Author: Redactor

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Designing a Cartel

Interior design: Most homeowners wing it, but a few call in the professionals.

Regulation of interior design: Most states just let our nation’s Graces freely contract with willing Wills. But a significant number of states, including Oklahoma and Connecticut, regulate these designing women and men.

Why? Have you heard a horrified outcry of Upton Sinclairesque proportions? I sure haven’t. I’m sure old Upton would have cooked up some story, if it had crossed his mind. He believed in regulating everything. He hated free enterprise, enough to lie for his cause.

So, who hates freedom of contract enough to regulate the industry?

Why, the industry itself!

A study released last year by the Institute for Justice shows that one group of interior designers, the American Society of Interior Designers, has been pushing regulation for years. Why? For one clear reason: to clear out the competition.

On the bright — or at least pastel — side, the group hasn’t been all that successful recently. So the group has raised its membership fees, redoubled lobbying efforts.

In response, a competing group, the Interior Design Protection Council, joined with the Institute for Justice to declare the month just passed, September, as Interior Design Freedom Month.

It’s too late to celebrate. But — wait a second — shouldn’t every month be Interior Design Freedom Month?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency

Too Darn Much Trouble?

I’m always a little concerned when a politician says it’s just too darn much trouble to play fair with voters and taxpayers.

New York State Governor David Paterson doesn’t want the public to have prior access to documents discussed in open public meetings. He just vetoed a bill sponsored by state Senator John A. DeFrancisco that would have required this common-sense level of transparency.

The governor says requiring agencies to make such documents available in a timely way would “impose a serious burden on agency staff.” It could, he explains, “seriously disrupt the work of boards and commissions” in the days before a scheduled meeting.

Oh, I’m sure effort would be involved. There’s always effort when you have to do things. But these would be documents to be discussed in open public meetings. The officials attending the meetings obviously have access to the documents they’re discussing. Why shouldn’t others troubling to participate also see them? How much time does it take to scan or make an extra photocopy?

Senator DeFrancisco points out that, too often, an open meeting will be held about a document to which the public has had little or no access before the meeting. This obviously makes it harder for the public “to ask informed questions and to fully understand the document being discussed.”

But I’m sure Governor Paterson is smart enough to understand this simple fact. Maybe he understands it all too well.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall

Real Change at the Ballot Box

It’s time to face the fact: We don’t have much say-so in Washington. Take the bailout plan. Please. Though much opposed by the public, politicians insisted on passing something nonetheless. So they did, over outpourings of popular opposition.

And if you think your vote for president will change something, remember: Both major party candidates supported the bailout. And both are heading campaigns run by the same old insiders.

My advice? Get involved closer to home. State and local voters will get the opportunity to make a change this November — not by electing some a politician who will betray them, but by passing or rejecting proposed laws directly.

In Washington State, for example, voters can un-jam traffic with I-985. The initiative is a common-sense measure requiring that traffic lights be synchronized and a higher percentage of current funding be spent to ease congestion.

In South Dakota, voters can prevent the abuse of public money by passing Initiated Measure 10, which stops government funded associations from using tax dollars to further their own political agenda. The measure is being opposed by — you guessed it — government-funded associations.

North Dakotans get a chance to decide Measure 2, a 15 percent cut in corporate income taxes and a 50 percent cut in the personal income tax.

There are, of course, plenty of measures on the ballot with which I don’t agree. But even then, better the people deciding than career politicians.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits too much government

A Barney Frank Appraisal

Guess what: The disastrous policies that spawned our recent mortgage crisis prove that congressional term limits would be a very bad idea.

Not my opinion, I hasten to add. It’s the view of one Edward Tucker, writing a letter to the Wilmington [DE] News-Journal. Sorry, Ed, about how this Internet thing keeps your communiqué from dropping immediately into the ash heap of history.

