Category: Accountability

Population to Government, “Hello”

Post author By CS Admin
Post date August 12, 2016
2 Comments on 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

Tags central planning, government planning, population, Social Security

Accountability general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies too much government

Politicians Must Suffer

Politicians make us suffer. Isn’t turnabout fair play?

No. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And equal suffering is not a worthwhile goal.

Nonetheless, politicians do indeed need to “suffer” — by which I mean to bear a serious and sobering cost for their service in pubic office, to view their relationship with power through the lens of sacrifice … not as cashing-in.

Like every other decent person, I’ve always been offended by midnight pay raises and the myriad sneaky, sleazy ways that our so-called servants enrich themselves at our expense. But, until recently, I considered politicians being over-compensated as a symptom of the problem and not a big problem in and of itself.

Now I’m convinced that lavish pay, pensions and other benefits for city councilmen, state legislators and congressmen constitute a serious problem. It breeds bad behavior when politicians line their own pockets — and laugh their way into retirement.

But even without the tricks, when our representatives receive too many treats for their, ahem, “service,” they tend not to serve us very well.

Some contend that compensation must be “competitive” to attract the best and the brightest. But with rare exceptions, we’re not getting those folks to run for office. Instead of enticing successful people or those committed enough to public service to accept less lucrative pay, we’re getting folks who see public office as their path to success — personal financial success.

One cannot serve two masters. If our representatives are in it for their own benefits, as opposed to making a sacrifice for the greater good … well, we wind up with government like we have now.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Congressional pay raise, politicians, public service

Accountability government transparency national politics & policies responsibility too much government

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