Category: too much government

Categories
Accountability general freedom ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies too much government U.S. Constitution

Blame the Kids?

National Service, David Brooks , Mayor Rahm Emanuel , illustration, children, brick wall, illustration

Why is it when some politicians or pundits get a brilliant idea about how to make the country better, involving (of course) making people do as the government dictates, it only applies to other people?

Sunday, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” New York Times columnist and Times-styled conservative David Brooks bemoaned the electorate’s disunity due to the unprecedented unpopularity of Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton: “We could have a winner at 42 percent. Look at those poll numbers. . . . And so, that’s almost like a minority government. I think we’ve just got to do something about it.”

Do something? What?

Brooks explained, “Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago has an idea that every kid who graduates from high school spends the next three months in some sort of national service. So a kid from Martha’s Vineyard or Marin County is with a kid from Mobile, Alabama, and just three months, it would make a difference.”

Chicagoans will warn against emulating Mayor Emanuel.*

“I thought national service was going to be a given,” host Chuck Todd then offered. “I mean, my God, we’ve been talking about national service my whole adult life and I can’t believe we’re not there.”

News Flash: The problem with our politics is not the fault of teenagers. Nor would forcing young people to put their dreams on hold the better to toil in some social engineering scheme solve anything.

Want national service? Begin with politicians and TV talking heads.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* A whopping 62 percent of Chicagoans disapprove of their mayor and fully 40 percent want ole Rahm Never-Let-a-Crisis-Go-to-Waste Emanuel to immediately resign. The mayor’s delay in releasing an incriminating police video, until after his re-election, has been the most incendiary issue. But also consider some ugly facts about systemic breakdown in city governance: the number of murders this year is already higher than last year, four out of ten freshman in Chicago high schools fail to graduate and 91 percent of graduates going on to college require remedial courses.

Printable PDF

National Service, David Brooks , Mayor Rahm Emanuel , illustration, children, brick wall, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Did We Pay for That?

convention, politician, money, spending, taxes, illustration

It takes a treasure trove of love for government to demand that taxpayers fund politicians and political parties, in addition to basic government services — and “handouts for everybody.”

Most of us have enough horse sense to seek to reduce the scope of subsidy in society. Especially subsidies to politicians and activists. Who wants their tax money going directly to their ideological opponents?

Well, at least there is one area in recent times that has been defunded: the major parties’ national conventions.

The quadrennial indoor parades and awards shows that constitute the modern presidential nominating conventions don’t have the same function that they used to. Because of the primary system, and a number of other factors as well, the conventions aren’t so much selection mechanisms as “four-day infomercials.”

That’s Anthony L. Fisher’s term for the spectacles.

Fisher, in “Who Paid for the Conventions” — which appears in the October 2016 issue of Reason magazine — informs us that “this year, for the first time since 1972, the parties and their host cities’ host committees were on the hook to raise all the money” to pay for these festivals of folly.

Specifically, the directive was 2014’s Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, which diverted the convention subsidy funds to pediatric health care research.

It sounds like a good cause. But it is worth noting, once again, that Congress, when it defunds one thing, rarely just neglects to “spend the money.”

It’s the Spending, Stupid. Or stupid spending.

In any case, one small step for Congress, one giant leap for getting taxpayers out of politics.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

convention, politician, money, spending, taxes, illustration

 

Artwork based on original cc photo by Purple Slog on Flickr

Categories
folly free trade & free markets general freedom moral hazard too much government

When Parasites Collide

Apple, EU, tax, Europe, Ireland, illustr

There are times I wish I were a tax accountant.

You know, just so I could better understand the news.

The European Commission has handed Apple, Inc., a $14.5 billion tax bill.

Owed to Ireland.

Apple, the tax commissioners said, had paid too little in taxes to Ireland, amounting to a mere 1 percent of the company’s European profits.

The Emerald Isle’s normal corporate tax rate is 12.5 percent.

