Author: CS Admin

Categories
general freedom Regulating Protest too much government

Democracy More Dead

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey, election, democracy, authoritarianism, ,

“Turkey’s democracy died today,” CNN headlined its report on yesterday’s national constitutional referendum. The measure contained 18 significant changes designed to further empower the country’s already seemingly all-​powerful President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 

CNN is behind the times. Turkey hasn’t been a real democracy for some time.

Even before last summer’s coup attempt, as Newsweek informed, President Erdogan launched “attacks on Turkish demonstrators, the press, the Turkish judiciary and police officials launching corruption investigation against him.”

Post-​coup, the gloves really came off. Erdogan declared a state of emergency, firing or suspending over 125,000 government workers and arresting more than 40,000 citizens, including more than 100 journalists.

Freedom of the press no longer exists. 

Considering the tight media controls, the barring of many opposition events and violent attacks on those campaigning against the change, “Many analysts were surprised by the close result,” noted the New York Times. The referendum passed only 51 to 49 percent, losing in the three largest cities: Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir. 

Authorities changed the rules after voting had begun, sparking demands for a partial recount; accusations of election fraud abound. Nonetheless, President Erdogan has declared victory. The outcome is unlikely to be overturned.

Now, he’ll be able to appoint (without any legislative branch check) a majority of the nation’s highest court. He will also be able to issue decrees, previously forbidden. 

Another huge change is re-​setting the term limits clock. Now Erdogan may remain in power until 2029. 

Before our eyes, Turkey has become an authoritarian nightmare. Such a regime cannot be counted as an ally. Yet, with the close vote, don’t count the Turkish people out.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability government transparency incumbents local leaders national politics & policies responsibility

A+ in Arrogance

Rep. Markwayne Mullin, Oklahoma, salary, congressional, pay, representation, representative

The folks in Congress represent ‘We, the People’ … well, theoretically, at least. They’re supposed to work for us. We are their bosses. We pay their salary. 

But not U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin, the third-​term Republican from the rural Second District of Oklahoma. At two recent town hall meetings, the former professional mixed martial arts fighter responded to comments that the people pay his salary and health insurance with a sort of verbal karate-chop.* 

“You say you pay for me to do this. Bullcrap,” he aggressively retorted. “I pay for myself. I paid enough taxes before I got there and continue to through my company to pay my own salary. This is a service. No one here pays me to go.”

Mullin’s taxpayer-​funded PR professional, Amy Lawrence, was nice enough to explain the prickly, arrogant ranting of her boss, noting that, “Like all business owners, Congressman Mullin pays his taxes, which contribute to congressional salaries.”

Which means — yes sirree! — that of course his constituents pay his salary, when they also “contribute” their taxes. The fact that Rep. Mullin pays taxes, too, doesn’t change that fact. 

And, though Mullin claims being a member of Congress is not how he makes “his living,” he does, nonetheless, deposit into his bank account a not inconsequential $174,000 a year in congressional salary. 

Moreover, as a member of Congress, Mullin also gets to flout the Obamacare law with a special health insurance deal.

A town hall set for Tahlequah was canceled … for security reasons.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* His comments in Jay, Oklahoma, are available here; his Okemah comments, here. An entire hour video of his Okemah remarks are here (the portion about his pay begins at 24:48).

Printable PDF

Rep. Markwayne Mullin, Oklahoma, salary, congressional, pay, representation, representative

 

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