Categories
regulation too much government

Control of Air Traffic Control

A terrible accident near Reagan National Airport reminds us that reform of our air traffic control system has been overdue for decades.

One story discusses the pilots’ longtime concerns about safety problems specific to Reagan National. But the decrepit state of air traffic control afflicts every airport.

John Tierney outlines some of the problems.

  • Too many controllers rely on outdated technology. Elsewhere, controllers use sophisticated computer systems to handle complicated hand-​off (and other) tasks efficiently. But American controllers are “still using pieces of paper called flight strips” that must be carried around the control room.
  • U.S. controllers lack access to satellite technology that would enable them to more precisely guide and monitor planes. No infrared systems on runways either; controllers must look out the window to see what planes are doing, a big problem during bad weather.
  • Lousy politics has obstructed change. An independent corporation, not a “cumbersome federal bureaucracy,” should be operating the control towers, Tierney argues. But widely supported efforts to fix things have gone nowhere, partly because some lawmakers want to maintain congressional control.

Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation, who has been pushing for reform of U.S. air traffic control for five decades, thinks now something may happen.

“The public and opinion leaders now know a lot more about the FAA’s shortcomings,” he says. “With DOGE and the Trump administration shaking things up, perhaps the time for real reform has finally arrived.”

Let’s hope accountability has safely landed. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets regulation too much government

Unplugging the EV Mandate

Under the Biden administration, gas-​powered vehicles were on a government-​impelled road to decline.

In March 2024, the EPA finalized Biden’s “crackdown on gas cars” by issuing absurdly stringent emission standards. The idea was to advance the administration’s “climate agenda” by sending gas-​powered modes of transportation to the junkyard.

Leaders of the petroleum industry were among those who saw that the scheme would “make new gas-​powered vehicles unavailable or prohibitively expensive for most Americans.” The policy would “feel and function like a ban.”

This was just one of many examples of Biden-​oppression pushing American voters who value at least their own freedom into the Trump camp.

Electric vehicles have pluses and minuses. In past columns, I’ve expressed much enthusiasm for the technology, but recognized that it must develop naturally, in a free market, rather than unnaturally, out of ideological hope and fear-​ridden “need,” forced by government regulation and subsidy.

As James Roth has noted over at StoptheCCP​.org, we’ve had a century and a half to fine-​tune gas-​powered vehicles, a mature technology that is “beloved by the public.” Why not let electric and gas cars compete fair and square in the market? And why give an artificial boost to totalitarian China’s heavily subsidized and promoted EV industry by crippling the gas-​car industry here at home?

President Trump has heard the cry of those who prefer to step on the gas.

Section 2(e) of his sweeping executive order on “Unleashing American Energy” states that it is the policy of the United States to “eliminate the electric vehicle mandate … by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access” and other thumb-​on-​scale interventions in the market.

Is the future of gas cars going to be great again?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
deficits and debt national politics & policies too much government

The Biggest

Trump’s riding high, in the first week of his second term — but not regarding the biggest problem he faces, inflation and economic instability.

“When bondholders don’t see a credible fiscal path to be repaid for current and future government debt,” writes Veronique de Rugy at Reason, “they expect that eventually the central bank will create new money to buy those government bonds, leading to higher inflation.

“Recent inflation wasn’t just about money supply; it reflected the market’s adjustment to unsustainable fiscal policy.”

Winning, for Trump, cannot equate to Spending.

While Ms. de Rugy tries to explain this all in terms of a big-​picture economic analysis, she does not quite reach back in time far enough. We had stagflation way back when I was young. It was cured then not by decreased spending but by Paul Volcker of the Federal Reserve putting the brakes on money-​and-​credit expansion. He stopped inflation. 

A pure recession immediately followed, followed by recovery in the new administration, Ronald Reagan’s, who helped reduce the rate of growth of government (and not much else).

Inflation could, theoretically, be handled by the Fed alone, now, as then.

Except — the federal government can hardly now afford to service existing debt, which would skyrocket with the nitty-​gritty of the Fed’s cure, higher interest rates. 

Today, debt service (paying just the interest) approaches One Trillion Per Annum. 

“A crucial tipping point was reached in 2024 when the interest expense on the federal debt exceeded the defense budget for the first time,” Nick Giambruno summarizes at The International Man. “It’s on track to exceed Social Security and become the BIGGEST item in the federal budget.” 

Increasing it yet more would cripple the government.

The only way out, if there is one, is a radical decrease in spending and deficits, as de Rugy advises. Trump’s path to success is somehow accomplishing that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights Internet controversy social media too much government

When Is Censorship Not Censorship?

Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook is returning to its free speech roots.

Can we believe him?

