Category: too much government

Long Gone Rogue

Chuck Schumer, Rachel Maddow, deep state, Donald Trump

Back in the 1990s, we used to talk about “rogue agencies” of the U.S. Government. And for good reason: the Branch Davidian massacre and the Ruby Ridge fiasco were hard to forget.

After 9/11/2001, however, we cut the agencies some slack. Why? Their incompetence and our hope.

But it became obvious from the NSA’s illegal metadata collection program, as revealed by Edward Snowden, the core agencies of the military-industrial complex do not like playing by rules that the American people have a say in.

How bad is it?

On New Year’s Day this year, Sen. Chuck Schumer was talking to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow about their favorite conspiracy theory. Maddow, as we all know, had gone Full Nutter on this “collusion”/“corruption” story, and Democratic politicians (along with nearly the whole of the mainstream news media) ran with the story for two years. Then, the Mueller report is “no collusion.”

But on that first Tuesday of 2019, Ms. Maddow was talking about Trump’s tweets which she characterized as “taunting” the CIA and other agencies obsessed with the “Russian hacking” angle of the brouhaha. And Schumer’s response?

“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

We should take this as a signal. It is like making prison rape jokes. It says something about the situation: prison rape or Deep State machinations. And about the speaker: leveraging a rogue element as a threat.

No wonder many now think the Russiagate/Mueller investigation was a “Deep State Coup” attempt.

A republic with rogue agencies is hardly a republic at all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Tags Chuck Schumer, deep state, Donald Trump, Rachel Maddow, Trump

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

Just Like That!

socialism, magic wand, economics, healthcare, prescription drugs, drugs,

“We will do that,” he said.

Do what?

“We will look at the average costs of prescription drugs in Canada, the UK, Germany, Japan and France,” says Sen. Bernie Sanders (I/D-Vt.), “which are 50 percent lower than they are in the United States,” he told Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation.

And Sanders promises: “if I am elected president I’m going to cut prescription drug costs in this country by 50 percent so that we are not paying any more than other major countries are paying. Maybe we can do better than that.”

When Ms. Brennan asked how, he replied as above — looking at “average costs” as directly priced to consumers (patients) — and then . . . “we will do that.”

Socialism is so easy!

Why have we waited so long for utopia?

Well, saying is not the same as doing. We must think “beyond Stage One,” as Thomas Sowell advises. For if “Medicare for All” tells a company it will pay only so much for a drug, that company cannot just sell that drug and all others below cost. No wonder that in socialized medicine schemes around the world, not all drugs are even available.

The world prescription drug market is set up . . . peculiarly. Americans in effect pay more (because of patents and trade agreements) thereby covering development costs. If we pay less, others may have to pay more (which would be an odd thing for a “socialist” to want) and we would all come to get even less.

Bernie is no wizard, and socialism has no magic wand with which to wave away scarcity.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Tags Bernie Sanders, drugs, economics, healthcare, magic wand, prescription drugs, socialism

free trade & free markets ideological culture too much government

Finns Fail at Fix

Bernie Sanders, Finland, health care, socialism, single payer, costs, spending

Finland’s government-run health care system is a mess.

This normally wouldn’t faze me much. I have to navigate our American mess, er, system. But Finland’s medical service delivery system is relevant to Americans — as is Denmark’s and Norway’s and Sweden’s — because the current crop of Democratic presidential hopefuls tout these “Scandinavian socialist” programs as models to follow.

Yet Finland’s program is in crisis.

How bad is it?

Bad enough for Finland’s government to fold early, before an election, with Prime Minister Juha Sipilä throwing in the towel earlier this month. He had been struggling “to get social and health-care reforms that he made the cornerstone of his government’s four-year term through parliament,” The Wall Street Journal informs us. Finland’s health care system is somewhat decentralized, and that quality of service varies district by district. Silipä had been trying to centralize administration while also allowing for some privatization.

Left-leaning parties have balked at this, hence the impasse.

