Author: Redactor

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Is More Regulation the Answer?

Regulation. We’re told that it would have saved us from this and that event associated with the current economic downturn.

Well, probably not.

First off, remember that we have had regulation during this period. Clinton upped regulatory oversight of businesses; so did Bush.

Next, the mere fact that there are regulations doesn’t make them effective. Take Bernard Madoff. What Madoff engaged in was a swindle — not a hard-to-control best-intentions-turned-wrong investment fiasco but an actual, intentional fraud.

But as columnist Steve Chapman recently observed, the federal bureaucrats whose job it was to regulate investment businesses investigated Madoff “at least eight times in 16 years,” never, ever “coming close” to the fraud.

”So what,” Chapman asks, “makes you think that future bureaucrats, no matter how vast their authority, will be able to do better?”

Another thing about regulation is that there are several kinds.

When the founding fathers talked about regulating trade, they didn’t mean micromanaging trade to get specific outcomes. The founders meant “to make regular,” as in establishing standards . . . like what is the difference between sound investments and elaborate frauds.

That’s hard enough. Micromanaging a million businesses, to prevent certain unfortunate outcomes, is pretty much impossible.

Past performance is a good indicator of future performance. Just adding a bunch of regulators? That’s no help, since we haven’t discovered any new magic since the last batch failed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Amendment 2 . . . In Plain English

NOTE: This is a revised, updated episode, as played on radio stations.
The original episode can be found here

On January 22, two separate issues appeared on the ballot in Nashville, Tennessee. But voters may not have known that. Seems some folks didn’t want them to know.

You see, Amendment 1, called “English-Only,” stirred up lots of controversy. That initiative read, in part: “all official government communications and publications shall be in English.”

A group called Nashville for All of Us raised $300,000 and, along with the mayor and the governor, campaigned against it. In the course of their campaign, every advertisement urged a vote against both Amendment 1 AND Amendment 2.

Yet, strangely, there was absolutely no mention in their ads or on their website as to what Amendment 2 was about.

Well, in plain English, Amendment 2 had nothing to do with English-Only. Amendment 2 was called Hear the People, and sought to protect the people’s initiative rights. Unfortunately, it went down to defeat along with English-Only.

That’s too bad, because Amendment 2 would have made it easier to put issues on general election ballots rather than on costly special elections, like this one. Amendment 2 would have lowered the number of signatures needed to place an issue on the ballot. And it would have prevented the Metro Council from amending or repealing measures passed by voters . . . at least for four years.

No wonder some folks didn’t want the voters to know about Amendment 2.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Discord Over Spending in Concord

I’ve read the proposed amendment to the Concord, New Hampshire, city charter and read it again. It looks like a fine, responsible attempt to limit government growth.

But Paul Cavanaugh, Concord’s city solicitor, has quite a different view. While three state agencies have given the proposed amendment their go-ahead, he filed an appeal, arguing that the amendment’s spending cap would interfere with the city’s ability to pay for legally required welfare and public safety services.

On first blush, it seems he may have something. If you limit government growth with a charter amendment, and the state still requires you to pay out certain services, and there’s an influx of people who ask for such services . . . what do you do?

Well, you could develop a rainy day fund for just those services, to cover unexpected demands. Or, perhaps, prioritize spending just a tad. Stop spending so much on discretionary items so you have the funds to fulfill your constitutional duties.

Yet the first thing that came to mind for Cavanaugh and Concord’s politicians was to block the citizens from voting on the spending limit. Force it off the ballot.

Politicians! They will do anything, it seems, rather than spend wisely.

It’s sad, really. Politicians hate saving. They hate not spending. Most of all, they hate citizens control of their prodigal ways.

That’s why it is citizens who should decide, directly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Trillions I Say

I hate to talk bailouts all the time. But the feds keep throwing more misallocated trillions at the problem.

What problem? Oh, you know — the predictable consequences of all the previously misallocated trillions.

We keep hearing about fresh piles of governmental largesse being devoted to making our troubles as long-lasting and burdensome as possible. Of course, the central planners in D.C. don’t admit the necessary effects of their wastrel social-engineering ways. They would rather call it, say, “investing,” or “economic stimulus.”

Economist Henry Hazlitt pointed out that government spending does nothing to “stimulate” the economy. It merely directs “labor and capital into the production of less necessary goods or services at the expense of more necessary goods or services.”

What politicians are really doing is buying votes, keeping themselves in office longer . . . while the bad times roll.

Our calculations of red ink should consider not only the federal debt on the books, which is now more than $10 trillion, but also the unfunded liability for Social Security and other programs. Adding all that, we get something like $70 trillion or more we’re on the hook for.

I did some quick math. A stack of 70 trillion one dollar bills would be close to 48 million miles high. More than half the average distance between the earth and the sun.

Just thought I’d mention it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Citizen Rights Emergency

It’s an emergency! You may not be able to finish this two-minute commentary before the Marines bust through the door to save us. Or, it could be the Coast Guard. Or the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Well, not FEMA. But this is a big deal . . . at least in Maine’s state legislature. What’s the giant emergency, you ask? Are you sitting down? Citizens in Maine just might petition to place an issue on the ballot through the state’s initiative process or use their people’s veto to refer a bill passed by the legislature to a vote.

You see the problem, don’t you? Then people would decide. Not the politicians.

Last year, a group called Fed Up With Taxes put the so-called Dirigo Drink Tax to a vote of the people. In November, Mainers voted to repeal the legislature’s tax.

Some politicians don’t much like uppity voters having government their way. So they want to declare an emergency.

Running to rescue unresponsive government is Representative Mark Bryant, who introduced an emergency bill to require all people who gather petitions to be registered to vote.

There are two problems with Bryant’s bill.

First, it is unconstitutional: Years ago the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such requirements made no sense — except as a way to unfairly block petitions.