Tucker’s view is typical of those who claim term limits would disastrously eject “experience” from the halls of power. He has nothing but praise for the expertise and gab gift of Representative Barney Frank, who has clung to his seat since 1981.

“The ability of only a few elected officials, such as . . . Barney Frank of Massachusetts, to speak intelligently about financial issues…has been impressive and reminds us that elected officials can grow expertise in office.”

Sorry, Mr. Tucker. But Barney was not one of the few congressmen who had been trying to curb the reckless lending policies of the Federal Reserve and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (The three Big Fat F’s that each deserve a Big Fat F.) Frank was, frankly, one of the chief enablers of federal policies that pushed easy credit and shaky mortgage loans.

Long-time incumbents may become expert indeed at spewing plausible-sounding nonsense in front of the cameras. But expertise in con-artistry isn’t quite the cure-all it’s cracked up to be.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Don’t Bank On It

It’s not a chorus.

If you’ve been watching the “debate” over how best to con American voters into giving troubled banks $700 billion for bad loans, you might think it’s a chorus in the financial industry, especially from bank presidents.

You might assume they’re all shouting: GIVE US THE BAILOUT MONEY! NOW!

Not so. At least one banker dissents. John Allison, president of BB&T — with $136 billion in assets and 1500 branches — sent an open letter to Congress protesting the bad economics behind the bailout. He notes that his own company, though affected by the downturn, is in a much stronger position than many of BB&T’s competitors.

Why? Well, his bank did not join the orgy of bad lending, despite the enticement of the Federal Reserve’s easy credit policies and government pressure to give loans to bad-risk borrowers.

So why should the government reward the bad economic conduct of institutions that played along with the bad government policies? Why make it harder for the economy to recover by punishing sound and productive economic conduct with burdensome new government taxes?

Allison thinks the debate has suffered from domination, as he says, by those “financial institutions [that] made very poor decisions.”

Perhaps it’s because politicians have a whole lot more in common with foolish decision-makers than wise ones. . . .

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

A Bloombergian, Buzzing Confusion

A politician has changed his mind about term limits.

Over the years, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City has often expressed firm support for the city’s two-term limit on officials. But lately his comments about term limits have been getting fuzzier.

And now the newspapers report that the mayor openly supports a unilateral revision by the city council to weaken the limits from two terms to three.

The change would have to be unilateral. Bloomberg is a popular mayor, but his own polling shows that most New Yorkers, although they may like him, would dislike any weakening of the term limits law.

New Yorkers passed the two-term limit in 1993. They confirmed their support in 1996. Bloomberg and city councilors will be showing an extraordinary contempt for the voters if they dictatorially trash term limits to cling to power.

The bad news gets worse, alas.

Ronald Lauder, the billionaire who financed the term-limits drive in 1993, now says he supports a third term for Bloomberg, and supports bypassing voters.

Lauder contends that in these trying financial times, it is just too risky to let anyone else man the helm. Funny, though, how the city managed to carry on in the wake of 9/11, letting Mayor Giuliani step down. That was a worse mess.

But then, the mess may be in the eye of the incumbent.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

$700 Billion Bad Bet

The administration’s proposed $700 billion bank bailout has finally passed the Congress — in large part because of fear that the economy would crumble if “something” wasn’t done.

But the magic men in Washington don’t have any guaranteed fixes in their bag of tricks. Certainly robbing the taxpayers of $700 billion — that’s a billion, 700 times — won’t cure the economy.

It will, long run, hurt the economy. How? By hampering realistic adjustment to current market conditions. It means taking $700 billion from productive economic activities to buy up debt at prices nobody in the private market is willing to pay. As economist Arnold Kling points out, “If [Bernanke and Paulson] were taking their plan to a venture capital firm to seek funding, they would be laughed out of the office.”

How did we get here? In previous years, the federal government compelled banks to give mortgages to persons who really couldn’t afford them. Meanwhile, the easy credit policies of the Federal Reserve made it easy for banks to obey these irresponsible demands.