So, what is the lesson? A medical delivery system should be anti-fragile, capable of functioning despite incompetents or corrupt officials in government, despite voting blocs at loggerheads. A vast segment of the service industry should not be held in hock to the political machinations of special-interest groups.

Behind all of it, though, is the looming demographic crisis: the population of Finland, like here in America and throughout the First World, is aging. This puts heavy stressors on welfare-state systems run on a Ponzi-like re-distributive basis.* Of course costs will increase and service levels will fall, given how it’s all set up.

But once in place, government-run medical systems do not heal themselves.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* An endemic problem for socialists, which they try to ignore. See “Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs, #Bernie2020 Hardest Hit.”

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Tags Bernie Sanders, costs, Finland, health care, single-payer, socialism

national politics & policies Popular too much government

Seriously Not Serious

Trump, deficit, spending, military, cuts, budget

While one segment of the voting public regards President Donald Trump as a heaven-sent savior, a louder mob treats Trump as the Beast, a veritable Anti-Obama.

I am in neither tribe.

To me, Mr. Trump must be judged on what he does. Nominating Neil Gorsuch? A-plus. But The Donald has also reneged on a number of important campaign promises, not the least being his pledge to “eliminate the national debt in eight years.”

Sure, it was never quite believable. But is this administration even making progress?

If all goes according to the new plan, “the country would run a deficit of $631 billion in 2025,” writes Eric Boehm. That is not much of an improvement over Barack Obama’s final-year deficit of $666 billion.

Boehm’s Reason article is titled “Trump’s Budget Would Add $7.9 Trillion to the National Debt Over the Next Decade,” which gives a serious picture of Trump’s under-performance.

Now, you could react to the news and just say “less than $8 trillion — could be worse!”

But by accepting such a high number, we set the bar awfully low. It just isn’t serious.

And speaking of frivolity, it is “hard to take the president’s calls for belt-tightening seriously,” Boehm writes, “when the cuts only apply to some parts of the federal budget.”

You can guess which part of government is being given a free pass. Trump’s team is attempting to hide something: “spending increases for the Pentagon.”

Now, if American foreign policy were not the incoherent mess it is, we might make excuses.

But it is.

Serious Americans would exempt no part of the budget from intense scrutiny.

And real cuts.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Tags cuts, deficit, military, spending, Trump

Fourth Amendment rights general freedom national politics & policies Popular too much government

Snowden Won?

surveillance, metadata, Snowden, Edward Snowden

“The phone records program” that Edward Snowden risked life, limb and freedom to expose “had never thwarted a terrorist attack,” the New York Times informs in a somewhat startling bit of reportage published on Monday.

But that isn’t the startling part.

The National Security Administration’s unauthorized metadata phone-records collection program was a wish-list snoop system snuck into practice under cover of the Patriot Act. After the Snowden revelation, Congress halted it, replacing it with a similar operation in 2015, via the U.S.A. Freedom Act. But we have long known that U.S. spies could do most of what they “need” without pre- or post-Snowden versions.

What is startling in the Times article, “Disputed N.S.A. Phone Program Is Shut Down, Aide Says,” is there in the title: the federal government’s top spy agency has allegedly not used the program in its Freedom Act version in months, has even closed it.

And the Freedom Act, up for renewal, may just be allowed to die a quiet death.

Nick Gillespie, at Reason, cautions that “the possible end of the USA Freedom Act doesn’t mean the federal government doesn’t have access to all sorts of tools needed to secretly snoop on you, or that your personal data isn’t being collected in any number of ways you have little control over.” And he cites a recent Reason piece on how Patriot Act survellaince powers have been used to bust up a prostitution ring.

Which shows how terrorism is not the only government target.

And why giving government vast surveillance powers could be used for anything.

Not to mention that niggly problem of abridging the Fourth Amendment rights that had so concerned Ed Snowden.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Tags metadata, snowden, surveillance

ideological culture Popular too much government

The Hilarity of a Serious Threat

Post author By Redactor
Post date March 4, 2019
6 Comments on The Hilarity of a Serious Threat

socialism, comedy, tragedy, Bernie Sanders, democratic socialism

Is today’s politics tragic or comic?

