Author: Redactor

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

What’s the right metaphor for the endlessly complicated assemblage of porkbarrel stuffed into federal spending bills?

Is it a Rubik’s cube, something to be finally and fully revealed when you figure out how to untangle all the interlocking layers? Or more of a matryoshka doll, the nested Russian figurine that reveals yet another copy of itself every time you open it up and think you’ve finally reached the last?

A new book by Winslow Wheeler details an approach to national defense many voters may not know about. Nor even students of porkbarrel. It’s called The Wastrels of Defense: How Congress Sabotages U.S. Security. And it’s all about how congressmen scrub defense-related budget items to make room for pork.

Wheeler spent thirty years as a congressional staffer working on national security issues, on both sides of the aisle. He learned that lawmakers are not simply using the opportunity of a spending bill to lard it with unrelated spending. They’re actually cutting defense expenditures on training and equipment and the like. A kind of sausage-making that’s simple in essence, complicated in ugly political detail. In one chapter, Wheeler recounts how $2.4 billion in actual defense-related items was chopped from a bill while $4 billion in pork was added.

Military spending can also be ill-conceived. But obviously, it should be advocated or opposed on the merits. Not arbitrarily funneled into wasteful favor-trading.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Honest people with income and bills know that it’s possible to cut spending.

We don’t always do it when we should. Sometimes we’re undisciplined. But we suffer costs for that lack of discipline. We suffer them directly—as individuals and as families.

In the world of government expenditure, however, it’s always other people’s money being spent or misspent. And the people willing to pick our pockets don’t suffer any direct costs from squandering the funds.

From this lack of incentive or scruple they derive a theory —  that there’s no way to cut government spending. They’d prefer not to, it’s a bother. So it’s mission impossible.

California lawmakers love this theory. Seems tax revenues are declining of late. Something about a weak economy. State Senator Denise Ducheny advises voters that the state’s budget deficit has now climbed to $14 billion. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez says: “The problem is so severe that we don’t have a choice but to raise taxes.”

Right. No choice but to weaken the economy even further. Make it even harder for people to pay their bills.

We’re hearing similar assertions in response to any tax-cut proposals being made in the presidential campaign. Impossible to shave more than a buck or two from federal spending. So how can we cut taxes? What a quandary.

According to my own theory, it’s easy to cut government spending. Use scissors.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

NBC News recently reported what Rush Limbaugh and many others have been saying for some time now: The push for biofuels — in particular, ethanol — is a major factor in higher food prices. These high prices hurt not only Americans, but consumers worldwide.

This year roughly one-forth of the U.S. corn crop will go to make biofuels. Next year? As much as one-third will go for fuel, not food.

The impact is huge. Corn, in part because of other government subsidy and regulation, has become an ever-bigger part of the food supply. When prices go up, it’s trouble — especially for the poor.

But it’s worse than that. Ethanol is a big scam. Tough talk? No, just the facts, ma’am. Ethanol has been sold as a way to energy independence, as environmentally friendly, and as good for our economy. Three strikes.

Ethanol doesn’t have much effect on foreign oil because it initially substitutes for more expensive domestic oil. Moreover, most environmentalists now insist that producing ethanol is worse, not better for the environment.

And ethanol is not good for the economy. If it provided real economic benefits, its use wouldn’t have to be mandated, nor its production subsidized to the tune of $1 a gallon.

Soaking the taxpayers to wreck the environment and to increase hunger — with no gain in energy independence — well that just doesn’t make any sense.

This is Common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

I’ve discussed the hazards of so-called “Real ID” before. What is it? It’s the regime of beefed-up driver’s licenses the federal government wants to impose, complete with biometrics and all-encompassing national database.

Will there be robust safeguards against snoopy bureaucrats, hackers, etc.? Well, dial up Google.com, plug in “identity theft cases per year” and “lost unencrypted laptop.” Some track record.

The details of a brave new world of national ID take time to master. Fortunately, some stalwarts out there have taken the time and are spreading the word.

One is Mark Lerner. Worried about ID security in the wake of 9/11, he thoroughly acquainted himself with tech industry attempts to beef up ID protocols.

Thursday, May 8, 2008

He learned that rampant problems with the new technology were being glossed over, test results fudged, policymakers and populace misled. He blew the whistle. Was ignored. Is still blowing the whistle.

Which is riskier: Easily compromised biometrics or practically impenetrable biometrics? Either way, it seems, there would be many ways to jeopardize our privacy and security under Real ID. Thanks to Lerner and other principled critics, at least a few states are refusing to implement the program. Thank goodness there may still be state legislators not bought off by the feds. Maybe we have a fighting chance to stop it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Art imitates life. That emblematic movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, echoes in Michigan as I speak.

Jefferson Smith, played by Jimmy Stewart, is the boy scout leader appointed to the U.S. Senate because this political kingpin thought Smith would be easy to hoodwink. But Mr. Smith finds corruption, and he filibusters against the entire senate to end it.

Accused by one old-timer of blocking a needed relief bill, our hero retorts, “The people of my state need permanent relief from crooked men riding their backs.”

The media establishment condemns Smith, and when Smith’s scouts work to get their message out through homemade newspapers, thugs physically block, intimidate, and attack the lads.

In Michigan, similar nastiness has been directed against the campaign to recall Speaker of the House Andy Dillon. Dillon staffers have flocked into the district to intimidate those petitioning to recall their boss.

One such blocker, hired by the Michigan Democratic Party to “educate” voters, is an eight-time felon whose rap sheet includes armed robbery.  The police got involved . . . making robo-calls to residents claiming the recall backers were “extremists” engaged in an “illegal” effort.

