lead.

Printable PDF

debate, debates, candidates, media, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

A Practical Vote Against Racism

marijuana, drug, war, racism, illustration

“Marijuana is only legal for white people, in California,” explains Lynne Lyman of the Drug Policy Alliance. Talking with Zach Weissmueller, on reason.tv, she clarifies the situation regarding California’s currently legal medical marijuana, and why Prop. 64, a ballot measure sponsored by Californians for Responsible Marijuana Reform, is so necessary.

Marijuana prohibition — which has been severely curtailed in the states of Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, all of which allow not only doctor-prescribed “medical marijuana,” but also recreational use — is still in play in California, despite legal medicinal use.

But the weight of the state’s heavy hand falls mainly upon the poor, especially on racial minorities. “If you are white and over 21 in California,” Ms. Lyman insists, “you can pretty much use marijuana without any sort of criminal justice involvement.”

So here is where the old canard that pushing for legalization and the right to self-medicate is “just about you smoking dope,” which is what I often hear. Californians’ best reason to vote for Prop. 64 is that it establishes something very much like a right to self-medicate, and — get this! — it altruistically applies to more than the white population.

The truth is, drug prohibition in America has been, mostly, racist.

Sure, alcohol prohibition transcended racial bias and bigotry. But the earliest federal laws against opium, heroin, and cocaine were directed at despised minorities, first the Chinese and even, many years later (after alcohol prohibition failed) when marijuana was made illegal, against blacks, “ne’er-do-well” jazz musicians, and Latinos.

So, one reason for white Californians to vote for legal marijuana is not so they can imbibe, but so that others aren’t unjustly persecuted.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.    

Printable PDF

marijuana, drug, war, racism, illustration

 

Original cc photo by ashton on Flickr

 

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets general freedom moral hazard nannyism responsibility too much government

States of the Unions

Brexit, Europe, hysteria, trade, economics, illustration

As Americans contemplate the intellectual breakdown of our two major parties, Brits and Europeans are trying to figure out what the state of their union is.

Does Brexit spell disaster for Europe?

Germany’s vice-chancellor is just the latest European bigwig to preach gloom and doom. According to the BBC, “Sigmar Gabriel said the EU would go ‘down the drain’ if other states followed Britain’s lead and that the UK could not keep the ‘nice things’ about Europe while taking no responsibility.”

What that “responsibility” is, I do not know.

But look: it is not as if an international order is all that difficult. In the 19th century, freedom of movement was accepted as the civilized standard — except in Russia.

In the 1800s, Britain and France agreed to bilateral free trade, and then Britain went unilateral with free trade. Prosperity ensued in Britain. Even in Europe proper, the century-long trend of wealth was upward.

And now a number of economists are advising the new British government to follow that old path — “a unilateral free trade deal would allow the UK to import cheaper goods and gain access to new markets, delivering greater prosperity,” The Guardian summarized.

Maybe the EU should go under. For the key to the union was subsidies along with EU-regulated trade. European states could adopt free trade without bullying from Brussels. And forget subsidies as a way of life.

America could do likewise, but not if Hillary or The Donald gets elected.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Note:  In most browsers, hovering your mouse over the bolded, silver text will give you “footnotes” of explanation.

Printable PDF

Brexit, Europe, hysteria, trade, economics, illustration

 

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

Naked Came the Pickle

Donald Trump, statue, Hillary Clinton, pickles, illustration

Last week, Donald Trump’s enemies staged an “emperor has no clothes” gag in full view of the public. It was a caricature of Trump, and featured him fat, old, and nude . . . and gave us a full view of the pubic.

Titled “The Emperor Has No Balls,” it failed to qualify as highbrow.

Kristin Tate, author of Government Gone Wild, was one of many non-left commenters to take note of the double standard in plain sight: while media folk chuckled and even gloried in the short-lived art placements, their reaction to a similar graven image of Hillary Clinton would almost certainly have been viewed with horror and outrage.

This week, the real (non-effigy) Hillary proffered another stunt.

Facing rumors that she is not well, that her fall several years ago left her with a host of neurological and physical disabilities — rumors that focus on her weird leave of the stage at one of the Bernie debates, her strange, uncomfortable and borderline autistic bouts of laughter, her exaggerated motions, and much more — Mrs. Clinton went on Jimmy Kimmel Live to open a jar of pickles.

