Author: Redactor

Categories
political challengers

Will Tea Party Politics Change Party Politics?

Rand Paul’s supporters weren’t alone in celebrating his big win. The AP headline read: “Democrats relish Paul’s GOP win in Ky. Senate race.” Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, chortled over the “stark contrast between Rand and his opponent, state Attorney General Jack Conway.” He thinks Paul’s easier to beat come November than the establishment opponent Paul clobbered.

That used to be the rule. The more radical a candidate, the more likely to be trounced by the status-​quo alternative.

But something’s different this time, right?

Not long ago Rand’s father Ron Paul was regularly ridiculed for being too extreme and “nutty.”

Now it’s the centrists who look nutty. Or, as Rand put it, “The tea party message is not … an extreme message. What is extreme is a $2 trillion deficit.”

Across the country in Washington State, a state representative is being challenged by Tim Sutinen, who is running explicitly under the “Tea Party” banner. A local paper quoted Sutinen as advising the legislature to declare a fiscal emergency and renegotiate state employee contracts. 

The Democratic incumbent showed less glee than his Kentucky colleagues: “Those folks that represent the tea party are obviously good folks who have a view of government and they are frustrated. A lot of people are frustrated about the economy.”

My reading? It’s not just the economy. Continued dishonesty and self-​dealing by politicians even in the midst of the crisis — that’s what’s frustrating.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies too much government

Congress Moves to Censor the Net?

The Internet is not safe. Congress wants to regulate it. The most recent idea is to sic the Federal Elections Commission on Net freedom.

Recent hearings on something called the DISCLOSE Act disclosed that the act would “extend the FEC’s control over broadcast communications to all ‘covered communications,’ including the blogosphere.” Or so say the Center for Competitive Politics’ Bradley Smith and Jeff Patch, writing on Reason​.com.

It’s hard to imagine a worse idea. No groundswell of citizens demanded this. So of course Congress is considering it.

Would they really try to regulate the blogosphere? 

The lead “reformers” in Congress say all they want to regulate are political ads on the Internet, not bloggers. But, as Smith and Patch note, the actual language of the current bill quite clearly leaves open the blogosphere for regulation. They also doubt the good intentions of the would-​be regulators, explaining how, in the early days of McCain-​Feingold advocacy, “the ‘good government’ crowd … denounced a deregulated Internet as a ‘loophole’ in campaign finance law, a ‘poison pill,’ ‘anti-​reform’” etc.

How can respectable Americans advocate regulation of speech, as if the First Amendment did not exist? It’s as if they are baffled by plain language: “Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.…”

How can they live with themselves? 

For me, it’s a consolation to know that at least censors in Congress can still be thrown out, peacefully, with votes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency media and media people

Christie Crushes Crazy Media Crotchet

Whether or not Governor Christie fully succeeds in slashing spending and taxes as they need to be slashed to revive the New Jersey economy, he’s pursuing his mission the right way: head-​on, without a lot of obfuscatory politician-speak.

The latest evidence of forthrightness comes in response to a reporter’s question, the video of which has gone viral. The reporter is puzzled and perturbed by the governor’s terrible tone in dealing with the legislature. He wants to know whether Christie thinks that “this sort of confrontational tone can increase your odds in getting [a trimmer budget] through the legislature?”

Christie says he was sent to the governor’s mansion to combat bigger government, higher taxes, more spending, not to soft-​peddle his views. He’s going to push for lower taxes, lower spending. “Now, I could say it really nicely. I could say it in the way that you all might be more comfortable with. Maybe we could go back to the last administration where I could say it in a way you wouldn’t even understand it.… When you ask me questions, I’m going to answer them directly, straightly, bluntly, and nobody in New Jersey is going to have to wonder where I am on an issue.…”

Meanwhile, aides standing in the background look like they’re about to pump their fists in the air, as perhaps taxpayers are doing right now all around New Jersey. 

