Author: Redactor

Categories
insider corruption

Incumbency Protection Racket

While discussing the latest IRS scandal — the one about how the IRS has been (is still) stacking the deck against non-lefty nonprofits seeking tax-exempt status — the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto mentions another kind of deck-stacking: campaign financial regulation.

Seems that Hillary Clinton, still running for president, is using her serially disgraced husband’s 501(c)3 foundation as a launching pad or financial resource for political operations. Taranto wonders whether the IRS “would investigate the Clinton Foundation for evidently acting as a front group for a political campaign” — quickly adding that his question is “facetious” given the fact that “the Obama IRS only goes after little guys.”

Suppose, however, that there were in fact an inquiry into the relationship between Hillary’s incipient campaign and the foundation? The point Taranto wants to make is that whether we’re talking about the IRS code or campaign finance regulation, it’s easier to comply with “complex and burdensome regulations on political speech” when you have resources to splurge on lawyers who can ensure that you’re obeying the letter of the law. Thus, the regulations “give incumbents a huge advantage over upstart challengers.”

Though hardly the only problem with CFR, this bedrock truth about the regulatory regime undermines the claim that such regulations serve only to “level the playing field.” What they really do is make it impossible for an unknown, un-wealthy but otherwise viable challenger to quickly “level the playing field” by accepting large checks from donors convinced of the challenger’s electability and election-worthiness.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Thought

Herbert Spencer

Perhaps the soul of goodness in things evil is by nothing better exemplified than by the good thing, justice, which, in rudimentary form, exists within the evil thing revenge.

Categories
links

Townhall: Progressive Irony

This weekend’s Common Sense column takes us back to the question of the minimum wage, and the evil, awful Walmart. But really what it’s about is the vision of market life we see in liberal-progressive ideology. Click on over, then return here. There are links in the column, but it might help to consider a few ideas in addition to those links:

Categories
video

Video: The Policy of “Stop and Frisk”

Reasonable searches, or police-state harassment?

Categories
crime and punishment too much government

Top Cop Says Stop

I agree with Eric Holder, the Attorney General of these United States of America: His gang at the federal Department of Justice should stop unfairly locking people up.

At the American Bar Association’s annual meeting in San Francisco, Mr. Holder admitted that, “too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law enforcement reason.”

Specifically, the AG argued for “fundamentally rethinking the notion of mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related crimes,” acknowledging “they oftentimes generate unfairly long sentences,” which breeds “disrespect for the system.”

Unfair long jaunts in prison do tend to ruin people’s lives — er . . . unfairly. Bad system.

Holder also pointed to the enormous cost of incarceration: $80 billion annually. Since 1980, our population has grown about 33 percent and our prison population 800 percent.

So, to hand out fewer of the “excessive prison terms” the DOJ has been meting out for decades, Holder is changing Department of Justice policies for charging “low-level” and “non-violent” suspected drug offenders – so they don’t face mandatory minimum sentences.

Like me, the ACLU is “thrilled.” But while calling Holder’s policy pivot “a great step,” Julie Stewart, the president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, added, “what’s being proposed here is very modest.”

A federal public defender in Virginia points out that prosecutors are likely to continue using mandatory minimums as a weapon, saying, “There is a real difference between general guidance from the attorney general and actually taking actions on the ground.”

The Department of “Justice” is locking people up “unnecessarily.” Attorney General Holder speaks out against it, but it is his job to actually stop it. Now.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Thought

Andrew Jackson

The bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me, but I will kill it.
(said to the Vice President, July 8, 1832)

Categories
Thought

William Graham Sumner

There ought to be no laws to guarantee property against the folly of its possessors.

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies too much government

Nuking the Net?

The military network that later combined with other networks to “make the Internet” was started out with an interesting purpose: to establish a communication system that could withstand nuclear strikes.

What if the United States were hit by multiple nuclear bombardments? How would survivors communicate? The protocols of the Internet allow for radical decentralization, which allows communications to get around nuked hubs.

Now, around the world, governments are trying to control this decentralized Net, taking down or otherwise preventing citizen access to Web services and sites (China, Britain, Australia, for example), and (most resolutely in China and the United States) preventing communication that cannot be “listened in” upon.

It’s almost as if governments are “nuking the Internet.”

The latest case? Lavabit. This Internet company has specialized in encrypted communications. Last week its owner and operator, Ladar Levison, made a public statement:

I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know what’s going on — the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise.

In an interview with Democracy Now, Levison hazarded that, “if the American public knew what the government was doing,” the government “wouldn’t be allowed to do it any more.” But so far, he’s speaking very carefully and not elaborating on what the government wanted him to do with his company.

It’s almost as if Congress nuked the Constitution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
too much government

Hard Case for Soft Paternalism

Not long after I noted a new form of paternalism, David Brooks, from his perch as token conservative at The New York Times, devoted a column to the idea that governments should “nudge” people to act better, rather than force them.

He is enthusiastic. “[I]n practice, it is hard to feel that my decision-making powers have been weakened because when I got my driver’s license enrolling in organ donation was the default option.” He thinks the reality of “soft paternalism” is innocuous in terms of coercion, powerful in terms of consequences, like more donated organs.

Still, he sees the skeptical, anti-paternalist case: “Do we want government stepping in to protect us from our own mistakes? Many people argue no. This kind of soft paternalism will inevitably slide into a hard paternalism, with government elites manipulating us into doing the sorts of things they want us to do.”

But, he argues, this just hasn’t happened. There’s no evidence for this slippery slope.

Not so fast. Economist Donald Boudreaux can explain the lack of data: the reason we see so little move from soft (option-based) paternalism to hard (force-based) paternalism is that most paternalism starts out hard and gets tougher as it goes along: “One reason why the empirical record isn’t more full of nudges turning into diktats is that government typically issues diktats from the get-go.” Paternalists tend to forgo the suggestion for the compulsion.

And their current emphasis on nudging will likely change once their nudging gets them nowhere near their Nirvana. We know this not from direct evidence about soft paternalism, but about the history of government in general and the enduring popularity of paternalism in its hardest of forms.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Thought

William Graham Sumner

Every book is a monopoly, and copyrights, perhaps, better than anything else serve to illustrate the wide range through which monopoly may act. Volumes are written which scarcely anyone will buy. The owner of the copyright has an absolute monopoly, but, there being no demand, his monopoly is worthless — from which it appears that a man cannot oppress his fellows simply because “he has a monopoly.”