Considering the pickle she placed America in throughout the Middle East, perhaps there was a message here.

Whatever feat of strength this was supposed to amount to, Kristin Tate is having none of it. On Fox News’s RedEye, Ms. Tate insisted she heard no telltale “pop” that would indicate the unsealing of a sealed jar.

Somehow, this whole election season is symbolized in one lame stunt.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Donald Trump, statue, Hillary Clinton, pickles, illustration

 

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

If they can do it, why can’t we?

other country's healthcare, socialized, healthcare, free college, meme, illustration

In Europe, some large programs (like “free” healthcare and college”) appear to work for some countries and are a complete disaster for other nations. In many southern European nations, citizens look on state provided healthcare with horror, and make every effort to insure that they don’t have to depend on that system.

American progressives are strangely incurious about what makes some systems work and other systems crash and burn. In many cases, the explanation is cultural and institutional. (As it happens, Scandinavians had a well-established culture of hard work and self reliance and social cohesion, which is what made the establishment of a large welfare state even possible. When the Scandinavians began their ambitious welfare programs, it was a point of honor among many to NOT USE IT. This attitude has been eroded over time).

The Scandinavian models also have had better success rates because they have focused on maintaining a VERY FREE business environment, with corporate taxes LOWER than are found in the US, and limits placed on unions (a practice that would be abhorrent to the average American progressive).

When large government programs are established in the U.S., they quickly become bloated, inefficient and corrupt. The government is currently $21 trillion in debt.

Why not demonstrate that they can do the job they already have before being given control of the healthcare industry (an estimated 1/5 of the economy)?

Opponents of the progressive welfare state believe that considerable damage could be done to the American system (which has always been a powerhouse of innovation and expertise), and many people could be hurt.

 

Categories
Accountability folly ideological culture nannyism responsibility

Venezuela’s New Firing Squad

Maduro, Venezuela, socialism, collapse, illustration

We’ve watched Venezuela’s big-daddy socialism descend into dystopia:

  • Arbitrary arrests of political opponents;
  • An economy managed by government decree, in which inflation “may top 700 percent this year” and toilet paper, food and medicine are in terribly short supply;
  • The once oil-rich country has become “the worst performing economy in the world,” with hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans clogging border crossings with Colombia;
  • Meanwhile government workers “enjoy” a two-day work-week to save electricity, avoiding the wasted hours caused by daily blackouts;
  • And President Maduro has decreed that citizens can be conscripted — drafted into service — for 60 days, forced to pick crops.

“Venezuela brings back fedual [sic] serfdom to try to alleviate food shortages,” read one online headline. (Don’t laugh, that may be how we spell “feudal” someday.)

Still believing in magic . . . “Maduro ordered a 50 percent increase in the minimum wage last month,” informed the National Post, “but the latest studies show that salaries still fall far short of the amount needed to obtain basic household goods and food.”

Socialism has failed, again, and in doing so demonstrates something more than economic shortcomings. As the late President Ford warned, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you have.”

The Venezuelan people have the right to recall the president enshrined in their constitution, a particularly popular right at present . . . but the Maduro dictatorship refuses to take prompt, lawful action to facilitate the recall.

Not to mention unjustly arresting citizens circulating the recall petition or telling high government ministers to fire any government worker who signs.

So much for the socialist revolution . . . now tyrannically blocking a real revolution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.     

Printable PDF

Maduro, Venezuela, socialism, collapse, illustration

 

Categories
folly free trade & free markets general freedom moral hazard national politics & policies tax policy too much government

Whose Side Are They On?

Uber, Lyft, Taxi, protection, tax, crony, cronyism, illustration

Excuse me if I drive over familiar roadways. But we are witnessing one of the great revolutions in human cooperation.

And our governments and politicians are working mightily to block traffic.

I refer, of course, to Uber and Lyft and the like.

The innovation that these companies bring to market? Enabling everyday drivers to leverage their personal investment in a capital good — a car or SUV — to make extra bucks (or even a living) while efficiently serving people who want rides.