All I can say is: Keep up the good work, Governor.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
folly free trade & free markets

Hedging Our Bets

Do congressmen know anything about anything?

Perhaps that’s an unfair question. These guys demonstrate a whole heckuva lot of savvy when it comes to logrolling, porkbarrelling, taxing, spending. Oh, and sniping, grandstanding and griping, and of failing to read bills they pass. I apologize if I implied any deficiency of proficiency in such areas.

I just wonder whether they know anything about real life outside the ways and byways of Capitol Hill.

For example, on the question of whether altering investment strategy in response to changing economic news constitutes “fraud.” If risk management equals fraud, lots of firms should close down tomorrow to protect themselves from congressional subcommittees eager to pretend that government policies have played no major part in screwing up the economy.

Power Line blogger John Hinderaker, after wading through transcripts of the senatorial interrogation of officers from Goldman Sachs, concludes that the senators, “seemingly without exception, are embarrassingly ignorant of modern risk management techniques.… [of] how and why firms like Goldman Sachs hedge their exposure to various economic trends … [They seem] to think that there was something ‘evil’ about taking a short position — that all investors were somehow required to try to keep the housing bubble going.”

Hinderaker’s observations are more detailed than I can recapitulate here. But the bottom line — that those who would run our lives don’t understand the bottom lines of those who actually work and trade for a living — is nothing new.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Economics vs. Politician-​Incurred Debt

For several years now I have worried — here on Common Sense and on Townhall — about the unsustainability of politician-​incurred debt.

I’ve used the word “unsustainable” quite a few times. But too often I’ve simply called it “government debt.” I think I like “politician-​incurred debt” better. For it’s politicians who have been unable to keep from over-spending.

And pretending that the consequent problem of debt is “impossible to solve in the current political climate.”

They’re wrong, of course. The “current political climate” is whatever people think and speak right now. Change the way we think and speak, and suddenly the impossible becomes possible.

But what do economists say?

Economists are notoriously able at the higher maths, such as simultaneous equations, symbolic logic and regression analysis. But the number of economists unfazed by the simple calculations to figure debt load and maintenance is almost as frightening as those figures.

Luckily, those ready to do the arithmetic of public debt are on the rise.

Take economist Veronique de Rugy.

Writing in Reason magazine, de Rugy succinctly offers up the numbers. America’s trillions in debt now surpasses half of Gross Domestic Product. Politician-​incurred borrowing increasingly soaks up the limited capital available, undermining market recovery. She says politicians must “reform entitlement spending, put both military and domestic spending on the chopping block, and start selling off federal assets. Better to do it now than during a fire sale later.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
local leaders political challengers too much government

Tea Party Talking Points

Amy Kremer, director of the Tea Party Express, one of the many organizations that try to steer the Tea Party movement, appeared on The View, recently. She stayed on point, talking sense, on the whole:

  • The movement is all about fiscal issues, limited government, responsibility, and free markets. No social issues, she said. 
  • “We have no leader, the leaders are all across the country.” Sarah Palin is not the Tea Party’s leader.
  • The Tea Party is non-​partisan, crossing “all party lines,” with independents, Democrats, Republicans and libertarians participating.
  • Tea Party folk are most angry at the GOP because “there’s no denying that the spending started under Bush.” 

Ms. Kremer ably steered the conversation away from the traps that The View folk might have liked to see her fall into. Co-​host Joy Behar appeared quite pleased that Kremer acknowledged Bush-​era Republicans as responsible for starting this current trend in over-spending. 

So, good talking points. Other Tea Party folks should emulate her. I say this in part to reiterate points I made on Townhall not long ago. To seriously tackle our massive fiscal problems, the Tea Party will have to confront spending across the board, including a Sarah Palin/​John McCain-​style foreign policy.

How is it that people from across the political spectrum can work together in this movement?

It’s simple: No one but a fool would flirt with government insolvency and ruin.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.