Category: too much government

Categories
folly general freedom government transparency national politics & policies too much government

Safety, Savings and Symbolism

NSA Hydra

How can the U. S. save $2.5 billion a year, reduce the federal workforce by 4,000 hires, and engage in a symbolic act of undoubted patriotism, all at the same time?

Get rid of the Department of Homeland Security.

Matt A. Mayer, a former DHS employee who claims to have “written more on DHS than just about anyone,” writes in Reason that dismantling DHS would increase co-ordination and decrease inefficiencies.

Since DHS was put in place, in 2003, to increase governmental co-ordination in the face of terrorist threats, Mayer’s charge that it serves the opposite cause should . . . give us pause.

Establishing the DHS didn’t get rid of turf wars. Why would it? It increased the turf rather than merely reroute chains of communication and command. All other agencies still exist. Extra turf exacerbates co-ordination difficulty.

And then there’s what state and local law enforcement faces: “the multi-headed hydra.” The federal operation remains fragmented, which “only ensures that key items will fall through the cracks between these departments, whose personnel spend far too much time fighting each other for primacy than they should. Our enemies couldn’t ask for a more fertile environment within which to attack us.”

I added the italics, for emphasis.

Ever since Jimmy Carter ran for the presidency on consolidating bureaucratic departments in the nation’s capital, but delivered, instead, new departments, the “logic” of adding new bureaucracies onto old has proven to be the “easy answer” for insiders. But a transparent failure, for everyone else.

So, start over. Get rid of the inefficient monster.

And take heart: republics don’t have “homelands”; empires do. Let’s stop playing the wrong game.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

NSA Hydra

 

Categories
folly general freedom too much government

Under the Law, Not Beneath It

Magna Carta Nation

Celebrating the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta Libertatum this week, I noted how a document intended to serve the very upper classes, by limiting each others’ powers, led to liberty for all.

The Nation, on the other hand, used it to excoriate the Citizens United ruling.

“Magna Carta reminds us that no man is above the law,” wrote John Nichols on Monday. “But it should not be imagined that Magna Carta established democracy, or anything akin to it.”

Of course the Magna Carta did not establish democracy. No one said it did. And neither Britain nor America has pure democracy, if you define it . . . in Nichols fashion. What is he driving at?

If we respect the notion that the rule of law must apply to all . . . then surely it must apply to corporations.

And, surely, the best celebration of those premises in the United States must be the extension of the movement to amend the US Constitution to declare that corporations are not people, money is not speech, and citizens and their elected representatives have the authority to organize elections — and systems of governance — where our votes matter more than their dollars.

Sure, Mr. Nichols, corporations shouldn’t be above the law. But they shouldn’t be below it, either. And in America we have rights to free speech and press. Those rights “surely . . . must apply to corporations.”

Let’s increase the liberating powers of democracy: open up ballot access, de-privilege incumbents, count votes in a non-mere-plurality-wins fashion.

But let’s not throw out equal rights under the law, even in the name of democracy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Magna Carta Nation

 

Categories
folly general freedom national politics & policies too much government

Political Theatrics

TSA

Our suspicions have been proved: the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) doesn’t secure much of anything; it is mere “security theater.”

After revelations that TSA screeners failed to find weapons and other deadly contraband in 96 percent of tests, David A. Graham, writing for The Atlantic, asked “what kind of theater this is. . . . A period drama, satirizing the 2000s? Vaudeville farce?”

Easy answer: the genre is “statism.”

Statism is the worship of government, or the reliance upon government to do many more than a few tasks. It is very old.

The ancient states arose from conquest, developing as a way to milk the masses for the benefit of the few. That’s what states traditionally do: use force to move wealth from one group to another.

Along the way, the states did do some good. Amidst all their horrors.

But mostly rulers just leveraged myth and bluster to cover crimes.

In more recent times, in this great country, the idea arose that the state should be limited to a few necessary jobs, tightly controlled by the people so that government might actually defend rights, not abridge them.

But this revolutionary democratic-republican ideology did not alter the basic nature of reality, turning the sow’s purse of the conquerors’ art into the gold of the Public Interest.

Without our vigilance, government always reverts back to its roots.

The TSA is simply the latest myth-and-bluster-backed scam aiding the ludicrous notion that government is all-powerful . . . while providing only faux security. Get rid of it; let its people go. Then watch airlines come up with more effective, less intrusive, more passenger-friendly security systems.

Want theater? Try “vigilance theater.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

TSA

 

Categories
general freedom government transparency national politics & policies privacy too much government

Rand to the Rescue

Rand Paul vs. the Surveillance State

Nothing gets done in Washington?

Tell that to Kentucky Senator and presidential hopeful Rand Paul. Last night, he single-handily “repealed” Section 215 of the Patriot Act, ending the federal government’s mass collection of our phone records.

At least, for the next few days.

On the floor of the Senate, Paul blocked the USA Freedom Act, a “compromise” bill passed by the House. It would’ve required private telecoms to keep the data, allowing the government to query that data with a warrant.

“I’m supportive of the part that ends the bulk collection by the government,” said Paul. “My concern is that we might be exchanging bulk collection by the government [with] bulk collection by the phone companies.”

In a Time magazine op-ed, he argued, “We should not be debating modifying an illegal program. We should simply end this illegal program.”

Also last week, the Tea Party Patriots joined the ACLU in agreeing with Paul’s position: the USA Freedom Act doesn’t go far enough . . . to protect our civil rights.

Others warn we aren’t safe without maximum snooping and info-scooping by government:

  • CIA Director John Brennan called the metadata program “integral to making sure that we’re able to stop terrorists in their tracks.”
  • Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the expiration amounted to “a serious lapse.”
  • James Clapper, director of National Intelligence — most famous now for lying to Congress about the existence of the metadata program — declared we “would lose entirely an important capability that helps us identify potential U.S.-based associates of foreign terrorists.”

Yet, there’s not a single case where this bulk phone data helped capture a terrorist or stop an attack.

Sen. Paul believes “we can still catch terrorists using the Constitution.”

Printable PDF

Rand Paul vs. the Surveillance State

 

Categories
crime and punishment education and schooling folly general freedom too much government

Under Their Thumb

Free Range Kids

What if police grabbed your children off the street and held them for five hours?

Alexander and Danielle Meitiv of Silver Spring, Maryland, have been investigated three times. First, when their children were discovered playing by themselves in a park a block from their home. The second time when police picked up the kids walking home from a park about a mile away. The third investigation was launched when the Meitiv’s 10-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter were arrested and held for five hours for walking home from a different park.

Nothing came of the first investigation. In the second, CPS originally found the couple guilty of “unsubstantiated neglect.” But last week, the Meitivs received a letter from Maryland’s Child Protective Services (CPS) now ruling out neglect in the second investigation.

Gee whiz, it’s good news. But the Meitivs still have investigation No. 3 to contend with. And CPS remains completely mum on whether the agency’s letter means the Meitivs and other parents can now freely allow their kids to walk to and from public parks and other venues.

Or not.

Can we really live in the “Land of the Free” and our children not be free to walk in public? What kind of freedom is that?

If the Constitution isn’t sufficient to stop police and child welfare [sic] agencies from snatching kids off the street, terrifying them, investigating their parents and threatening to take those children, we need to pass new laws granting children the right to walk down the street . . .

. . . as long as it’s okay with their parents.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Free Range Kids

 

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom too much government

The Right to Ignore Leviathan

Ignore Leviathan

Charles Murray, author of Losing Ground and other controversial books, has a suggestion. For business people. Pillars of the community. Fine, upstanding citizens.

Civil disobedience.

He’s suggesting, says John Stossel, that we ignore the parts of government that don’t make any sense, all the nonsense in the big books of the regulatory state.

Murray’s done this in his latest, intriguingly titled book, By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission. Stossel discusses it on reason.com:

Murray says, correctly, that no ordinary human being — not even a team of lawyers — can ever be sure how to obey the 810 pages of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 1,024 pages of the Affordable Care Act or 2,300 pages of Dodd-Frank. 

What if we all stopped trying? The government can’t put everyone in jail.

This is a provocative idea, even if not new.

Henry David Thoreau spent a night in jail for not paying the poll tax, a tax that helped pay for the Mexican war he so despised (and was right to despise). Thoreau eloquently argued for civil disobedience in such cases; Herbert Spencer did something similar, in his 1851 Social Statics, with the chapter “The Right to Ignore the State.”

It is a risky tactic, of course. Thoreau was, after all, incarcerated for that night. You could wind up spending more time in the hoosegow.

Still, it could be worth it. Civil disobedience has good effects. Stossel cites “historian Thaddeus Russell [who] reminds us that many freedoms we take for granted exist not because the government graciously granted liberties to us but because of lawbreakers.”

It’s another path for citizen-initiated reform.

And it’s Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Ignore Leviathan

 

Categories
national politics & policies porkbarrel politics too much government

That’s What They Want

More money for infrastructure!

The political class sings monotone, striking one note ad nauseam.

The song is “Money.”

One night an Amtrak train crashes, with fatalities; early the next morning a crowded chorus argues for amped-up spending on “infrastructure.”

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) pled to the MSNBC lens, “Is it going to take more of these crashes and deaths to wake up the members of Congress who keep wanting to slim down the budgets going into infrastructure?”

Of course, no dollar amount is high enough that, if thrown at the problem, could guarantee no future accidents. Politicians want to toss the maximum moola at it, nonetheless.

Meanwhile, Baltimore smolders — and not because the Orioles won a World Series, but rather at the hands of rioters using protests sparked by the death of a man in police custody as their cover. To many, the tragic events call not so much for justice in court, or enacting law enforcement reforms, but for more “investment” in “urban areas” to solve the persistent problem of urban poverty.

“There’s been no effort to reinvest and rebuild in these communities,” President Obama claims.

Isn’t Obama the country’s head honcho? Did he not make any effort?