Take the current Democratic Party obsession with socialism. There is nothing more tragic than full-blown socialism: mind-control and the snitch society; purges and mass starvation, with millions upon millions dead. But give them credit: the trendy new Democrats say they’re only for the Nordic Model of . . . well, the European term for it is social democracy.*

But they sure seem to push for evermore government.

Worse yet, they too often defend actual Communist countries — as Bernie Sanders (BS) has done.

This suggests an unfunny ending to their mad rush to power.

So the proud proclamations of the s-label from BS and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) should concern us, as should the eagerness with which the majority of Democratic presidential candidates have signed onto AOC’s over-the-top proposed takeover of the economy in her “Green New Deal.”

And yet . . . these politicians are absurd, on the face of it as well as when we drill down.

It’s hard not to regard absurdity as comic.

The b.s. doesn’t end with BS.

Sure, our current president is a comic figure, too. And the pathetic nature of most GOP movers and shakers on Capitol Hill make them worthy of satire.

But it is also the case that Trump is funny in a way no one else is: he is playing a role and making many chortle. On purpose.

Too bad we couldn’t move him from the Presidency to a new Constitutional role, like Troll-in-Chief. There he could ensure, through mockery alone, what he promised in his State of the Union Address: America will never become a socialist country.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Denmark, Sweden, etc., support extensive markets and a surprisingly hands-off approach to business — comparable to that of the U.S., and in some ways more lax — combined with extremely high taxes and vast transfers of wealth. You could call this “democratic socialism,” but . . . why?

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Tags Bernie Sanders, comedy, socialism, tragedy

ideological culture national politics & policies too much government

Warren’s No Socialist

Elizabeth Warren, housing bubble, crash, regulations, finance

Senator Elizabeth Warren knows that when people trade, both sides gain. She made that clear last year, in a fascinating interview in The Atlantic. But then she went blithely on, saying that she could fix markets by creating a “level playing field.”

Markets create value, but Mrs. Warren asserts that “when the markets are not level playing fields, all that wealth is scraped in one direction.”

How? People are still trading, even in bumpy playing fields.

She turns to the crisis of 2008, when many people discovered that they had entered into unsustainable mortgages. She explains how her shiny new regulatory program leveled that playing field.

But her scheme did not even out the bumps in the mortgage industry that existed before the crash:

the moral hazard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
the previous congressional “fix” that pushed banks to accept poor people as good loan risks when they were not (in the name of racial justice, of course),
the regulatory rule that created ratings agencies sans competitive market incentives, and
the Federal Reserve policies that fed the whole housing bubble mania.

She just added another burdensome layer of government.

Politicans sure love to pile on.

Now she offers a new scheme, a child-care program that Reihan Salam, this week again in The Atlantic, says “risks increasing the federal deficit, driving up the cost of child care, and squeezing stay-at-home parents.”

And Mr. Salam says that last risk is one Warren should understand particularly well, since she had “made her reputation as a public intellectual by warning against it.”

Warren’s no socialist — she wants to “save capitalism”! Yet by only adding to government kludge, she might as well be one.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Tags crash, Elizabeth Warren, housing bubble, markets, regulations

general freedom too much government

New York, Pre Scission

New York, Five Boroughs, split, division,

What might be the pluses and minuses to splitting New York State in two?

“Let’s look at it, get definitive figures,” says a first-term state senator, Daphne Jordan.

Sen. Jordan serves a region in the eastern part of the state. Her proposal for an official study, as yet unsponsored in the Assembly, focuses on splitting the downstate region (all five New York City boroughs, Long Island, and Westchester and Rockland counties) from the 53 upstate counties.

The U.S. Congress would have to approve the creation of a new state, of course, and a split would almost certainly be tricky, requiring the geographically larger portion to reconfigure governance completely.

Which is the point.

