Category: Accountability

One at a Time

A new procedural reform is in the offing.

And just because it is “procedural” doesn’t mean it’s insignificant.

Or boring.

Remember, how something gets done determines, in part, what gets done. The checks and balances that were written into our Constitution are there to regulate the how of government, the better to limit the what.

But it’s obvious our federal government is out of control, and in need of some additional . . . controls.

Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Mia Love have introduced just such legislation. It’s not a constitutional limitation, but a legislative change of procedure. The title of their bills pretty much explains the idea: the “One Subject at a Time Act,” initialized as OSTA.

I first heard rumblings about it from Rand Paul; then, just last week, Mia Love sent out her press release, ballyhooing the House version of OSTA, H.R. 4335.

Rand’s Senate version is S. 1572, and was introduced a little over a year ago.

The idea is not new. I’ve talked about it before. You probably have, too. Anyone with sense realizes that the congressional habit of adding unimportant, controversial programs to unrelated but necessary, uncontroversial bills, is a leading cause of government growth.

And one reason why Congress is so roundly detested.

OSTA, by forcing Congress to deal with subjects one bill at a time, might even save Congress from itself.

The bill is still looking for sponsors. You can help by putting your representative’s and senators’ feet to the fire.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Congress, legislation, Mia Love, OSTA, Rand Paul, Sen. Rand Paul, Senate

Accountability government transparency ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers porkbarrel politics responsibility Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

The Clinton Chasm

Hillary Clinton, trust, lie, truthful, Ezra Klein, illustration, VOX

Hillary Clinton is roundly disliked by millions of outsiders, but admired by hundreds of politicians and activists. What sets her apart?

She listens.

Well, that’s Ezra Klein’s take in “Understanding Hillary,” an almost-believable piece of apologetics courtesy of Vox.

He calls Hillary’s problem “The Gap,” though “Vast Chasm” is more like it.

There’s a huge difference between how the public sees her — “Polls show most Americans doubt her basic honesty” — and how her fellow insiders feel about her. “She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-staff,” Klein informs us, “and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.”

Klein emphasizes Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to talk naturally and listen carefully, when dealing one-on-one with insiders and constituents, and in small groups. “She gets things done,” he asserts, though I think what he really means is she moves her agenda forward. Actual accomplishments? Open to dispute.

On the crucial issue of trust, Klein buys into what Hillary is selling. She says people doubt her because she’s been so often attacked.

I don’t know about you, but I doubt her because . . . well, cattle futures, for starters. Her ridiculous “vast right-wing conspiracy” dodge to all those rich 1990s scandals: the blue dress, President Bill losing his law license, even the crony takeover of the White House travel office. Hillary has led the way more recently with the Benghazi “video” lie and her private server and email scandal. Plus, witness the ongoing conflict presented by the Clinton Foundation raking in millions from unsavory foreign sources..

Klein, on the other hand, argues that the media is against her.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Ezra Klein, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016, VOX

Accountability crime and punishment moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility

Freddie’s Dead

Freddie Gray, police brutality, misconduct, Baltimore, illustration

Marilyn Mosley is frustrated. This State’s Attorney in Baltimore, Maryland, angrily dropped charges against the remaining three police officers not already acquitted in the death of Freddie Gray, who died from injuries sustained while in police custody.

Clearly, Mosley lacked the evidence to convict these officers of murder, manslaughter, false arrest, etc. Were the charges politically motivated, as police allege? Or did police impede her investigation, as she charges?

I don’t know. But here’s what we do know:

Upon sighting police April 12th of last year, Gray ran but was apprehended. Police confiscated a knife, which was perfectly legal to carry. Then police called for a van, and video captured police dragging 25-year-old Freddie Gray, screaming in agony, to that van.

Police transported him on a very circuitous route “downtown” that ended up at the hospital, after police discovered during a stop that he wasn’t breathing. A week later Freddie died.

The cause of death was a spinal injury.

The video suggests impairment before the travel therapy administered by police, though the injury could have been worsened in transit. Gray wasn’t wearing a safety belt. In fact, the medical examiner ruled it a homicide based on his not being belted in.

Whether the spinal injury was a freak accident, caused by police misconduct or, as alleged, Gray was trying to injury himself to seek damages, the medical evidence shows no serious bruises or broken bones — just the spinal injury.

We don’t know what happened.

What we do know is that a man was taken into police custody without any legitimate charge, not treated or attended to as he should have been, and he’s dead.