Ride-hailing apps on smart-phones provide more security and consumer guidance than the old taxi services ever bothered to even try. The elaborate online rating system, where drivers rate riders and vice versa, provides a new market in information that outstrips government “regulation” as a consumer defense system.

And consumers get better rides, cheaper.

The Uberization of ride sharing competes directly with taxis, of course, and that’s a problem . . . for taxi companies. And the politicians who have regulated them for years. This regulation never was about consumer protection, but politicians just feathered their own nests with campaign contributions through crony capitalism, helping some taxi services at the expense of others.

And customers.

The latest idiocy hails from Massachusetts, which has enacted a 20¢ per trip tax on all ride-sharing apps, with 5¢ of each charge slated for subsidizing the old, established taxi services.

Taxachusetts’s Republican governor, Charlie Baker, has been sucked in to the government racket, choosing to support old cronies rather than customers.

Still, it could have been worse. The advocates of the tax had initially demanded Uber be banned.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Uber, Lyft, Taxi, protection, tax, crony, cronyism, illustration

 

Illustration based on original cc photo by GörlitzPhotography on Flickr

 

Categories
Common Sense general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government

United We Disagree

Ben Franklin, Donald Trump, disagreement, anger, fighting, politics

This election year? Anger and angst permeate the electorate.

We are united only in frustration. Which leads to some mutual distrust.

Not good.

Neither the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, nor the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, will receive my vote. But that doesn’t mean I don’t respect people who will vote for one or the other.

My father, whom I respected more than anyone else — and who passed away months ago — was a big Trump enthusiast. Not that he liked Trump’s demeanor; he didn’t. But he believed Trump was the only person who would shake up a completely corrupt Washington.

Some friends and loved ones simply have different political views or a different perspective on Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.

“We’ve got the fate of the U.S. in our hands,” wrote a longtime Common Sense email subscriber yesterday, irritated that I was treating Trump’s “sins” as on par with Hillary’s corruption. He asked to cancel his subscription.

What could I say? Well, that’s exactly what I said: “Sorry to see you go.” And I urged that we not “part ways.”

All’s well that ends well: He emailed back and “re-enlisted.” Not only did that make my day, but he illuminated the biggest danger in this crazy election: allowing ourselves to become divided.

Those of us who understand the gift of liberty, who demand honest government and free markets, must hang together or, as Ben Franklin quipped, “we will all hang separately.”

Disagree and debate, of course — but as friends and neighbors and fellow patriots we must realize that no matter who becomes the next president, the future of freedom in America will depend on us working together to hold them to account.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Ben Franklin, Donald Trump, disagreement, anger, fighting, politics

 

Categories
Accountability media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Too Dangerous x 2

CIA, Director, Michael Hayden, Donald Trump, danger, Libertarian, Gary Johnson, illustration

“If he governs consistent with some of the things he’s said as a candidate, I would be very frightened,” former CIA Director Michael Hayden says about Donald Trump.

These are the words that begin an ominous television spot from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The advertisement concludes that Mr. Trump is “too dangerous.”

Hayden was director of the National Security Administration under President George W. Bush, before becoming the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and then moving to head the Central Intelligence Agency. He served at the CIA for only a few weeks into President Obama’s first term, but obviously Mrs. Clinton wouldn’t broadcast his negative view of Trump before millions of us in TV Land if she didn’t respect Mr. Hayden’s opinion.

Funny, yesterday on John Catsimatidis’s New York City radio program, Hayden declared, “I’m uncomfortable with the nominee of both of the major political parties.”

“John, a lot of my friends are saying that’s nice, Hayden, but you have to vote for one of them,” the former top spy offered, “but I’m not so sure I do.”

He doesn’t. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson will be on all 50 state ballots and Green Party standard-bearer Jill Stein will be on most. And there are others.

“Somebody is going to win, but . . . I’m hoping they don’t think they’re sweeping into office with some powerful mandate,” Hayden continued. “And for people like me . . . to vote for some other choice, might deny them that sense of mandate, which would make, I think, things even worse.”

I’m no fan of Mr. Hayden, but regarding this? I agree.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

CIA, Director, Michael Hayden, Donald Trump, danger, Libertarian, Gary Johnson, illustration

 

Photo of Michael Hayden Credit: TechCrunch on Flickr (CC License)