Author: Redactor

Categories
tax policy

You Can’t “Give” Me What’s Already Mine

A mooching relative borrows $500 from you, wastes it all in a drunken spending spree, never pays you back.

Eventually, he loftily hands you a fiver.

He says, “I don’t even know why I give you this money, but I’m a nice guy. Use this gift to create jobs or something, okay?”

In response, do you a) Punch him in the nose; b) Punch him in the nose; c) Punch him in the nose; or d) Thank him for the gift.

We all know which three of these four options is the correct answer. Yet, again and again in tax cut discussions, people talk as if reducing the amount of money the IRS grabs from someone is tantamount to “giving” that person something.

Political commentator E.J. Dionne recently repeated this fallacy. “For years,” he wrote, “Republicans have argued that the way to help struggling working people is to give more money to the wealthy.” Dionne adds that Obama “is saying that we should cut out the middleman and help working people directly.” And Dionne thinks this a good idea.

So, why not just grab all the money the wealthiest people earn and divide it amongst the have-nots? Sure, this would kill the economy. But at least the terrible “middlemen,” the producers who make a complex economy possible, will be cut out of the loop.

An accomplishment we can all cheer as we starve to death.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Voter Intimidation You Can Believe In

Big labor is tired of the private balloting that workers currently enjoy when deciding whether to unionize. The unions want to get rid of such balloting. By law. There’s a bill floating around in Congress that would do this.

Is a President Obama going to sign it?

The unionized share of the work force has shrunk in recent decades. Many employees don’t see the benefit of joining a union. Because voting on whether to certify a union is done by private ballot, one can’t claim that they are scared of retaliation from the boss.

So what would unions gain from a law that bans private balloting?

Well, if union organizers know how people are voting, and people voting know that the organizers know how they are voting, there would be much more opportunity to pressure and even intimidate employees into voting the “right” way.

Unions hope this would help turbo-charge recruitment efforts. As columnist Donald Lambro puts it, passage of the bill would make it “easier to unionize workplaces without the bother of the private ballot to protect workers in a free and democratic election.”

This anti-democratic bill has been around for a while. But now the chances of passage have increased dramatically. Candidate Barack Obama, at least when addressing union crowds, often promised he would push to make it happen. Will he do so?

You can bet the unions are watching. So should we.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Wicked Trimmers of Cost

Robberies. Corruption. Furious government-enabled debt expansion in the name of curing the effects of prior furious government-enabled debt expansion. Murders. War.

And now, carpooling.

Yes, just when you think maybe it really is time to move to Canada to escape American insanity, you hear about how our neighbors to the north are harassing people for daring to save money on gas.

The alleged villain is an online startup called PickupPal.com. This is a website enabling people going places to hook up with other people going places. The site actively fosters collusive cooperation among travelers. My blood boils! Grr!

Two problems with this, if you live in Ontario.

First, Ontario strictly regulates ridesharing. Ontario riders can carpool only to and from work; must ride with the same person every day; may pay that person for their trouble only once a week; may not cross municipal boundaries during the ride; etcetera.

Second, Ontario bus companies are huge fans of these regulations. So the bus companies sued PickupPal. And the Ontario courts have just fined PickupPal over $11,000 Canadian dollars for making possible a $60 ride from Toronto to Montreal. PickupPal must also somehow enforce the Toronto regulations on their website.

Finally, the world is safe again for Ontario bus service.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ballot access general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall

Wheels of Injustice

The wheels of injustice creak along slowly.

Indicted in October last year, the Oklahoma Three — Rick Carpenter, Susan Johnson, and I — have still not had a full preliminary hearing. That first step has now been pushed back to next February.

Our alleged crime? Oklahoma’s Attorney General, Drew Edmondson, argues that we conspired to hire non-residents to gather signatures on a petition.

Never mind that state officials said the campaign’s hiring practices were perfectly legal. Never mind that the law itself is under constitutional challenge, with similar laws in Arizona and Ohio having been struck down earlier this year.