There’s no victory or vindication here for police.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

AND ANOTHER THING: To what degree is Freddie Gray a casualty of the war of drugs? Back in June, defense attorneys for the police released an email that Prosecutor Mosley’s office had sent to police asking for an “enhanced” police presence to combat drug dealing in the area Freddie Gray was arrested. That was three weeks prior to his arrest.

Printable PDF

Tags Baltimore, brutality, Freddie Gray, misconduct, police, police brutality

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

ABC’s of Deceptive Politics

Post author By CS Admin
Post date July 28, 2016
3 Comments on ABC’s of Deceptive Politics

con game, politics, redistribution, Clinton

In breaking news, a major politician has promised to give important benefits to the poor and the middle class.

She did not specify where those benefits would come from. But we know where they do come from: taxpayers. What this politician has done is promise to take from some to give others. Actually, it’s even more complicated — after taking from some folks, then there’s the skimming off the top (or: taking a big chunk); and after that, there’s the hoopla about the money she is “giving” back.

This is how politicians work. Vague talk and big promises, backed up by the ability to tax and the sanction to threaten your life if you don’t comply.

Characteristically, they avoid talk of the costs of their actions. They focus on the “benefits.”

Many, many years ago, a great American sociologist explained the process:

A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C’s interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man.

That was written in 1883. In 1932, a major politician took the term, “The Forgotten Man,” and applied it not to C but to D.

And since then, politicians have tended to ignore C entirely, except to make them feel guilty for not doing more for D (and, by implication, A and B).

You can see why I prefer direct action on discrete issues by responsible citizens. In which the C’s are consulted.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Original Photo Credit: David Goehring on Flickr (Creative Commons)

Tags con, Hillary Clinton, redistribution, The Forgotten Man, welfare

Accountability free trade & free markets moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility

It’s the Stupid Economy

HIllary Clinton, Obama, Bill Clinton, economy, election, illustration

When Bill Clinton ran for president, the slogan inside his campaign’s war room was a blunt reminder to focus on “the Economy, Stupid.” This was Clinton’s first enduring contribution to the American stock of catch-phrases.

Now, Bill’s wife, Hillary, seeks the top banana position. But she has a harder job than Bill: he could fight against a lackluster incumbent caught in a big lie (“No New Taxes,” another slogan). Hillary is almost required to defend the outgoing president, in no small part because she served in his Cabinet.

If she were candid, she’d address the weak recovery and long-term stagnation.

Her slogan could be, “It’s the Stupid Economy.”

No matter what politicians say, however, secular (long-term) stagnation is a thing. Lots of people have given up, are off the roles of job-searchers and so don’t appear in official unemployment statistics, and too many people have taken early retirements on trumped-up disability claims.

At least, economist Lawrence Summers is decrying it, jet-setting around the world to meet with financial leaders and political functionaries.

I doubt his diagnosis, however. Summers talks Keynesian, pointing to inadequate aggregate demand. While there may be something to the general shift in the desire to hold monetary assets, leading to deflation and even negative interest rates, I bet the underlying problem is regime uncertainty — when widespread fears of the future and doubts about governmental consistency and follow-through lead the owners of capital to withhold investing in production.

There are also the effects of general regulatory and redistributionist kludge.

When the problems stem from your favored policies, you can’t revive FDR’s slogan “nothing to fear but fear itself” and let it go at that.

Hillary will surely explain — Thursday night.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Bill Clinton, economy, Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, Presidential campaign 2016

Accountability national politics & policies

Bombed into Submission?

Russia, Syria, Air Base, bombing, John Kerry

Was the United States of America recently bombed into submission?

In the Battle of Britain, the Brits survived the German blitz. The North Vietnamese persevered through storms of our B-52s, for years. Bombing alone never seems to conquer an opponent.

But Russian air strikes against U.S. positions in Syria sent Secretary of State John Kerry scurrying to the negotiation table.

In June, but just reported last week, Russian planes bombed a “secret base of operations for elite American and British forces” in Syria. (No Brits were at the base at the time, only Americans.) Putin’s planes also attacked “a site linked to the Central Intelligence Agency.”

“U.S. military and intelligence officials” told the Wall Street Journal that the strikes were “part of a campaign by Moscow to pressure the Obama administration to agree to closer cooperation over the skies in Syria.”

It seems to have worked. Sec. Kerry quickly struck a deal with the Russian Federation – but “over Pentagon and CIA objections.”

Those critics complained that “the White House gave in to Russian bullying,” and also “doubt[ed] that Moscow would abide by the terms of the agreement,” according to the Journal.

