Author: Redactor

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies

Stop Us Before We Kill Free Speech Again

The Supreme Court has yet another chance to refer to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And follow it.

The case before the court, Citizens United versus FEC, has to do with how federal campaign finance laws and the regulations issued by the Federal Election Commission are violating freedom of speech.

Citizens United is a conservative non-profit organization that produced a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign last year. A D.C. court ruled that producing it with the help of corporate funding was a violation campaign finance law, specifically the McCain-Feingold Act.

Eight former FEC commissioners have now filed an amicus brief in the case. They argue that the lower court’s decision violates the First Amendment — you know, the part about not making any law to abridge freedom of speech. One of the former commissioners, Hans von Spakovsky, explains in the Wall Street Journal that it is virtually impossible to know under the convoluted regulations exactly when one is allowed to engage in political speech and when one must shut up. Why not just let everyone exercise his First Amendment rights?

Spakovsky concludes that friends of campaign finance restrictions on speech have “lost sight of a basic truth: The answer to speech they disagree with is not to restrict that speech, but to answer it with more speech.”

That’s just — and this is — Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability government transparency

Cuz You Constituents Work for Me!

This summer, many congressmen held town-hall meetings about health care and other hot political topics.

Sometimes they were not entirely statesmanlike. Clips of their more embarrassing moments now reside on YouTube. For instance, you can watch Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee chat on a cellphone while a constituent is asking her a question — taking rudeness to congressional levels.

Congressman Baron Hill was determined to avoid this sort of thing. He wasn’t going to be on YouTube in any “compromising position,” not him. So he actually tried to ban any videotaping of his event. I kid you not. The evidence is on, uh, YouTube:

Constituent: “—why can’t I film this? Isn’t this my right?”

Hill: “Well, this is my town-hall meeting, and I set the rules, and I’ve had these rules—

“Let me repeat that one more time! This is my town-hall meeting for you. And you’re not going to tell me how to run my congressional office! Now, the reasons why I don’t allow filming is because usually the films that are done end up on YouTube in a compromising position.”

Oh, those pesky constituents!

Anyway, sir, too late. The technology is out there. The genie won’t go back in the bottle. Every audience you ever face will include folks who can record your words. With that in mind, you might want to, uh, watch your words from here on out.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense

If the President Says It

Is President Barack Obama trying to echo the paranoid days of the Clintons’ famous “vast right-wing conspiracy” complaint? Obama says that those who oppose the Democrats’ medical reforms are “those who are profiting from the status quo.” Further, he says the opposition is “well-financed.”

Great story, if true.

But the president won’t name names. When asked by Washington Examiner columnist Timothy Carney, the White House declined to name any individual, any group, any organization profiting in the industry now and actively supporting the opposition. Same for Obama’s revamped campaign outfit, Organizing for America. It’s now run by the Democratic National Committee. Carney asked folks there which nefarious profiteer funds against Obama, but they wouldn’t clarify a thing.

Carney went looking in the medical care industry, looking at the companies and organizations with the deepest pockets. Which ones are now spending millions to oppose Obama’s reforms? He found zip. Nada. Bubkes.

The big pharmaceuticals are on board with the Democrats, it turns out. So are the biggest insurance companies.

The president is just blowing smoke. The opponents of his medical industry reforms are not well-financed. They are grassroots and widespread.

The big companies hope that the reforms will consolidate their market-leading positions, protect them from competition. Most big government programs do just that.

The people, on the other hand, have the most to lose from more government.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Privatize the Post Office!

Weeks ago, in the debate over whether to euthanize what’s left of freedom in American medicine, President Obama made a stunning concession about the so-called “public option” being proposed. Hoping to assure attendees of a townhall meeting that private insurers would not be threatened by the public option, he said, “if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? . . . It’s the post office that’s always having problems.”

Yes. The post office. The “public option” in mail delivery: chronically in financial trouble; chronically over budget; chronically being bailed out by taxpayers.

So, don’t worry, everybody! Government expansion into our medical delivery system will be just as lumbering and inefficient as the post office is in our mail and package delivery system.

Er, good point, Mr. President.

Some might argue that under the proposed public option, direct private competition will in fact be allowed, whereas direct competition with stamped-envelope postal delivery is not allowed. But, as many supporters have conceded in unguarded moments, the Democrats’ reform is intended to be a transition to a single-payer system. Moreover, the medical reform bills pending in Congress are bulging with new mandates and price controls for private insurers that will hamper their ability to compete — something UPS and FedEx don’t have to contend with.

The president has done us a favor. He’s reminded us why we should privatize postal delivery.

Health care too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
education and schooling

Philosophically Opposed to Home Schooling

An officially proposed law, set to be voted on next year, would outlaw most home-schooling in Sweden. Government officials in the alleged Scandinavian utopia explain that “there is no need for the law to offer the possibility of homeschooling because of religious or philosophical reasons in the family.”

Yet increasing numbers of Swedes feel otherwise. The Swedish Association for Home Education, called ROHUS, has appealed to the international community for help in what its members regard as a concerted attack on human rights. The proposed law, according to the group, shows off the country’s “worst totalitarian socialist roots.”

I don’t know much about Sweden’s government-run schools. My wife and I home-school our kids here in Virginia. We do this mainly for reasons of security and quality control.

But this is, nevertheless, a philosophic issue.

Surely parents have the right to resist governments’ efforts to control every aspect of their lives, especially the micromanaging of their kids’ education.

Government schools tend to perform poorly. In America, we have witnessed a degradation in standards. Sweden, apparently, isn’t immune to such trends. One English woman married to a Swede fears that the country’s “’no-one should aspire to be better’ mentality” pervades the schools; she insists the “no-grade” system degrades competitive standards.

A reason to home-school, yes. And a reason to defend a philosophic case for the home-school option: That option is a human right.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense

Craigslist, eBay and Twitter

Could California’s budget crisis be solved by a triumvirate of Internet services, Craigslist, eBay and Twitter?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is raiding the state’s storage sheds to sell off unneeded items on eBay and Craigslist. His signature on a California fleet car adds, it is estimated, $400 to its auction value.

He got the latter idea from one of his million Twitter followers.

Wow. I have nowhere near a million Twitter followers. I’m told that I should envy the governor’s Twitter cred, but . . . I’m not the jealous type; I won’t seek any “Tweet” revenge. Still, I’d be happy if all my listeners joined, and I got some usable ideas for raising money.

Unfortunately, neither I nor my sponsor, Citizens in Charge Foundation, have a vast resource of unneeded inventory to sell off. Nor do I have the cachet of the actor-turned-governor: My signature won’t add much value to a Ford Focus.

Yep. Someone paid $1,625.01 for a state-owned Focus with over 110,000 miles on the odometer. The governor signed the visor.

That’s better than a car once owned by Jon Voight!

The only new thing here, really, is using Craigslist and eBay. This isn’t a singularity in the progress of civilization. From this no miracles follow. But it is a healthy sign of thinking slightly outside the proverbial box.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom tax policy

Making the IRS Integral to “Health”

If a doctor who is supposed to help you get better keeps stabbing you with a knife instead, it may seem beside the point to focus on any particular wound. The whole stabbing process is wrong.

Democrats in Congress have found a way to duplicate this effect. Their evolving medical reform package is prolific in ways to attack our freedom.

But remember: Some stab wounds may slice closer to the heart than others.

If the current majority government has its way, in the new healthcare regime we won’t simply be invited to cooperate. There are huge hunks of coercive power built into their system. Force. Not friendly reminders and advertising enticements.

Take a simple provision of their plan: Individuals who decline to sign up for approved medical insurance will be financially penalized. You might be ordered to forfeit 2.5 percent of your income above a certain level. What happens if you refuse to pay this fine? The IRS could swoop in and seize your assets. Eventually, you could end up in jail.

Today, we don’t have much privacy right when it comes to dealings with the IRS. But at least agents refrain from prying into details of our medical coverage. Under the new regime, though, the tax agency would directly monitor your insurance compliance, and give your tax info to health commissars.

Kind of makes you feel sick, doesn’t it?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
tax policy

Connecticutting The Dots

Connecticut used to be one of the go-to places for escaping state income taxes.

But in 1991, Governor Lowell Weicker hatched the novel idea of burdening Connecticut residents with the same direct tax on income with which Americans have been saddled in so many other states. Despite the deep unpopularity of his proposal, Weicker rammed it through. That meant sacrificing any chance at re-election. But he was hailed as a hero by all fans everywhere of government bloat and flattened economies.

The Constitution State has indeed suffered a flatter economy in the years since. The Yankee Institute points out that since 1992, Connecticut businesses have hired no new workers on net. Even as the country added more than 20 million jobs. Over the last decade, Connecticut suffered a net loss of some 113,000 residents. If your tax policies tell productive people to get lost . . . they do.

Connecting the dots between higher taxes and stalled growth may be easy for most graduates of Economics 101. Even most politicians probably grasp the connection. But many just don’t care.

In 1991, residents were told that the income tax burden would never exceed 4.5 percent. But in 2001, it jumped to 5 percent. Now the current governor, Jodi Rell, wants to hike the top rate to 6.5 percent.

What the . . . Rell? Folks aren’t leaving the state fast enough for you?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
local leaders term limits

“A” For Effort

They don’t make it easy for citizen initiatives in Alaska.

According to state law, legislatures there are prohibited from repealing a successful initiative for two years. Two whole years. Whoo hoo! And that’s it. After this two-year moratorium, lawmakers can haul out the shredder.

In 2007, voters in Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula Borough passed a term limits measure that caps the tenure of the borough’s assembly members to two consecutive terms. The Alliance for Concerned Taxpayers gathered signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

For some strange reason, the Alliance doesn’t trust incumbent lawmakers in the borough to leave the term limits on themselves alone. They’re not the trusting type, I guess. But these term limits activists are not just wringing their hands and wailing, “Oh, I sure hope those incumbent lawmakers leave the term limits alone!”

Instead, two years after 2007, Alliance members have been out gathering signatures to put the same term limits measure back on the ballot.

Mike McBride, a spokesman for the group, says it’s easy as pie to get the signatures. “The public wants term limits, that’s the bottom line. . . . It’s a real popular idea.”

McBride says if the group has to go out and gather signatures every two years to keep term limits in place, they will. Good for them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

The Wrong Job

I’ve criticized the cash-for-clunkers program; I’ve argued against the notion that government should spend our tax dollars to create jobs.

Now the two come together. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is hiring 1,100 people to process the paperwork associated with the clunkers program.

Will these be long-term jobs? Well, sure, just as long as there is a powerful need in our country for processors of ten-page government forms to facilitate the forking over of $4,500-a-pop subsidy payments.

Maybe these United States can lead the world in such work.

Thank goodness the feds so botched up the program it didn’t cost us as much as it could have. Dealers across the country quit the program early, scared Uncle Sam wouldn’t pay back what they had fronted to customers.

Or, at least, not fast enough. Turns out auto dealerships have certain cash-flow concerns that our solons fail to fully appreciate.

Also not appreciated by Congress is the fact that taxpayers will have to hand over their hard-earned money to pay for all these deals. More billions. Money that taxpayers could have put to more productive use.

Our federal government shouldn’t be in the car business. It shouldn’t be in the car finance business, either, much less subsidizing car purchases.

The only productive jobs our current office-holders should create is by stepping down and giving someone else a chance.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.