Hence the housing bubble. Which popped.

The only long-term solution is to get the government out of the market. Stop trying to paper over the horrendous consequences of past government interventions with even worse government interventions. The free market ought to be free. Otherwise, we’ll one day end up with no market at all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability insider corruption

Corrupt Cooking

Can you be kicked out of the government for serving sautéed shad roe?

Prime Minister Samak Sundarave of Thailand has just been ousted by a Thai court for violating the constitution. His crime? Hosting TV cooking shows while in office.

Samak was the host of “Tasting, Grumbling,” and “Touring at 6 a.m.” After becoming premier, he kept doing them for weeks, until finally quitting the shows in response to political outcry.

Samak probably violated Thai law. But I can’t say I’m appalled by the spectacle of someone in the government also holding a legitimate private-sector job. And I don’t think the concept of “appearance of corruption” should be so elastic that it distracts us from recognizing and combating real corruption.

In the U.S., Senator Tom Coburn has been battling the loose and even corrupt spending habits of senatorial colleagues. He has also, as senator, continued working as a doctor delivering babies. Coburn has agreed to collect no pay for his work, but the Senate’s so-called ethics committee wants him to stop. Ridiculous.

I’m no expert on politics in Thailand. Perhaps Samak is verifiably corrupt — for reasons having nothing to do with mixing sauces on television. Opponents have also been gunning for Samak’s cabinet. Perhaps the complaint about his cooking was just a handy way to get rid of him.

But in my book, that’s the wrong way to cook up a scandal.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

Reader’s Remorse

You know what buyer’s remorse is, right? The New York Times doesn’t.

When you purchase something and then realize it wasn’t worth what you paid, that’s buyer’s remorse. The Times stretched the concept to enacting a public policy and then realizing the policy isn’t working.

David Chen and Michael Barbaro’s recent article on term limits led off by informing us that “A decade after communities around the country adopted term limits, at least two dozen city governments are suffering from a case of buyer’s remorse.”

But hold on. City governments [read: city politicians] didn’t bring us term limits. It was the voters, using the initiative process. Because politicians never “bought” the idea, they can’t have buyer’s remorse.

Politicians do complain about term limits. For instance, Tacoma, Washington, Councilwoman Connie Ladenburg fears that if she has to give up her seat a $2 million pedestrian and bike trail she’s been pushing might not be completed.

In Rowlett, Texas, a Dallas suburb, the mayor decries that term limits make it harder to land positions on national organizations like the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

New Yorkers have twice voted for term limits. Still no voter’s remorse. That’s why Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council are scheming to repeal the limits, without a vote of the people.

Many have talked about Bloomberg as a possible independent candidate for president. But it looks like he’ll go down as just another politician.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets

When Do We Become Adults?

What is being an adult all about?

Doesn’t maturity have to do with taking responsibility for your life, for your decisions?

Of course, it is often appropriate to ask for help, to underwrite dreams or salvage the shipwrecks of them when we screw up.

But even when seeking help, you do it like a grown-up rather than, say, a whining child. You ask for the help. Politely. As opposed to assuming that other people just owe it to you, to heck with their own circumstances and priorities.

Yet government now subsidizes every big-ticket project on our every wish list, hurling more money at us when we botch the job. It’s as if they’re paying us to be irresponsible.

No shock, then, when people do in fact act irresponsibly, buying homes or making loans they can’t really afford.

Ford, GM, and Chrysler — the Big Three of American automakers — now ask for a $50 billion low-interest loan from the U.S. government. Why? So they can modernize their plants to make more efficient cars. What, just $50 billion?

What about me? I need to re-shingle my roof.  Please, government, give me a million. Just take it from my neighbors, no problem.

You know, if Chrysler had been allowed to fail back in Iaccoca days, GM and Ford may have learned a lesson — grown up — and wouldn’t think to ask for handouts today. Or need to.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.