Downstate politicians and voters have placed a lot of alien and debilitating rules, taxes and (worse yet) subsidies upon the increasingly malfunctional upstate, rural region. Sen. Jordan responded to a charge from a spokesman for Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo that her proposal is “the Godzilla of Pandering” in horror-movie form: the governor’s policies are, she says, “the curse of Dr. Cuomostein.”

In Cities and the Wealth of Nations, New York urban analyst Jane Jacobs noted a historical pattern: cities together with their regions constitute the salient macro-economic entities, not “nations.” Trouble is, big cities like New York no longer treat their rural areas as partners — in today’s globalist environment, the whole world serves as a major city’s “region.”

Rural areas have become mere playthings, whipping boys and dumping grounds for out-of-control urban nightmare politics.

Hence the divorce talk.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Tags division, Five Boroughs, New York, split

general freedom national politics & policies The Draft too much government

Green New Conscript?

selective service, draft, slavery, submissive dog, freedom, involuntary servitude

It can happen here. Congress could simply identify a group of citizens and pass a law forcing them into servitude.

At least, Congress thinks it has this incredibly abusive power . . . even though the 13th Amendment specifically prohibits it.*

In fact, the idea of conscription — not merely for military service, but also for performing the most routine civilian government functions — is this very day being debated in Washington by a congressionally-empowered body: The National Commission on Military, National and Public Service. The commission is charged with advising Congress on whether to expand draft registration to women or end it for men, as well as whether or not to create a mandatory “national service” program for young people.**

“Should Service be Mandatory?” is the title of the afternoon hearing at American University.

The Brookings Institution’s William Galston and author Ted Hollander will advocate for drafting all young Americans and sentencing each to a year of compulsory service to the federal government. Thank goodness, my friend Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, will speak against mandatory national service, as will soon-to-be-friend Lucy Steigerwald, a contributing editor at Antiwar.com.

The public can comment for up to two minutes, and I certainly will demand the commission abandon any contemplation of assaulting the freedom of young people under the false claim of “national service.”

True public service is not involuntary servitude to the government. And vice-versa. Americans, even young Americans, have rights.

Tell the Commission to tell Congress: No forced service.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

TELL THE COMMISSION: NO

MY STATEMENT: Leave Those Kids Alone

* Regarding the military draft, the U.S. Supreme Court has somehow sidestepped the Amendment’s very clear language.

** No surprise that politicians and “experts” are targeting the politically least established adult age group.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Tags draft, freedom, selective service, slavery, submissive dog

general freedom The Draft too much government

Old Codger Draft

Dan Glickman, draft, selective service, slavery, freedom

Stay calm. Dan Glickman has discovered serious problems.

“Washington is a divided town in a very politically divided nation,” Glickman wrote in The Hill last year. “From the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, to the extreme rhetoric on social media, to the bombs mailed to public officials, to the mass shooting in Pittsburgh, to the inability of our elected leaders to reach consensus on nearly all major issues facing the country, it is not easy to see a way out of this mess.”

Nonetheless, he’s found one: less freedom.

Specifically, he wants to take away young people’s freedom.

For how long? Say a year or so, he argues, right after high school or college, when they don’t have a hold yet in society and are less able to fight back; force them to join the military or some non-military federal conscript workforce. It’ll be good for the little buggers. And very egalitarian.

Always-adult-acting Washington knows best.

“Not only does this benefit the individual,” asserts this current Executive Director of the Aspen Institute Congressional Program and former Cabinet Secretary,* “but helps our national community move away from division and towards a more cohesive society.”

Wait a second. The exceptionally well-connected Glickman and friends screwed up our world. So, make young people pay for their mistakes?

And where does Congress conjure up such power?

This Thursday, a congressional commission debates mandatory “national service” for young people.**

It would make more sense to draft 74-year-old Glickman, who actually helped cause the problems . . . or even 58-year-old me, who couldn’t stop him.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Glickman’s career path, prior to his current position, has been illustrious: a former nine-term congressman; Secretary of Agriculture under President Clinton; Director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government; and Motion Picture Association of America Chairman.

** Please go here to submit your own comments on forcing young people to give up a year of their life to the federal government.

PDF for printing