Author: Redactor

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.