The Detroit News piled on, arguing that the recall, precipitated by Dillon’s big tax hike, will cost Michigan taxpayers even more dough because it requires a special election. Except that it won’t. The regularly scheduled August primary will piggy-back the recall vote — which will happen, since last week more than enough signatures were turned in.

In the movie, the good guy wins. The same may be true in Michigan.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

First there were “internal improvements.” Then there was out-and-out “pork” — that is, spending by the federal government for projects of a local, not “federal,” or national, character.

Then, says H.L. Mencken, author of that great big book, The American Language, there was “pork-barrel spending.” Same thing as pork, really. But perhaps the amount of it had grown so much that Americans needed a metaphorical barrel to handle it all.

And then there were earmarks. These were pork spending initiatives not exactly inserted into legislation properly, but somewhat surreptitiously into legislative addenda.

And now there’s something even harder to find, harder to keep track of: “soft earmarks.”

It seems all congressfolk need do is ask, politely, that something be funded. No mention of who really gets the money; no mention, even of the amount. But hey, if asked-for nicely enough, the executive branch has proved more than willing to fund.

Fund what? Oh, a Christian shortwave radio in Madagscar. Pest-fighting efforts in Maryland. Saving hawks in Haiti.

According to the New York Times, these have all been funded without anyone ever really writing out what the cost would be, or even saying “fund this.” It’s all very polite.

And insidious. We work hard for the money; we don’t want it spent so easily that soft words are all that’s needed. I want it voted on. Openly. Honestly.

And preferably defeated.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

After the raid on their religious “compound,” one of the Texas mothers being forcibly bussed away from their children held up a sign.

It said: “SOS. Mothers separated. Help.” Another mom yelled, “We’re being kidnapped.”

The nightmare started with a call to Texas child-protective services by a 16-year-old girl claiming to be a victim of physical and sexual abuse at the FLDS “compound.” (FLDS is the acronym for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.)

It now appears that the call was a hoax. But because of this call, 462 children were removed the ranch. Many of the moms were allowed to stay with their kids temporarily, then forcibly separated.

Based on what evidence? This question should bother us all.

Yes, I know: It’s polygamy. It’s weird. But at issue is not polygamy, but this: FLDS members have been accused of abusing juveniles in the past.

What to do? Investigate. If true, prosecute.

What NOT to do? Round up people like cattle because somebody or other in the large group MIGHT be doing something criminal. If that’s reasonable, then as soon as a neighbor looks at you or me cross-eyed — or makes an anonymous phone call — the police could raid OUR homes, grab OUR kids.

That’s not American justice, is it?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Every year Tim Eyman in Washington state comes up with some new initiative to limit taxes or make government more accountable.

So of course politicians and media people are furious with him.

For years he’s been a member of the Republican Party. But not long ago he joined his county’s Democratic Party. And was surprised to find himself welcomed, at home.

He admits he shouldn’t have been surprised. Sure, his tax limitation measures really vex politicians. But they don’t bother most Democrats. Indeed, one savvy Democrat explained it all to him on his first night in the party. The man said he had never known a Democrat who wanted his taxes to be higher just “so we can waste them on an ineffective government program.”

Only politicians, bureaucrats, and some crazed leftists want that.

The rest of humanity knows that you have to be careful with your money. Even in government. Imagine that!

As Eyman summarized his conversations with his fellow Democrats, “person after person, story after story, suggestion after suggestion . . . it was the same kind of stuff I’ve heard from supporters for years.”

Now, of course not everyone agrees with Eyman. One woman shook his hand, laughing, saying she opposed every initiative he’s ever done, and every one he would do in the future.

But the real truth of the matter is that limiting government is a bipartisan — no, omni-partisan — issue.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

In the 1950s, Dorothy English and her husband bought twenty acres near Portland, Oregon. An investment in their future and their children’s future.

But in 1973, the family was shanghaied by draconian land-use regulations that stopped them from subdividing their property. Eventually Mrs. English’s lawyer counted 61 separate regulations hog-tying her property rights.

Dorothy English fought back.

In 2000, she championed a constitutional amendment to end regulatory takings abuse. The measure passed . . . but was struck down by judges who think it’s unconstitutional to prevent people from being robbed by government.

Then, in 2004, Mrs. English helped pass Measure 37, which orders compensation for victims of regulatory takings. Measure 37 survived challenge. Under its terms, Multnomah County had to waive the regulations on Mrs. English’s land or pay damages exceeding a million dollars.

By now Dorothy was in her 90s. The county knew that if she died before her case was settled, it could avoid paying her the judgment.

The county did run out the clock. The valiant lady has just passed away. Moreover, last year a deceptive ballot measure passed in Oregon that rolled back much of Measure 37.

Dorothy English died without finally regaining the rights to her own property. But she did win a legacy. Many will benefit because she refused to give up. Ever.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Beware of enemies of property rights bearing pallid imitations of the real thing.

Californians face an alternative on the upcoming June ballot: protect their private property, or expose it to the continued attack of politicians and private entities seeking easy ill-gotten gain.

Proposition 98 is the real thing. It would outlaw taking private property for private use. It defines “just compensation” in detail so that persons who lose property to a public use have a better chance of being fairly compensated. It would enable the original owner of a property to buy it back if it was grabbed under false pretenses. And Prop 98 also phases out rent control.

All this is spelled out in California’s official ballot summary. But opponents complained about the official title — “Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property” — saying it doesn’t mention the ban on rent control. Which is, however, clearly stated in the summary. In any case, the courts have rebuffed this attempt to undermine the measure.

Opponents prefer Proposition 99, a much more limited measure. It states that eminent domain may not be abused to steal an “owner-occupied residence.” So Prop 99 basically sanctions the state’s grabbing of small businesses — or any property for any purpose at all if you happen not to live there.

Sorry, 99. But you’re not the right choice for real advocates of property rights.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.