Second, shredding the Constitution doesn’t qualify as an emergency.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency

Change So Far

President Barack Obama promised change . . . including in the way Congress did things. As a senator, he sponsored a transparency bill that — if Congress could only have stuck with after passing — would have publicized all proposed pork.

And there’s the rub. Congress is constitutionally in charge of change, really. You might say “change” is Congress’s job: New things for government are supposed to come from Congress in the form of legislation. Not from the president.

So how has Congress helped? Well, as I’ve reported before, the new Congress has indicated pretty clearly what kind of change it wants: A stronger stranglehold on power and a narrow purview of options to be considered.

None of this represent the kind of change Americans want . . . or Obama promised.

The most interesting procedural proposals come, these days, from the minority Republicans.

Opposing the developing Democrat bailout package (that spends more trillions we don’t have), House Minority Leader John Boehner asked that no so such bill be “brought to the floor of the House unless there have been public hearings in the appropriate committees, the entire text has been available online for the American people to review for at least one week, and it includes no special-interest earmarks.”

Veteran Washington reporter Cokie Roberts called Boehner’s proposal “delightful.”

Delightful it is, and in Obama’s spirit, too, but it’s up to Congress to deliver.

So far, no good.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies

The Oklahoma Three, Free at Last

It seemed hardly necessary. The handcuffs and leg-irons, I mean. I wasn’t a threat to anybody. Neither were Rick Carpenter and Susan Johnson.

We had been charged with “conspiracy to defraud the state of Oklahoma” for our work to put a spending cap on the ballot.

The metal constraints were for show — to intimidate us and to scare the good citizens of Oklahoma.

The threatened penalty of ten years in prison was scary, too.

Being innocent, we defended our rights, even as the persecution dragged on for a year and half. Not even a preliminary hearing had been completed. Folks wondered if Attorney General Drew Edmondson was more interested in tying us up politically than in prosecuting us legally.

We never got our day in court; the Constitution intervened. Not only did we not break Oklahoma’s residency law, the federal Tenth Circuit declared the law itself an unconstitutional violation of our First Amendment rights.

So, on January 22nd, the AG dismissed the charges. It was a great day — for all of us.

But the underlying mindset of the original law and prosecution remains. Legislators continue to enact unconstitutional impediments against citizen use of ballot initiatives and recall petitions. Too often, officials seek to punish citizens who assert their rights.

Citizens in chains cannot control their government. That’s why, working with the group Citizens in Charge Foundation, I’ll keep fighting.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets

No Paradox?

When you read the papers, good news turns bad with a turn of a phrase.

The Wall Street Journal, reporting on a general decrease in private spending, cannot help but mention that old alleged problem of “the paradox of thrift.”

“Usually,” writes Kelley Evans, ”frugality is good for individuals and for the economy. Savings serve as a reservoir of capital that can be used to finance investment, which helps raise a nation’s standard of living. But in a recession, increased saving — or its flip side, decreased spending — can exacerbate the economy’s woes.”

Evans goes on, elaborating about the community-wide effects of cutting back spending: Consumer-oriented businesses going out of business.

So, do you see the paradox? In normal times, we say savings is good. But when things are bad, and people wise up to save more — or pay off debt — businesses relying on previous levels of spending are hurt.

Household debt has gone down for the first time since 1952. That’s good for the future, because this savings will allow future investment. For right now, though, the savings and debt reduction come at a social cost.

But this will go on only as long as the rate of savings shifts. When people’s rates of savings to spending stabilizes at a new level, the economy will be able to stabilize, too.

Not so much a paradox as a painful adjustment period. That’s life.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Amendment 2 . . . In Plain English

Today in Nashville, Tennessee, two issues are on the ballot. But voters may not  know what they are. Some people don’t want them to know.

You see, Amendment 1, a measure called “English-Only,” has stirred up lots of controversy. The initiative reads: “Official actions which bind or commit the government shall be taken only in the English language, and all official government communications and publications shall be in English.”

A group called Nashville for All of Us has raised $300,000 and has campaigned against it. In the course of their campaign, every ad urges a vote against both Amendment 1 and Amendment 2.

Yet, strangely, there is absolutely no mention in their ads or on their website as to what Amendment 2 is about — just constant exhortations to vote against it.

Well, in plain English, Amendment 2 has nothing to do with English-Only. It’s about Nashville voters protecting their initiative rights. Amendment 2 makes it easier to put ballot measures on the general election when the most people come out to vote, rather than on special elections that needlessly cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

Amendment 2 would also standardize and lower the petition requirement to place an issue on the ballot. And Amendment 2 would prevent the Metro Council from amending or repealing measures passed by voters . . . at least for four years.

No wonder some folks don’t want to discuss Amendment 2.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom local leaders

Annoyed by Anti-Annoyance Law

I’m annoyed by a new law passed in the Michigan town of Brighton City.

According to the ordinance, police may fine anyone who is too annoying in public. Up to $500. The ordinance states: “It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.”

Obviously, many different things annoy many different people, most having little to do with the possible or actual commission of a crime.

If you and I are annoyed, think about how annoyed the folks are who actually live there. One resident, Charles Griffin, told ABC News that the new law is “the most ridiculous thing in the world.”

Area resident Chetly Zarko has written to the council asking them to repeal the law, arguing that it is “unconstitutionally vague . . . and impedes on free expression rights under the First Amendment.”

Council members say critics are blowing things out of proportion. They say people aren’t going to be ticketed for talking too loud or making complaints to public officials, but for things like persistent harassment of an ex-girlfriend or the like.

But words mean what they say, don’t they? They don’t mean what they would have meant if only you had said what you meant.

In the spirit of being careful with words, let me revise my opening statement: I am more than merely annoyed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.