Category: too much government

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

Nifty Doesn’t Cut It

Just because something can be done doesn’t make it economical to do. There is a big difference between physics and economics.

Take ethanol. It might seem nifty to grow the fuel for our cars and trucks like we do our food, in fields. But niftiness alone is not enough. Nifty notions, like un-nifty ones, must prove out in terms of all the costs involved.

A growing amount of research shows that ethanol doesn’t cut costs at all.

The most recent ethanol debunker I’ve come across is Robert Bryce, author of a forthcoming book with a provocative title, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of “Energy Independence.” Interviewed on ReasonOnline by Brian Doherty, Bryce offers some fascinating perspectives on energy economics and policies.

  • Did you know that for every gallon of ethanol, there’s at least 51 cents of subsidy?
  • Had you heard that corn-​based ethanol produces more greenhouse gases than does our use of fossil fuels?
  • Have you stopped to think about all the water that raising more corn would require, and the increasing expense of getting gargantuan more amounts to farms in the midwest?

These and other considerations lead Robert Bryce to call current ethanol policy a “scam”and “the longest running robbery of taxpayers in American history.”

Some forms of bio-​product may be more economically feasible than ethanol, like the biodiesel made from the unused parts of slaughtered animals. But we should wait to see how they cost out, too, without subsidy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
too much government

Mississippi Burning … Fat?

Our discussions of government gone wild would be a lot more amusing if we didn’t have to actually live with the consequences. That we do tends to mitigate the uproarious hilarity of the politicians’ effervescent insanity.

Awhile back we might have offered a dismissive chuckle to the Big Brother-​ish New York City policy of banning restaurants from using trans fat. Personally, I avoid trans fat, as more and more Americans are doing.

But what business is it of the government?

The state doesn’t pay my food bill or my medical bills. Though, some politicians sure would like to make taxpayers pick up the tab.

Now Mississippi Representatives W.T. Mayhall and John Read, Republicans, and Bobby Shows, a Democrat, have pushed nanny government to new heights. These nabobs have introduced legislation to tell restaurants who they may or may not serve. If passed, House Bill 282 would force restaurants to refuse to sell food to those deemed by the state health department to be obese.

I don’t have to explain that discrimination on the basis of race or gender or creed — or even percentage of body fat — is just plain wrong. Everybody knows this.

Everybody but politicians, it seems. So, here it is in terms even politicians might comprehend: Obesity is unhealthy. But in America we believe in individual freedom. In other words, it’s your life.

Moreover, forced discrimination is the opposite of freedom. And even more deadly than obesity.

And definitely not that funny.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Stimulus, Response

Wall Street and the real estate markets have taken big hits, and so, to prevent a major recession, our president and representatives immediately began one-​upping each other about a “stimulus package.”

And my thoughts go back to my classroom days. In biology.

There were these frogs, see. Dead frogs. On the table. Some of the kids would take a battery with some wires attached, and prod the dead frog, stimulating nerves to make the dead, half-​dissected frogs jump.

Half the boys in the class thought it a hoot, half the girls thought it gross. Or maybe more than half.

Sometimes I think this is about as much as we ever were prepared for thinking about stimulus packages.

The economy is not a dead frog. it’s alive, and it’s received a shock. A better analogy might be to someone who’s received a blow to the head. You don’t necessarily immediately start applying shock therapy to get the person moving. Ask a nurse what to do. Most of the time, the body repairs itself. In due time. With care taken not to jar the person again.

But a blow to an ecosystem — like an economy — is more complicated than even some guy with a concussion. And, listening to the debate over the stimulus package, and then reading actual, astute economists consider the politicians’ proposals, and Iâ’m thinking …

Frog or no frog, the stimulus notions politicians prefer seem more directed towards influencing voters than getting the economy to jump back into action.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Powell Power

Should we be getting ulcers over the “digital divide” — the tragedy that not every single American already has a computer and Internet access?

Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell and the new chairman of the FCC, doesn’t think so. Shortly after he started his new job, the press asked him what he thought of the so-​called digital divide. Powell said, “I think there’s a Mercedes divide. I’d like one, but I can’t afford it.” 

Powell also said that he thought the very concept of a digital divide is a bit misleading. That’s because it “suggests that the minute a new and innovative technology is introduced in the market, there is a divide unless it is equitably distributed among every part of the society, and that is just an unreal understanding of the American capitalist system.” Powell noted that the end-​of-​the-​line of that way of thinking is pure socialism.

Every time something new comes along you’d have to make sure everybody has it or nobody has it, which would kill innovation and economic improvement. Just so the politicians can have something to do. After all, every big new thing on the market is expensive at first and only the few can afford it. Then it gets cheaper and cheaper and more and more widely available.

That’s been the pattern with cars, plane travel and TV sets, and certainly with desktop computers and the Internet. It’s not a terrible thing; it’s a great thing. More power to Powell. Instead of pandering, he made it clear that in America you aren’t supposed to get everything you want, just what you earn.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense initiative, referendum, and recall too much government

Killing Me Softly

Here we go again. As soon as the people gain a little democratic power over their own government, the politicians line up to snatch it back.  Now the governors of Arizona and Maine are attacking the initiative and referendum process, or I & R.

I & R is a very good thing because it allows the people to have a say in government a say that can’t be overturned by special interests and politicians. But that’s just the problem, according to folks like Maine Governor Angus King.  King, says, “Government by referendum is not the system that we have in this country.”

But the state of Maine had its first referendum in 1911. King may be taking that last name of his just a little too seriously we’re still a democratic republic, last time I checked, where the people are supposed to be in charge.

Politicians, like King, know they don’t stand a chance of abolishing Initiative and Referendum outright, so instead they just want to strangle it slowly. King wants to hike the number of signatures required on petitions, mandate that a certain percentage of signatures come from each county, and prohibit signature gathering near polling places. Governor Jane Hull of Arizona wants similar restrictions. That way, they can stop people who lack big bucks or big connections from having a say in government.

It’s no way to represent the people, that’s for sure. And come to think of it, that’s another reason for the initiative process.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

More Politicians?

Even in good economic times, Americans are unhappy with our government. So when someone suggests that what we really need in Washington are five times as many politicians as we have today, well, my first thought is, “Are you crazy?”

But that’s exactly what Bob Novak advocates in his new book. Novak says let’s increase the U.S. House from 435 members to 2,000. But cut the salary of each representative to one fifth what we now pay. It would mean that instead of representing 500,000 people, a congressman would represent about 100,000 people. More personal campaigning and fewer TV ads.

A candidate without much money would have a better chance to speak directly to voters. Instead of spending over a million dollars on their office and paying congressmen more than $140,000 a year, they’d get only $200,000 on their office and $28,000 for salary. Are career congressmen likely to chop their own personal power to do what’s best for the country and the institution of Congress? Nope. But they do talk a lot about taking the big money out of politics.

Well, if they’re serious, this is one way to do it without destroying the First Amendment and handing incumbents the power to regulate their opponents. Increasing the number of congressmen would strengthen the connection between the representative and the individual citizen. I never thought I’d say it, but we could use more congressmen. They would represent us better.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.