“Officials close to Mr. Kerry said he shares the skepticism of military and intelligence officials about Russian intentions, which is why he inserted a clause during negotiations to allow the U.S. to suspend cooperation with the Russians if they started bombing U.S. allies again.”

What a deal! Kerry sure knows how to lead from behind.

Does anybody think our Middle East policy makes sense?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags bombing, John Kerry, Putin, Russia, Syria

Accountability ideological culture insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies

Sorry Not Sorry

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, democrat, democratic party, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders

Today, the Democratic National Convention begins in Philadelphia.

Yesterday, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, announced her resignation amidst a growing controversy over the DNC’s favoritism toward Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders during this year’s presidential contest.

Months ago, Sen. Sanders called for Wasserman Schultz to step down, noting her closeness to the Clinton campaign and angered by what his campaign perceived as unfair treatment. To which, Wasserman Schultz had smugly responded, “Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do.”

It seems Sanders had a lot better understanding of what the DNC does than she thought.

Thanks to WikiLeaks, the American people have also gotten in the know. Last Friday, WikiLeaks released 20,000 emails from top DNC officials, reportedly snatched by Russian hackers. In the emails, one can read the DNC’s top financial officer suggesting a smear against Sanders over his religion. “AMEN,” responded the DNC’s CEO.

Yes, indeed, the Democratic Party establishment was rigging the process. “The release provides further evidence,” Michael Sainato wrote in The Observer, that “the DNC broke its own charter . . . by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.”

Caught breaking the rules, Wasserman Schultz is out!

Sorta. She’s out after the convention, not before.

Furthermore, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is still “in.” Mrs. Clinton just offered her a position on the campaign, and said she was “grateful to Debbie for getting the Democratic Party to this year’s historic convention in Philadelphia.”

By hook and by crook.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Photo credit: Medill DC on Flickr (Creative Commons)

Tags Bernie Sanders, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic National Committee, Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton

Accountability political challengers responsibility term limits too much government

Who’s the Boss?

Paul Jacob, Gary Johnson, FreedomFest, 2016, Nevada, illustration

This week, Republicans have chosen Donald Trump to be their standard-bearer. Next week, Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate.

But the only candidate on your ballot to take the U.S. Term Limits pledge is Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. Last week, I rubbed elbows with the former two-term governor of New Mexico on a panel about term limits at FreedomFest in Las Vegas.

“I believe that if term limits were in effect that politicians would do the right thing as opposed to whatever it takes to get re-elected,” Johnson told the capacity crowd.

The U.S. Term Limits pledge is straightforward, a commitment to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to help push Congress and the states to propose and ratify the congressional term limits Americans have been voting for and demanding for quite some time.

U.S. Term Limits Executive Director Nick Tomboulides asked me what it says about our democracy that even with overwhelming public support for many decades, Congress has blocked this reform.

Noting that Congress is thoroughly despised by the public, I pointed out that only one incumbent congressman has been defeated for re-election so far this year. And that incumbent, Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), was under 23 felony indictments, including racketeering, for which he was later convicted.

I argued that term limitation “is a critical issue at the very core of governance. Are we the boss or are the politicians the boss? Today, I think we all have to be honest and admit the politicians are the boss.”

Adding, “And we have to do something about that.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Gary Johnson, Gov Gary Johnson, term limit, term limit pledge, term limits

Accountability general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

The Freak-out Factor

gun, control, 2nd Amendment, Republican, police

Most folks are so unused to seeing normal people carrying guns around, out in the open, that when they it, they freak out.

Among those who are at least, well, unsettled by the spectacle? The police.

Funny, the gun freaker-outers don’t usually freak when they see police with guns. But that may be changing as more and more video footage comes out regarding police shootings of suspects under suspicious circumstances.

It is not exactly by accident that there are protests in numerous cities.

So, police being human, we cannot be surprised when, after the Dallas and Baton Rouge killings of police, “[t]he head of the Cleveland police union called on the governor of Ohio to declare a state of emergency and to suspend open-carry gun rights during the Republican national convention. . . .”

The governor’s office responded that Gov. John Kasich had no authority to do such a thing. Open carry was a law in the state. Only inside buildings could carry rights be suspended (as they have been, selectively).

Steve Loomis, the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association head, said that he did not “care what the legal precedent” may be, and “couldn’t care less if it’s legal or not.”

If Loomis, a leader in “law enforcement,” boasts this attitude, no wonder police have had so many trigger finger incidents, sparking so much anguish, protest, and debate.

It’s time for police to rethink their approach to people who have rights to carry weapons.

Perhaps more importantly, we should all try not to freak out so easily.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF