Category: too much government

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
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.

Categories
free trade & free markets government transparency national politics & policies too much government

A Question Worth Asking?

The presidential candidates talk about leadership and change. What’s the one question that combines both, but is not asked? Simple: What happens if it all comes crashing down?

After the worst stock market drop since 9/11, the question doesn’t seem so out of place. Our federal government’s debt is rising fast. Even if we balanced the budget tomorrow, the government would have a deep, multi-trillion dollar debt. Trillions and trillions, you might say.

So, Mr. Obama; so, Mr. McCain — what do you do when the Treasury can’t find anyone to invest in all the debt we have created, and must maintain? What do we do when the compounding of interest and increased deficits make monthly maintenance impossible?

Neither of you have even suggested a balanced budget early in your first term. So what do you do when our credit goes crunch?

Add to this the federal government’s obligations to the citizenry, in the form of Social Security retirements and Medicare and pensions and such, and what can you do?

How do you stave off — or, if not, survive — a worldwide depression?

The scenario is not fantastic. Just look at current figures and crunch the numbers.

So, what would Senators Obama and McCain say? I’d be curious what Bob Barr and Ralph Nader would say, too. Have they thought of the possibility?

This is one question that sure would make the upcoming debates interesting.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom too much government

Ideas Semi-Move the World

Ideas move the world. Want a better world, spread good ideas as widely as possible.

If you can expose enough people to the right ideas, everything will work out for the best, with an ever-wider vista of freedom and achievement as the inevitable consequence. Right?

Well . . . not quite. Ideas and values don’t have any kind of independent existence. Individuals must accept and apply them. Hillary Clinton once admitted to being inspired by Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s mammoth novel celebrating freedom and entrepreneurship and attacking socialism. Yet Hillary still ended up trying to ram socialist health care down our throats. And she ain’t done yet.

Or take Vladimir Putin, the repressive semi-post-Communist Russian leader whose government just invaded the former satellite country of Georgia. The autocratic Putin is no Stalin, but he’s no Jefferson either . . . even if he did attend a Cato seminar on the values of a free society.

It’s true! I recently stumbled across a 2004 issue of Cato Policy Report, published by the libertarian Cato Institute. Ed Crane, Cato’s president, reported that during a long meeting with Putin, Crane and others discussed the benefits of a free press and concerns that the Russian government was repressing the media. Putin seemed open to a more across-the-board freedom. He even said he wanted to “make Moscow the center of liberal debate in Europe.”

Really? Try a little harder, Vlad.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets local leaders too much government

Gateway Capitalism

You’ve heard of “gateway drugs.” What about “gateway capitalism”?

The mayor of Clayton, California, apparently believes that two little girls selling zucchinis and melons by the roadside is the start of something bad.

The city cracked down on Katie and Sabrina Lewis’s veggie stand. Mayor Gregg Manning defended the bust, saying that “They may start out with a little card-table and selling a couple of things, but then who is to say what else they have. Is all the produce made there, do they make it themselves? Are they going to have eggs and chickens for sale next?”

Heavens! Capitalism run amok! Streetside vendors are to be allowed only when city governments run the show, as in the growing movement to establish old-fashioned day-markets. You know, Saturday Markets and Sunday Markets and the like.

But veggie stands, like dreaded lemonade stands, are illegal in Clayton.

You can understand the concern, I guess: Traffic problems. This police operation started off on one complaint. But most neighbors defend the stand, saying that traffic was never a problem.

So now 11-year-old Katie has gotten political. She circulated a petition to reopen the stand, and has lots of signatures. Best of luck to Katie and Sabrina, but I am afraid that the lesson you’ll really be learning isn’t about capitalism at all. It’s about bureaucracy.

And an awful void of common sense.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary property rights too much government

© Is for California

You might think that there’s nothing a government won’t try. You’d be right. But I was near stupified to learn that the state of California copyrights its laws. And it’s not alone.

The state tries to control — through copyright — how you can access its laws, where and how you store them, etc. The state makes available its building codes, plumbing standards and criminal laws online, but requires you to ask for permission to download them!