The real goal? Frighten and intimidate those who would dare petition to do things like cap runaway government spending, provide protection from government’s abuse of eminent domain, or limit the terms of politicians — like, say, Mr. Edmondson.

Opponents of the petition that triggered this prosecution amounted to a who’s who of wealthy, powerful Oklahomans, including entrenched political interests such as the teachers’ and public employees’ unions.

Recently I sent out a news release with a statement declaring our innocence and attacking this politically-motivated prosecution. Next thing I know, the Citizens in Charge website gets shut down. An email from the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority complained to our hosting service that the news release was spam.

The website was restored, but I tell you: “These are the times that try men’s souls.”

That’s Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom

To the Dumpsters, Go

We have all heard of “dumpster babies,” abandoned newborns left to die by unfit parents.

And now, courtesy of Nebraska’s not-too-careful legislature, we have “dumpster teens” — near-adult youngsters left with the state of Nebraska by their parents, following last July’s loosening of the state’s child neglect statute.

The legislature, trying to prevent dumpster babies, weakened penalties to irresponsible parents who at least show the tiniest responsibility by not leaving infants in dumpsters, or the like, to die, but rather leaving them at hospitals for someone else to take up care.

Little did they expect parents to abandon growing children, including teenagers.

Though unintended, the effects were, well, ludicrously predictable. The legislators had used the word “child” rather than defining it more narrowly to “newborns.”

A special session has now been convened, and the law tidied up to include only infants 30 days or younger. But not before dozens of young people were abandoned. Some parents travelled across state lines to get rid of their kids.

Strange that the same legislature that outlawed non-residents from helping circulate petitions in Nebraska would allow non-residents to drop off their unwanted children in the state. But I digress.

Nebraska legislators may have meant well, but they ignored a basic principle: Some obligations should not be made too easy to break.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders

The John Lilburne Award

John Lilburne and Eric Ehst could never meet: They belong to different eras. But they have something in common.

Back in the 1600s, John Lilburne worked as a pamphleteer and champion of individual or “freeborn” rights. He pioneered the use of petitioning for redress against government power and abuse.

Lilburne was a term limits guy, too, arguing that members of parliament should not be able to serve for longer than a year at a time. Unfortunately, he spent far too much time in jail; his support for individual rights bugged both the Crown and then Cromwell. Lilburne’s trials sparked the fire that led to our own Fifth Amendment.

The Citizens in Charge Foundation, a group I work with, has just launched The John Lilburne Award. This monthly honor will go to a citizen working to protect and expand our petition rights.

Eric Ehst is the award’s first winner, for November 2008.

Ehst, executive director of the Clean Elections Institute, formed a coalition that helped defeat Arizona’s Proposition 105. This measure would have severely hampered Arizona’s initiative process by requiring a virtually impossible majority of all registered voters — not just those voting — to pass any initiative that would raise a tax or fee or that mandated any spending at all, even a postage stamp.

Long ago, John Lilburne struggled to establish the peoples’ right to petition their government. This year in Arizona, Eric Ehst defended that same right.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Obaminableonomics

There’s a new school of economic thought: Obaminableonomics.

Come to think of it, though, maybe there’s nothing so very new about this Obaminable economic school — after all, it just combines typical big-government redistribution with a few nominal nods in the direction of fiscal self-discipline.

You can get a concise idea of the Obaminable approach to economics from a headline that floated into my In Box the other day. I quote: “Obama Promotes Fiscal Restraint, Big Spending.” According to the reporter, the president-elect “wants to project fiscal restraint even as his economic team assembles a massive recovery package that could cost several hundred billion dollars.”

Huh?