That’s funny, because an analysis by the Free Beacon finds that the City of Baltimore raked in $1.8 billion from the 2009 stimulus bill alone.

Doesn’t that count?

“Today, government spends 16 times more . . . than it did when the War on Poverty started,” wrote Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield in their Heritage Foundation paper, The War on Poverty After 50 Years. “But as welfare spending soared, the decline in poverty came to a grinding halt.”

But why quibble about results?

Just send more money.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

More money for infrastructure!

 

Categories
term limits too much government

Is He Serious?

Gov. Rauner

Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner ran for his state’s highest office while simultaneously spearheading a wildly popular initiative — a proposed constitutional amendment to place state legislators under term limits.

Unfortunately, the amendment was blocked from voters. An appeals court ruled it outside the scope of the state’s initiative process, and the cowardly state supreme court dodged the case.

Meanwhile, Mr. Rauner’s campaign as an outsider — opposed to both Chicago and Springfield political machines — earned him the governorship.

Most politicians would cry crocodile tears for term limits and claim, aw shucks, there’s just no way to get them enacted . . . especially with the Malevolent Monarch, Mr. Michael Madigan, the state’s longest corruption-serving Speaker of the House, as term limits enemy #1.

But Rauner isn’t backing off. “Rauner has at least one non-negotiable item on his wish list for the spring legislative session,” writes Matthew Dietrich of Reboot Illinois in the Huffington Post: “passing legislative term limits.”

Rich Miller of Capitol Fax reports that “Democrats were shocked,” when an “administration official . . . more than implied that if the [term limits] constitutional amendment isn’t passed by May 31st, then the governor would not support any revenue increases to patch next fiscal year’s massive $6 billion hole.”

“Would the governor really threaten to crash the entire government over a term limits bill?” asks Miller . . . answering, “Yep.”

Goodness, Gov. Rauner is absolutely serious about enacting the reform the people of Illinois know is Step 1 in fighting the state’s rampant corruption: term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Gov. Rauner

 

Categories
crime and punishment responsibility too much government

J’accuse, Chisholm

Crybaby Bully

Shouldn’t we imprison anyone who dares criticize the conduct of abusive public officials?

Panic not. You haven’t slipped through a portal into another dimension.

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

Interpret the initial interrogative, above, as my sardonic paraphrase of somebody else’s sentiment — that of a power-abusing official who bemoans any chastisement of his lousy actions. Who even threatens to prosecute persons voicing such criticism.

The man is John Chisholm, a Milwaukee D.A. who intimates that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker should be investigated for blasting Chisholm’s churlish tactics against political opponents. These tactics include late-night raids motivated solely by political animus. (I’ve reported on these doings.)

Scott Walker told Iowans that “if the government can do that against people of one political persuasion, they can do it against anybody. . . . [I]t was really about people trying to intimidate people . . . [A] political witch hunt.”

Responding, Chisholm suggested, with blunderbuss subtlety, that “the Iowa criminal code, like Wisconsin’s, has provisions for intentionally making false statements intended to harm the reputation of others.”

Chisholm, you bum. You knave. You vile excrescence. Not even you dispute that your office’s raids directed against people like my colleague Eric O’Keefe occurred. Thus, you’ve no hint of a basis for a slander claim. You did the dirty deeds we’re deriding. Cheer and hug you for it, should we? (Eric has sued to block Chisholm’s secretive “John Doe” raids.)

All this does sound like the Twilight Zone. Unfortunately, it’s part of a new normal. Not one we need accept, however.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Crybaby Bully

 

Categories
Common Sense national politics & policies too much government

Chimps, Chumps, and the Minimum Wage

Unemployment Chimp

It’s time to talk minimum wage laws again!

Confession: I tend to understand some issues on the level of logic — of, even, common sense. A prohibition (which is what a minimum wage law is, forbidding payment at a rate below the “minimum”) doesn’t spur productivity, and it’s from increased productivity that we get general higher wages and wealth and progress itself.

Sure, there are “studies” that indicate otherwise. But, we don’t conduct field studies amongst chimps arranging their bananas to prove 2 + 2 = 4. If an experiment of chimp-arranged bananas comes up with 3, I look for the chimp with the banana-eating grin.

Anyway, there’s this new study about employment from 2007-2009, when the economy went into the toilet, and right after the national minimum wage was upped from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.

The study’s authors look at employment broadly. They pride themselves on their careful assessment of “the minimum wage from an anti-poverty perspective” and “its effects on the broader population of low-skilled workers. . . .”

Off the top of my head, I marvel that anyone can distinguish one cause for unemployment (financial crash) from another (minimum wage law), but the authors make a pretty convincing case.

Their conclusion? “Our best estimate is that these minimum wage increases reduced the employment-to-population ratio of working age adults by 0.7 percentage points. This accounts for 14 percent of the total decline over the relevant time period.”

So, yes, they say, the last minimum wage hike led to higher unemployment.

Which is what I would suspect. Because of, you know . . . Common Sense.

I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Unemployment Chimp