On first read, this sounded like a tale of crony capitalism, with the EU’s tax authorities riding in, heroically, holding aloft the gonfalon of fair play, on the side of truth, justice, and an even playing field.

Well, the story gets complicated. The U.S. Treasury has protested the ruling as unfair. And Senator Chuck Schumer called it a “cheap money grab.”

The Wall Street Journal opinion page comes out on Apple’s side, too, but gives some specifics. Apple paid all the taxes it owed under Irish and EU law, but the ruling wasn’t about law, it was, we are told, about politics.

I can believe that.

So, as near as I can make out, what we have here are three sets of governmental interests, each intent on sucking the most out of a rich, innovative, and wildly successful multinational corporation.

It’s hard not to side with the target, Apple, and think of the other groups as mere parasites.

After all, my non-accountant’s spidey sense suspects that Schumer objects because the U.S. government isn’t going to get any of that $13 billion.

Preferring an “expensive money grab,” I suppose.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.  

Printable PDF

Apple, EU, tax, Europe, Ireland, illustr

 

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets general freedom moral hazard nannyism responsibility too much government

States of the Unions

Brexit, Europe, hysteria, trade, economics, illustration

As Americans contemplate the intellectual breakdown of our two major parties, Brits and Europeans are trying to figure out what the state of their union is.

Does Brexit spell disaster for Europe?

Germany’s vice-chancellor is just the latest European bigwig to preach gloom and doom. According to the BBC, “Sigmar Gabriel said the EU would go ‘down the drain’ if other states followed Britain’s lead and that the UK could not keep the ‘nice things’ about Europe while taking no responsibility.”

What that “responsibility” is, I do not know.

But look: it is not as if an international order is all that difficult. In the 19th century, freedom of movement was accepted as the civilized standard — except in Russia.

In the 1800s, Britain and France agreed to bilateral free trade, and then Britain went unilateral with free trade. Prosperity ensued in Britain. Even in Europe proper, the century-long trend of wealth was upward.

And now a number of economists are advising the new British government to follow that old path — “a unilateral free trade deal would allow the UK to import cheaper goods and gain access to new markets, delivering greater prosperity,” The Guardian summarized.

Maybe the EU should go under. For the key to the union was subsidies along with EU-regulated trade. European states could adopt free trade without bullying from Brussels. And forget subsidies as a way of life.

America could do likewise, but not if Hillary or The Donald gets elected.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Note:  In most browsers, hovering your mouse over the bolded, silver text will give you “footnotes” of explanation.

Printable PDF

Brexit, Europe, hysteria, trade, economics, illustration

 

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture meme moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies too much government

If they can do it, why can’t we?

other country's healthcare, socialized, healthcare, free college, meme, illustration

In Europe, some large programs (like “free” healthcare and college”) appear to work for some countries and are a complete disaster for other nations. In many southern European nations, citizens look on state provided healthcare with horror, and make every effort to insure that they don’t have to depend on that system.

American progressives are strangely incurious about what makes some systems work and other systems crash and burn. In many cases, the explanation is cultural and institutional. (As it happens, Scandinavians had a well-established culture of hard work and self reliance and social cohesion, which is what made the establishment of a large welfare state even possible. When the Scandinavians began their ambitious welfare programs, it was a point of honor among many to NOT USE IT. This attitude has been eroded over time).

The Scandinavian models also have had better success rates because they have focused on maintaining a VERY FREE business environment, with corporate taxes LOWER than are found in the US, and limits placed on unions (a practice that would be abhorrent to the average American progressive).

When large government programs are established in the U.S., they quickly become bloated, inefficient and corrupt. The government is currently $21 trillion in debt.

Why not demonstrate that they can do the job they already have before being given control of the healthcare industry (an estimated 1/5 of the economy)?

Opponents of the progressive welfare state believe that considerable damage could be done to the American system (which has always been a powerhouse of innovation and expertise), and many people could be hurt.

 

Categories
folly free trade & free markets general freedom moral hazard national politics & policies tax policy too much government

Whose Side Are They On?