While the restrictions on what you can talk about on Facebook are still pretty extensive, Zuckerberg’s outfit, Meta, is apparently ending the reign of “fact-​checkers” on Facebook and Instagram, as well as the platforms’ collusion with federal government “fact-​checkers.”

On Monday, I discussed the federal government’s screaming fits that led Facebook to ramp up “content moderation,” which I identified with a less euphemistic c‑word. But that word choice remains controversial. For example, a “global network of fact-​checking organizations,” the International Fact-​Checking Network, which includes Agence France Presse, objects to Zuckerberg’s assumption that Meta helped impose censorship.

“This is false, and we want to set the record straight, both for today’s context and for the historical record,” announced IFCN. The Network then “warned of the potentially devastating impact if the group were to end its worldwide programs.…”

If censoring in obedience to government demands is not censorship, what could be? The article doesn’t explain. AFP and IFCN are simply saying that they don’t want freedom of speech; it’s dangerous.

Of course, free speech can have costs. 

But censorship does too: suppression of truth and impeding the means of learning truth. 

The article doesn’t report on the costs of suppressing facts about, say, COVID-​19, vaccines, U.S. policy, UFOs, or Hunter Biden’s laptop.

AFP and IFCN simply assume that gatekeepers like themselves, with a vested interest in excluding divergent reports and viewpoints, must be allowed to keep excluding differing views and inconvenient facts from the “safe spaces” that apparently include all the very biggest spaces on the Internet.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Fireflly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability First Amendment rights national politics & policies too much government

GEC Bullet Ducked?

Last month, a mega-​monstrous “continuing resolution” (CR) — allowing federal deficit spending over the set debt limit — was killed by public outcry, helped along by Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and others with megaphones or MAGAphones.

This CR was chucked to the great annoyance of champions of runaway spending and runaway violations of individual rights. They babbled about the autocratic interference of one “President Musk.” 

As if his complaints alone would have sufficed to kill it had nobody else in America cared.

The mega-​monstrous CR was replaced by a mini-monstrous CR. The replacement sported many fewer pages, things like a pay raise for congressmen having been left out.

Also deleted? A part of the State Department devoted to censoring Americans.

Called the Global Engagement Center (GEC), it was designed to use indirect methods to censor Americans guilty of wrongthink. The plan was to give our tax dollars to creators of blacklists, like $100,000 to the Global Disinformation Index. American advertisers then would feel compelled to avoid dealing with listed companies — to remain on the good side of the U.S. government

Thanks to “President Musk” and his “obedient slave” Donald Trump, the GEC died. State’s website now says so itself.

Or did it? Has the GEC simply been rebranded?

The new thing is a so-​called Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Hub; it looks like State will still be funding this GEC clone. 

The GEC, after all, was also supposed to focus only on foreign agitprop.

When will government agencies stop trying these kinds of anti-​democratic, anti-​constitutional end runs? 

Never. Not voluntarily.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture media and media people too much government

Musk’s Alternative for Germany

“Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk caused uproar after backing Germany’s far-​right party in a major newspaper ahead of key parliamentary elections in the Western European country,” ABC News tells us, “leading to the resignation of the paper’s opinion editor in protest.”

Germany’s three-​party coalition government, led by “center-​left” Chancellor Olof Scholz, fell apart when he fired the “pro-​business” party’s biggest name in the government, Finance Minister Christian Lindner.

Musk wrote a piece for Welt am Sonntag in which he expressed his support for Alternative für Deutschland, which is considered “far-​right” for opposing Die Grünen, the (“pro-​business”) Freie Demokratische Partei, and Scholz’s own Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands. “The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the last spark of hope for this country,” asserted Musk*. 

“The Tesla Motors CEO also wrote,” explains ABC, “that his investment in Germany gave him the right to comment on the country’s condition.”

Musk must mean “a right” as in manners, not in law. In a free country, anyone has a legal right to speak up and comment on government.

But what is the significance of the editor who quit? She has every right to work only with news outfits that marginalize the AfD as promoters of “anti-​democratic” ideas. Hers is a matter of strategy: shunning, marginalization — no-​debate/​no-​cooperate — are what she thinks journalists must marshal against the “far right.” 

This journalist’s political tactic mirrors Germany’s practiced politics. ABC News explains that the AfD’s polling strength doesn’t much help its candidate, Alice Weidel, to “becom[e] chancellor because other parties refuse to work with the far-​right party.”

The non-​cooperation strategy goes full anti-​democratic when election results are suppressed. In Romania, for example, elections have basically been overturned because of how “far-​right” they are.

All very anti-​democratic, these “democrats.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* To be clear, his piece was published in German, of course, and above I’m quoting the English translation.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts