Author: Redactor

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall too much government

The People Speak

Mainstream media often become so fixed on the major players in Washington, DC, that journalists miss the most telling democratic action: At state and local levels, regarding initiatives.

Nicely, there are exceptions. An editorial, last week, in The Washington Times was subtitled “Ballot initiatives advance a limited government agenda in the heartland,” and explained how “voters showed their displeasure with the country’s direction with their votes” … on particular ballot measures.

The editorial lists numerous important initiatives around the country: 

  • Oklahoma’s and Arizona’s nullification of Obamacare provisions (and Colorado’s failure to do so);
  • Nevada citizens killing “a sneaky amendment designed to undermine protections from eminent-​domain seizures for private gain”;
  • Several states blocking our president’s union-​vote rule revisions, known as card-check;
  • Louisiana “stopped public officials from voting themselves a salary boost until after they stand for re-election”;
  • Washington citizens overturned sales taxes on foodstuffs that left-​leaning folk regard as sinful, such as soda pop and candy and the like.

Washington State sported an even weightier initiative, one famously sponsored by Bill Gates’s dad. TV ads featured Bill Sr. getting dunked. It wasn’t a baptism. He was pitching for a “soak the rich” income tax in the state. The ad didn’t make a great deal of sense, and Evergreen State voters nixed the income tax once again. 

The Times editorial ends advising Democrats that they need “to listen to what the public has to say.” But, obviously, Republicans need to listen, too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

QE Q&A

It’s one of those terms seemingly designed to conceal something ugly, dangerous, or unnerving; this example of contemporary policy jargon just looks like a euphemism. It’s “quantitative easing” (QE) and it’s Federal Reserve policy.

What does the “quantitative” part refer to?

The quantity of money in bank reserves.

Is this all about increasing that quantity?

Yes.

Isn’t that synonymous with inflation?

According to the old definition — where inflation is the increase in the supply of money — yes. But since economists became obsessed with the price level, and “correcting” the price level, today inflation usually designates a general rise in prices. Of course, more money will tend to raise prices. But because demand for money can offset supply moves, price levels are not affected on a simple input-​output, one-​to-​one manner.

Is this what we call “printing money”?

Yes, but in the digital ledgers of banks, not in terms of paper dollars.

So this “easing” is just “easy money”?

Yes, but not “just.” Because the new money hits bank reserves, it eases banks’ pressure vis-​a-​vis risk. So banks can lend more.

Will banks, helped out by QE, actually follow through and make loans?

Big question. They didn’t, much, after the bailouts. Banks loan funds only when they can expect a return. Monetary manipulation doesn’t, presto chango, solve the problem of the future. If the future looks especially unstable, or uncertain, no loan.

Will this necessarily jump-​start the economy?

No. Our elite experts’ desperation is showing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture

Three Cheers for Robert Murphy

Here’s something worth three cheers. Possibly four.

Robert Murphy is a prolific young economist of the free-​market “Austrian” school of economics, which has a vibrant online presence at Mises​.org, the website of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

In October, Murphy decided to challenge Paul Krugman, the prominent economics professor, author and New York Times columnist, to a debate on Keynesian versus Austrian business cycle theory. After all, as Nobel-​Prize-​winning economist and partisan left-​wing scribbler, Krugman tends to insist on policies the opposite of what any reasonable economic conclusion might be. 

Krugman’s extremist, Big Government über alles positions should make for a great fireworks display in a well-​attended debate with the scrupulously sane and reasonable Murphy. Point-​counterpoint. The debate would also be a great venue for Murphy to publicize the sorely needed Austrian explanation of why massive governmental perversion of capital structure and market incentives ain’t exactly the best way to foster economic growth.

Murphy launched an Internet campaign, complete with goofy (and funny) animated YouTube video, to pressure Krugman. Murphy is asking folks to pledge a sum to the Fresh Food Program at a New York food bank that would be collected only if Krugman does debate him. 

At last count, pledges have topped $50,000.

I hope Krugman agrees. Feeding hungry people is a good cause, and so is saving the economy from annihilation by Krugmanesque economics. 

Meantime, give Murphy at least three huzzahs for pluck.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Hair-​razing!

“Hands up! Drop the clippers! Step awayyyyyyy from the barber chair!”

That might not be exactly what the deputies and inspectors, under color of bureaucratic authority, warbled as they raided at least nine barber shops in Orange County, Florida. But armed men did invade the central-​Florida shops in August and September, and without warrants.

They did arrest “criminal” thatch dispatchers for handling hair despite lack of a license.

The “authority” here was that of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, whose inspectors were aided in their quest to protect the public from bad trim jobs by the dozen-​plus deputies joining the raids. In a few cases, pot or guns were found along with maleficent lack of licensure. But the pretext was to clamp down on unauthorized peaceful means of making a living. 

In one raid, the barbers of the assailed shop all did have current licenses, but had to sit around in handcuffs while that fact was confirmed.

The Orlando Sentinel notes that most of the 37 people arrested as a result of the “unprecedented” raids were charged with only the misdemeanor of “barbering without a license.” It’s not obvious why anybody would want to divert resources from real crime fighting to conduct such idiotic assaults. Nobody really thinks that barbers habitually graduate from illegal buzz cuts to home invasions and murders. 

I hope the victims consider suing. That might help prevent this travesty from happening again.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Divided We Stand

Politicians like to talk about “unity” and “co-​operation” and “getting things done.”

This would be all well and good if, when they manage to co-​operate, they could restrain themselves from going whole hog and radically increasing government spending.

But the evidence is: They can’t.

Politicians in Washington are most co-​operative and least “obstructionist” when the legislative and executive branches are united by party — that is, the majority’s in Congress is the same as the president’s. But look what happens when there’s united government under one party: Government growth.

A graph compiled by Mercatus Center research fellow Matthew Mitchell makes this easy to see:

Since Eisenhower, the federal government has grown every administration, every year. But the rate of growth is highest when government is united by party. It tends to grow less when there’s divided government. The rate of growth? 2.55 percent with divided government, and nearly double that — 4.67 percent — with united government.

If you look at the graph carefully, you can see there are anomalous developments and periods. And you can see that some famous (Reagan, Clinton-​era) attempts at pruning spending hasn’t amounted to a reduction in total spending, yet. But still, the graph is a bit comforting, when you realize that we have divided government now, after a period of united government and massive spending increases. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers term limits

Congressional Stagnation at an End?

With this last election, 87 percent of House incumbents who chose to run for re-​election got re-elected.

That’s low by modern standards. In fact, it’s the lowest since 1970, which garnered 85 percent rates for incumbents.

But it’s high by older standards. Eric O’Keefe, of the Sam Adams Alliance, says that the re-​election rate may be low today but remains higher “than every election of the 19th century.”

Something changed. Individual career politicians gained the upper hand. 

On the brighter side, it’s worth noting that if you include “voluntary retirement” in current figures, the turnover rate was much higher. Forty-​five open House seats saw 16 flips of party affiliation, all but one going from Democrat to Republican. This leads Doug Mataconis to figure the retention rate at 64 percent. (Still, in the 19th century, that same rate averaged to under 60 percent.)

Of course, many of our recent “voluntary retirees” may have seen the writing on the wall, preferring to bow out with more dignity than an electoral trouncing would allow.

Credit this to an exceptional frisson amongst the voting public, born of anger and disgust at the political class’s habitual over-​spending and general foolishness. 

It remains to be seen whether this acuity of citizen focus can alone spur continued turnover and real change. It seems unlikely, which is why I’ve long supported term limits.

But, whatever the source, real change is necessary. And the current turnover, welcome.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.