Well, President-Elect Barack Obama thinks he erases the contradiction by contrasting his short-term plans with his long-term plans. Short-term, government must spend like there’s no tomorrow, because this is what we allegedly need to see happening if we are to regain confidence in our future. Yes, we absolutely must see an endless parade of babbling bureaucrats going hog-wild with taxpayer dollars on a wide array of ludicrous, unworkable schemes. Absolutely.

After that, though, will come the line-by-line budget review, the ruthless cutting out of bloat.

Well, any alcoholic will tell you that he can stop whenever he likes. Just so, our rulers keep putting off the restraint of fiscal restraint.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

What About the Roads?

The classic political study Crisis and Leviathan, by Robert Higgs, argues that the state often exploits the sense of urgency that attends a crisis to enlarge itself as the way to “solve” the problem — even when government itself created the problem.

The federal government’s profligate credit policies, which fueled the now-busted housing bubble, come to mind. The government’s “solution” here is to lard some failed companies with subsidies and nationalize others. Why? Oh, no time to think, just hurry up and do it before investors get even more jittery.

Sometimes, though, officials scrambling for a solution consider solutions that might actually help. Crumbling infrastructure is on the minds of many city and state politicians. But the tough economy is also on their minds. Many are therefore more open these days to the idea of private financing of roads
and bridges. As Norman Mineta, former transportation secretary, puts it, ”Budget gaps are starting to increase the viability of public-private partnerships.”

I don’t know about the “partnership” part of it. Too often such ”partnerships” mean that a business is prevented from making good decisions, or is protected from the costs of bad decisions.

If we’re going to delegate a train or road to a private company, let them take full responsibility for it. Companies that succeed will get us from here to there just fine. And taxpayers won’t have to cough up money for the ones that fail.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
too much government

Al Gore Reinvents the Internet

Former Vice President Al Gore wants a “purpose-driven Web.”

See, cyberspace isn’t purpose-driven . . . yet. It only helps us access all the information in the world, communicate instantly at no cost with people on the other side of the globe, find true love, shop, download books and movies and lectures, elect presidents, refute environmentalist alarmism, save lives, and other such trivia.

A New York Times article reports that in Al Gore’s view, “we” haven’t done enough to spread his vision of the imminent doom of the earth.

Gore can’t be held accountable for anybody else’s understanding of his views, of course. So let’s find a direct quote from this article about how “we” must do more with the Web than just trade party photos on Facebook.

According to Gore, speaking at an Internet conference in San Francisco, “Web 2.0 has to have a purpose.”

What purpose?

Nothing less, he declares, than “bring[ing] about a higher level of consciousness about our planet and the imminent danger and opportunity we face because of the radical transformation in the relationship between human beings and the Earth.”

Sounds quite grand, as long you don’t try to divine what the words actually mean.

In my online world, individual lives and individual purposes matter quite a lot, despite a lack of overarching purpose. Offline too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom local leaders

Capitalism vs. Caste

An “Untouchable” in India’s caste system has changed his mind.

Chandra Bhan Prasad, an Indian writer and activist, was once the worst kind of socialist. According to a profile in the New York Times, he had been the kind of Maoist revolutionary who “carried a pistol and recruited his people to kill their upper-caste landlords.”

Now Prasad says the best way to lift low-caste members of society out of poverty is to increase economic freedom, let capitalism flourish. He accuses hardcore leftists of “hatred for those who are happy.”

Prasad is conducting a survey of India’s untouchables to learn about the impact of the economic liberalization that has been underway in India since the early ’90s. His survey finds that they are less likely to be confined to the traditional jobs of their caste, like skinning animals. And that they enjoy more social privileges than they once did.

The Times reporter advises that the results of greater economic freedom are uneven, that many untouchables are still mired in poverty while members of the upper caste still possess great advantage. Not very surprising, eh? You can’t expunge decades and centuries of bad policy and entrenched prejudice with a snap of the fingers.

On the other hand, if you want to bring millions out of grinding poverty, the abundant wealth created by capitalism sure comes in handy. Socialism will keep them poor just fine.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.