Uber, Lyft, Taxi, protection, tax, crony, cronyism, illustration

Excuse me if I drive over familiar roadways. But we are witnessing one of the great revolutions in human cooperation.

And our governments and politicians are working mightily to block traffic.

I refer, of course, to Uber and Lyft and the like.

The innovation that these companies bring to market? Enabling everyday drivers to leverage their personal investment in a capital good — a car or SUV — to make extra bucks (or even a living) while efficiently serving people who want rides.

Ride-hailing apps on smart-phones provide more security and consumer guidance than the old taxi services ever bothered to even try. The elaborate online rating system, where drivers rate riders and vice versa, provides a new market in information that outstrips government “regulation” as a consumer defense system.

And consumers get better rides, cheaper.

The Uberization of ride sharing competes directly with taxis, of course, and that’s a problem . . . for taxi companies. And the politicians who have regulated them for years. This regulation never was about consumer protection, but politicians just feathered their own nests with campaign contributions through crony capitalism, helping some taxi services at the expense of others.

And customers.

The latest idiocy hails from Massachusetts, which has enacted a 20¢ per trip tax on all ride-sharing apps, with 5¢ of each charge slated for subsidizing the old, established taxi services.

Taxachusetts’s Republican governor, Charlie Baker, has been sucked in to the government racket, choosing to support old cronies rather than customers.

Still, it could have been worse. The advocates of the tax had initially demanded Uber be banned.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Uber, Lyft, Taxi, protection, tax, crony, cronyism, illustration

 

Illustration based on original cc photo by GörlitzPhotography on Flickr

 

Categories
Common Sense general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government

United We Disagree

Ben Franklin, Donald Trump, disagreement, anger, fighting, politics

This election year? Anger and angst permeate the electorate.

We are united only in frustration. Which leads to some mutual distrust.

Not good.

Neither the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, nor the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, will receive my vote. But that doesn’t mean I don’t respect people who will vote for one or the other.

My father, whom I respected more than anyone else — and who passed away months ago — was a big Trump enthusiast. Not that he liked Trump’s demeanor; he didn’t. But he believed Trump was the only person who would shake up a completely corrupt Washington.

Some friends and loved ones simply have different political views or a different perspective on Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.

“We’ve got the fate of the U.S. in our hands,” wrote a longtime Common Sense email subscriber yesterday, irritated that I was treating Trump’s “sins” as on par with Hillary’s corruption. He asked to cancel his subscription.

What could I say? Well, that’s exactly what I said: “Sorry to see you go.” And I urged that we not “part ways.”

All’s well that ends well: He emailed back and “re-enlisted.” Not only did that make my day, but he illuminated the biggest danger in this crazy election: allowing ourselves to become divided.

Those of us who understand the gift of liberty, who demand honest government and free markets, must hang together or, as Ben Franklin quipped, “we will all hang separately.”

Disagree and debate, of course — but as friends and neighbors and fellow patriots we must realize that no matter who becomes the next president, the future of freedom in America will depend on us working together to hold them to account.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Ben Franklin, Donald Trump, disagreement, anger, fighting, politics

 

Categories
Accountability media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Too Dangerous x 2

CIA, Director, Michael Hayden, Donald Trump, danger, Libertarian, Gary Johnson, illustration

“If he governs consistent with some of the things he’s said as a candidate, I would be very frightened,” former CIA Director Michael Hayden says about Donald Trump.

These are the words that begin an ominous television spot from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The advertisement concludes that Mr. Trump is “too dangerous.”

Hayden was director of the National Security Administration under President George W. Bush, before becoming the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and then moving to head the Central Intelligence Agency. He served at the CIA for only a few weeks into President Obama’s first term, but obviously Mrs. Clinton wouldn’t broadcast his negative view of Trump before millions of us in TV Land if she didn’t respect Mr. Hayden’s opinion.