The state’s out to make money. It charges $1,556 for a digital version, more for a print-out, and makes nearly a million dollars a year selling what is legally ours.

Yes, what’s ours. We are a nation of laws, not of men, and we have the right to own and reprint our laws as much as we want. The purpose of copyright is to ensure private parties can maintain some control over their intellectual property. But the laws themselves are, in point of elementary political theory, the intellectual property of all. Not of state bureaus.

Thankfully, heroic Internet technician and mover and shaker Carl Malamud believes in government transparency. And he, unlike Al Gore, really worked to help build the Internet.

On Labor Day Mr. Malamud published the whole California code online. Available for free.

Obviously, Malamud is spoiling for a fight. Good. He should win it. He has, after all, the law (if not the state) on his side.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Bootless Economic Policy

When I was a kid, what we now call flip-flops were called thongs. When I use the word “thong” about footwear, today, I get funny looks from the kids.

Whether it’s today’s thong, or yesteryear’s, both are skimpy. When you walk, the footwear goes “flip flop, flip flop”; what happens to the underwear, well . . .

Modern Democratic Party economic policy is like the underwear — it quickly creeps into uncomfortable places. Republican economic policy resembles the Democrats’, but also the footwear. Take John McCain’s economic policy: “flip flop, flip flop.”

Recently, McCain pompously took credit for “putting” and “keeping [Americans] in their homes.” Give me a break! He’s not paying the mortgage. I liked it better when, after the housing bubble began to burst, McCain said we should be wary of subsidizing bad business decisions with a massive bailout.

But not long after saying that he then specified a whole bunch of bailout measures. Flip. Hillary Clinton chortled that at last he was getting it, but he wasn’t going far enough.

His basic problem, though, goes back to his philosophy. He said that he’s “committed to using all the resources of this government and great nation to create opportunity and make sure that every deserving American has a good job and can achieve their American dream.”

Flop. To ensure his goal, he should not use all the resources of government!

Sometimes less is more. Like . . . sandals.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Wind Turbine Blues

I’m all for alternative sources of energy . . . providing that they actually produce enough to cover their costs.

Sad to say, it’s beginning to look like wind power is for the birds, if not the bats.

One big fear some people had about wind turbines was that they might kill too many birds. Think giant food processors in the sky.

But it turns out that the bigger danger is to bats. Dead bats are found all around wind turbines. Why?

Wind pressure. The poor little creatures can’t stand the quick change in air pressure around those spinning blades.

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, the government agency overseeing the state’s rebate programs for alternative energy, has put a halt to subsidizing small wind turbines. No more bucks for housetop windmills, folks.

The agency sponsored a study that has calculated that the average energy output for the turbines reviewed was no more than 27 percent of what installers had projected. It could be worse, and sometimes is. In Britain, a study found that some poorly placed turbines sucked up more energy converting current from DC to household AC than produced, making them economic and energy sink holes.

We should remember, when activists start talking about revolutionizing things, that subsidies are for the birds, and technology based on hope alone, bats.

It’s from successful business operations that future revolutions come, not from mere wishful thinking. Or any amount of government subsidy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

McCain’s Admission

John McCain is a man on a mission. But it was his admission that Republicans in Washington have lost their way that jumped out at me as I listened to his speech accepting the Republican Party presidential nomination.

“I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party,” he told Republicans. “We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us.”

Everyone already knows this. We’ve watched power politics triumph over principle.

But it was still nice to hear McCain say it. The first step toward solving a problem is to recognize you have one.

McCain went on to admit, “We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger.”

Oh, yeah, a whole lot bigger.

I began shouting about Republicans selling out principle early on, when, after Republicans took the House back in the 1990s, they quickly also took a dive on enacting term limits.

And the sell-outs just kept coming. Republicans traded their rank and file supporters for a bevy of big special interests.

McCain says he wants to take the party “back to basics,” vowing “low taxes, spending discipline, and open markets.”

That’s the right message. And McCain’s opposition to earmarks is to his credit. But are voters ready to believe it?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.