Author: Redactor

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Red Lights, Green Roads

Washington State activist Tim Eyman could celebrate election night. Several of his sponsored anti-red-light-camera initiatives won — in Bellingham and Longview and Monroe.

But his statewide initiative seems to be going down.

Eyman has become obsessed with transportation issues, and he’s receiving the usual push-back from insiders and editorialists. The Seattle Times proclaimed his I-1125 “anachronistic,” saying that Eyman

may have something to say about the scope of government. His anti-tax proposals fare well. But voters do not think much of his ideas for moving — or, more precisely, not moving — people around a busy metropolitan region.

A tad disingenuous. Washington’s voters received a barrage of advertising against the measure, but the campaign tended to ignore the measure’s main point, its attempt to strengthen the feedback systems of paying for (and developing) road projects. I-1125 would have kept politicians’ hands out of the road till, forcing them to leave money in road funds put there by fuel taxes and tolls and such.

Despite the negative campaign, on election night the measure was losing so narrowly that many deemed it “too close to call.”

Contrast this with the common anti-initiative complaint, that voting for them is driven by well-funded campaigns that overpower citizens’ reason. Well, Eyman’s initiative campaigns carry mainly on the written measures themselves: His group spends nothing on paid advertising, while his opponents splurge millions.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
folly

Taxing Christmas and Common Sense

Joke writers received an early Christmas present this week when the Obama Administration announced plans to levy a tax on Christmas. Actually, the tax was not on Christmas, precisely, but on Christmas trees.

And not on all Christmas trees, just on real, “cut” Christmas trees as opposed to the artificial variety. Seems people prefer artificial trees. Sales of “fresh” trees have fallen significantly in recent years, while artificial tree sales nearly doubled from 2003 to 2007.

So, the folks at the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a 15-cent-per-tree tax on “producers and importers” of 500 trees or more. The money would go into an advertising campaign to promote freshly-cut real trees over artificial ones.

But is it even a tax?

“I can tell you unequivocally that the Obama administration is not taxing Christmas trees,” declared White House spokesman Matt Lehrich. “What’s being talked about here is an industry group deciding to impose fees on itself to fund a promotional campaign . . .”

But Jim Harper of the Cato Institute asked and answered the essential question: “Do Christmas tree farmers go to jail if they refuse to pay? Yes. It’s a tax.”

Once joke writers and commentators and real people (as opposed to the artificial variety) got wind of it, the tax/non-tax was scuttled with an announcement that “USDA is going to delay implementation and revisit this action.”

Don’t bother. As Robert Childress of the Texas Christmas Tree Growers Association posits, “I feel that marketing for my products is my responsibility . . .”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture

Occupy the State of Nature

Ideas have consequences. That’s a famous maxim of conservative theorist Richard Weaver, a thinker who was big when I was little. He was right. Ideas do have consequences, and different ideas have distinct consequences.

One can sometimes judge ideas by the consequences of trying to articulate them and put them into practice.

A few weeks ago one of the more seemingly absurd statements about the Occupy movement, the “99 percenters,” went viral. Doug “Media Virus” Rushkoff argued that the movement should not be counted as “a protest, but a prototype for a new way of living.” He said that the prototypers (can’t call them “protestors,” now, can I?) “are actually forging a robust micro-society of working groups, each one developing new approaches — or reviving old approaches — to long running problems.”

Read his argument for yourself. To me, it seems a bit too much in the old Charles Reich/Theodore Roszak school of counterculture-pushing.

Worse yet, Rushkoff’s explanation doesn’t fit well with the facts on the ground. The movement has gotten increasingly ugly and violent, as has been widely reported, but which the folks at Reason.com handily synopsize . . . giving Shikha Dalmia an excuse to conjure up the Hobbesian specter of the life of man in a state of nature: nasty, brutish, and short.

And yet, evidence suggests that people do co-operate without oversight, at least during emergencies, pretty well.

