Category: too much government

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.