Funny, yesterday on John Catsimatidis’s New York City radio program, Hayden declared, “I’m uncomfortable with the nominee of both of the major political parties.”

“John, a lot of my friends are saying that’s nice, Hayden, but you have to vote for one of them,” the former top spy offered, “but I’m not so sure I do.”

He doesn’t. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson will be on all 50 state ballots and Green Party standard-bearer Jill Stein will be on most. And there are others.

“Somebody is going to win, but . . . I’m hoping they don’t think they’re sweeping into office with some powerful mandate,” Hayden continued. “And for people like me . . . to vote for some other choice, might deny them that sense of mandate, which would make, I think, things even worse.”

I’m no fan of Mr. Hayden, but regarding this? I agree.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

CIA, Director, Michael Hayden, Donald Trump, danger, Libertarian, Gary Johnson, illustration

 

Photo of Michael Hayden Credit: TechCrunch on Flickr (CC License)

 

Categories
Accountability initiative, referendum, and recall nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Governments Against the People

deathgrip, death grip, democracy, bureaucracy, change, politics, illustration

Is it odd to see government employees and politicians — public servants — hold onto particular laws with a death grip?

Maybe not. In Texas, municipal government employees have been working mightily to prevent citizens from repealing local ordinances. According to a report by WOAI News Radio, the Texas “State Senate Intergovernmental Relations Committee on Monday heard horror story after horror story from citizen groups which have tried to circulate petitions calling for repeal of local ordinances.”

It’s not shocking, I suppose, since those laws may give politicians and bureaucrats more power. And perhaps there’s pride of authorship.

But, despite any merit (or demerit) these laws may possess, public servants are still public servants, which means: serve the public.

Which means: uphold democratic processes.

Government is all about processes, really. This shouldn’t be too hard.

Which is why there’s no excuse for what has been going on:

  • “municipal governments . . . employ ‘tricks’ and intimidation in an attempt to halt citizen petition drives”;
  • they cite “bogus city ‘statutes’ which invalidate signatures”; and
  • “will claim that more signatures are required than the citizens group has managed to collect.”

Basically, these government bodies are setting unreasonably high and arbitrary hurdles for petitions to get on the ballot — such as requiring “birth dates and Social Security numbers” of signers.

That often does the trick. One would have to be very careless to put one’s Social Security number onto a public document — one that anyone could see. And photograph.

For later nefarious use.

The fact that these government tactics are all illegal justifies the Senate committee probe into the malfeasance — and demands action.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

deathgrip, death grip, democracy, bureaucracy, change, politics, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Population to Government, “Hello”

population, government planning, social security, ponzi, illustration

Government “central planning”? I’m against it.

But it’s socialism, fascism, and allied isms that I oppose. I’m not against “government planning.”

We could use some.

Take population. When government sets up complicated institutions, like Social Security or Medicare, those institutions must match the general trend of the number and make-up of those served.

Or else fail spectacularly.

But as everyone knows, Social Security was set up when the population was growing, and expected to continue . . . at a positive rate. The whole logic of the system depended on population growth.

What if populations shrink?

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now reports that the general U.S. “fertility rate has dropped back to its all time low of 62.5 children per 1,000 American women ages 15 to 44 years,” informs science writer Ronald Bailey.

The “total fertility” rate is now “1.84 children over the course of an American woman’s lifetime.”

A steady-state population replacement rate is thought to be 2.1 children per woman.

Trouble is, if your main institutions depend on population growth, and instead, population declines, things are liable to go catawampus.

No wonder European nations, which are undergoing even more startling negative population growth, flirt with allowing huge influxes of hard-to-assimilate refugees. At the back of governmental minds may be: how do we keep going?

Some of today’s social anxiety may have to do with this shift in population growth, and government strategy.

Before politicians try to plan a whole industry — like, say, “single-payer” medical services — maybe they should learn how to arrange the existing government, to accommodate the direction society demonstrably wants to go.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul is Jacob.

Printable PDF

population, government planning, social security, ponzi, illustration