But not, I think, if their ideas scream out for special treatment and subsidy and against others’ success.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Clunker Flunked

When the Obama Administration hit the ground running in 2009, one of its first “hopeful” and “audacious” programs was “Cash for Clunkers,” a sort of triple-action economic stimulus, carbon-emission reduction, and automaker bailout bill. Congress got on board, a lot of trades were made, billions spent. There was much brouhaha.

Skepticism should have been the order of the day, of course. So many things could have gone wrong.

And did.

Now, with the clarity of 20-20 hindsight, a consensus emerges: Cash for Clunkers was a clunker itself. An economic analysis from Resources for the Future is just the latest (mostly negative) judgment: “[T]he program increased new vehicle sales by about 0.36 million during July and August of 2009, implying that approximately 45 percent of the spending went to consumers who would have purchased a new vehicle anyway. Our results suggest no gain in sales beyond 2009 and hence no meaningful stimulus to the economy.”

Further, fuel economy gains and pollution reductions were minuscule.

The study is far from exhaustive. A lot of old cars were scrapped, recycled. Guess what this does to the used car and parts market? It’s been devastating.

Who’s hurt by supply reductions and consequent price rises? Cash-strapped folks, the kind of people who usually buy used cars, or keep old cars running — which is a lot of people during a depression.

I bet that Cash for Clunkers served, on net, to transfer wealth from the working poor to far wealthier individuals.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture too much government

Better Late Than Never?

“Too little, too late.” I am not alone to suspect that the Occupy movement — the 99 percenters — started its protest against corporate greed and government cronyism several years too late.

Where were the Occupiers when the Tea Party protests started?

Dancing in the streets over the Obama presidency? Many Occupiers may have lagged because they thought that “their man” could and would clean up corruption and make Washington work for the everyone — or at least the “middle class.”

The “too late” charge can be directed against the Tea Party, though — and has been, repeatedly. The Tea Partyers waited to organize until a liberal Democrat was in the White House, one who saw Bush’s big government and, well, raised it.

Many would admit, later, how not “theirs” Bush was. Still, few protested Bush’s big government push.

To the Tea Party’s credit, it was first — kicked off by Rick Santelli’s CNBC “tea party rant” in early 2009, against the upsurge of bailouts for banks, car companies, home-buyers, you name it, as well as the very idea of government stimulus. (Though I ranted earlier.)

The time to protest cronyism and corruption in American government? The moment one opens one’s eyes to political reality.

Maybe the great age of protest has finally come.

I hope it’s not too late.

It always seems like citizens should have stood up to abuse of power sooner, but being late to the action is no excuse not to stand up now.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets video

Video: My Friend Sarah

The world’s a complex place, and it takes some thought to make sense of it. One of the more useful tools for understanding the social world is economics. And, once you begin thinking in economic terms, there are consequences, as this delightful video from a few years ago neatly shows:

I’m impressed how a simple story line and touch of whimsy helps get the ideas across.

Categories
free trade & free markets porkbarrel politics too much government

Strings of the Puppets

It’s hard to push string. That’s something the marionette masters in Washington are finding out. They’re used to dangling money in front of people. Watch the puppets leap!

But dangling money in front of folks in turn for votes and donations, that’s one thing. Investing in business? Quite another.

You see, businesses serve customers. While government can, indeed, invest in business, that investment doesn’t ensure success.

Developing and offering products on the market that people want to buy — that makes for success.

No matter how nifty something may seem to the investor, if it’s too costly for the targeted consumer — or simply fails to spark consumer fire — the company will not make a go of it, no matter how progressive the government doing the investing.

Sunday’s bankruptcy filing by Beacon Energy, a maker of an innovative flywheel electric energy storage system — energy storage being awfully important for that dubious future where we must rely more on unreliable and uncontrollable sources of energy, like wind and solar — is just another in a long history of failed government investments. In this case, other investors failed to come through.

On the bright side, this time the $43 million in loan guarantees, similar to those pushed to now bankrupt Solyndra, came with better collateral. Thus, this failure didn’t leave quite as big a hole for taxpayers.

Politicians like investing other people’s money (ours) . . . with their own political strings attached. But they hate that those strings lead right back to them when their corporate puppets wind up dead.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall tax policy

Time Waits for the Tax-Fighter

More than two decades ago, I got involved in my very first initiative campaign.

In 1990, tax-fighter Jim Tobin, then the head of Taxpayers United of Illinois, filed the Tax Accountability Amendment. I organized the petition drive, which gathered more than half-a-million voter signatures to earn a place on the ballot. Polling showed more than 70 percent support for the issue, but a lawsuit by the Chicago Bar Association struck our initiative from the ballot.

The amendment would have mandated a three-fifths vote of both legislative chambers to increase taxes. By requiring public notice and hearings before a tax hike could be enacted, the amendment also promoted transparency in the legislative process — long before the “transparency” buzzword became cool.

Illinois’s very limited initiative process has allowed for only one issue to appear on the state ballot — a successful 1980 measure, cutting back the number of state legislators and electing them in single member districts.

But even without a vote, Tobin wrested a pledge from both candidates for governor to abide by the provisions of the amendment, which the victorious governor stuck to for several years.

Tobin’s group has grown, finding considerable success battling big taxing politicians. It hasn’t forgotten about transparency, either. The group has launched a national campaign to provide the public with information on lavish and unsustainable pensions being collected by public employees.

Tonight, I’ll be with Jim Tobin at a big event in Chicago celebrating the 35th anniversary of his now national anti-tax organization, Taxpayers United of America.

Congratulations, Jim! Thanks for letting me be a part of it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Got Jobs?

New jobs come from entrepreneurial insight into new ways of profitably producing goods; they are paid for with investments. After a bust, old ratios of prices and wages cease to work, requiring time for entrepreneurs to refigure. But capitalism’s basic scenario — savings, investment, productivity gains, trades — still applies.

Some folks prefer to short-circuit all this, simply robbing Peter to create a job for Paul.

They’re known as politicians.

President Obama proposes spending an additional $447 billion to create jobs, even though our economy is already gummed up with debilitating debt. The Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell argues that taking money from the economy’s right pocket (taxes) and putting it in the left pocket (spending) doesn’t create economic growth or long-term employment, but, for those who happen “to be sitting in the left pocket . . . [i.e.], a state or local politician that’s getting money from the so-called stimulus,” they think “it’s a good thing.”

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Illinois) says that the “only way out” of our current mess is to offer every one of the 15 million unemployed Americans a $40,000-a-year job . . . with the federal government.

Most Republican presidential candidates pitch their (quite mythical) job-creating skills, too.

The Republican presidential candidate banned by the national news media — no, not Ron Paul, the other one, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson — put it best. “The fact is,” he said at the only debate he was allowed to appear in, “I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture media and media people political challengers

The Interposeurs

Media people interpose themselves between current events and the news audience. They consider it their job to sort out “the issues” before news consumers even start thinking.

This is the source of media power.

Recent investigations into current media coverage of the GOP presidential race shows that the basic media bias may not be pro-liberal/anti-conservative, but, more generally, anti-libertarian. Ron Paul’s candidacy, though receiving an amazing amount of support from enthusiastic fans and generous donors (Rep. Paul has quite a kitty going into the campaign), has garnered (according to a recent Pew Research Center study) little news coverage to match his popular success: Less, even, than Santorum.

But is ideological bias at the root of the problem? After all, each candidate has a personality, and personality is obviously a big factor in show biz success. And politics, it has been said, is show biz for homely people. No wonder political coverage looks more like junior high and high school tribalism than a truly mature enterprise.

According to the irreverent H.L. Mencken, journalists like to play messiah. Thinking they can “save the day” every day, they tend to favor those politicians who treat the eternal rescue mission of government policy with a cheaply salable scenario. Paul, in identifying government more often as a problem than a solution, horns in on the public rescue biz.

Maybe this helps explain why “Ron Paul did markedly better in the blogosphere than in the press.” And why journalistic coverage swings more extremely than does blogosphere coverage.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.