Category: Accountability

Categories
Accountability ideological culture national politics & policies

Tainted Money?

Bernie Sanders, PAC, hypocrisy, donations, illustration

Bernie Sanders’s supporters take great pride in the “fact” that their candidate doesn’t take money from corporate interests. He himself has said he doesn’t want PAC money. But he has not been returning the checks from unions.

The National Nurses United, a seven-​year-​old union, has been the biggest donor. According to the New York Times, “The union’s ‘super PAC’ has spent close to $1 million on ads and other support for Mr. Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who has inspired liberal voters with his calls to eradicate such outside groups.”

The Sanders crusade has, in fact, benefited from “more super PAC money … than for either of his Democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton.…”

You will forgive me my growing guffaw.

“I do appreciate the irony,” the union’s executive director told the Times. “All things being equal, we would rather not be doing this. On the other hand, we want to see Bernie as president.”

Bernie doesn’t see the irony, and denies a contradiction. He wants to overturn the Citizens United decision. If that decision allows unions to launder money and soak his cause with it, well, fine. At least he’s not getting his hands dirty like Hillary, who really knows how to milk corporate groups. Bernie benefits from “spontaneous” PAC support.

It is worth remembering that this PAC method, after all, is little more than a consequence of post-​Nixon Era limits on individual campaign contributions. It’s a work-around.

Overturn Citizens United and other work-​arounds will be found.

Meanwhile, Sanders and his followers will continue to live by a double standard: your money, bad; our money, good.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Bernie Sanders, PAC, hypocrisy, donations, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom ideological culture moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

Establishment, Always Establishment

Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, primary, election, Common Sense

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders winning in New Hampshire is as good an indicator as any that Americans — or at least Live Free or Die staters — are tired of the bipartisan Establishment. Victories for a billionaire iconoclast and a self-​designated socialist.

Both are “players” in their distinct ways: the former a publicity-​minded entrepreneur who boasts of having been a briber of politicians, the latter as a long-​term senator with a consistently pro-​government-​growth voting record.

But both are plausibly outsiders, too. Trump speaks off the cuff and in an entertainingly anti-​PC manner, and Sanders proclaims a love of government so strong that he willingly embraces a label with a very negative record throughout the last century.

Indeed, Trump’s many words and Sanders’s One Word serve to negate these two candidates’ “establishment feel.”

But if elected, would either rock the Establishment boat?

Based on his voting record, Sanders is liable to continue the bipartisan “War, Always War” strategy abroad, along with the same domestic policy of “Spend, Always Overspend.”

That is Establishment.

Trump is less of a warmonger than Sanders, oddly enough: The Donald has criticized the Iraq War, argued that Russia should take care of its nearby Syria problem, and offered that China should worry about North Korea … in other words, he can conceive of foreign areas being outside of American purview.

But Trump is as protectionist as Sanders, and loves taking property from private individuals (with “just compensation”) and giving it to developers … like himself. You cannot get more Establishment than that.

Still, New Hampshire voters know something, and that something is undoubtedly that something must change.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, primary, election, Common Sense

 

Categories
Accountability folly national politics & policies

Hillary Clinton, Double-Agent?

HIllary Clinton

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton rails against a “political system hijacked by billionaires and special interests.” Billionaire George Soros just wrote a $6 million check to a pro-​Hillary SuperPAC.

“Our democracy should work for everyone,” states HillaryClinton​.com, “not just the wealthy and well-​connected.” Last week, we discovered Mrs. Clinton was paid a whopping $675,000 by Goldman Sachs, the politically-​connected Wall Street investment firm, for three speeches after she left the State Department.

Nice work if you can get it.

“Her top donors read like a Who’s Who of Wall Street,” editorialized Investor’s Business Daily. “But sure, she’s going to clean up campaign finance.”

Not only that, Hillary also claims she’ll take on and harshly regulate those same powerful Wall Street interests.

In last Thursday’s debate, Mrs. Clinton took umbrage at the idea that rival Senator Bernie Sanders “would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment.”

This led columnist Danielle Allen, also a woman, to opine: “Clinton does not merely exemplify the establishment. She and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, are the Democratic Party establishment.… That candidate Clinton could deliver her line with a straight face goes to the heart of her trustworthiness problem.”

Responding to Bernie Sanders’s questions about her significant financial support from powerful interests, Hillary told the debate audience, “I know this game. I’m going to stop this game.”

Mrs. Clinton is very believable as to the first claim. The second? Not so much.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

HIllary Clinton

 

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

Giving Up on the Future?

Social Security, wealth transfer, young, old, elderly, Germany, Japan, baby boom

Both Germany and Japan now transfer money, on net, from the young to the old. Austria, Slovenia, and Hungary, The Economist reports, do the same.

The instrument of this transfer? Well, the elephant in the room: those nation’s entitlement programs — their versions of our “Social Security.”

John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law at Northwestern University, explains how unnatural the direction of the transfer is. Normally, societies “give more to the young than the young can ever repay.” Remember the truism, “the children are our future”? Families, McGinnis explains, “exemplify this principle. Socially too, the intergenerational flow of resources is what creates civilization as each generation receives benefits from the previous one.”

Taking from the young to give to the old, on the other hand, is not just counter-​intuitive. It stifles innovation, entrepreneurship, progress itself.

What drives the trend? It is complicated. But the politics behind redistributionist programs is the main culprit:

The elderly vote more than the young, who have more distractions, and politicians are thus all too eager to give them goodies. And while individually the elderly would like to direct more resources to their young relatives, when they act in politics they face a kind of tragedy of the commons. They cannot prevent others from living off the state, so they might as well do themselves.

As my generation, the infamous Baby Boom, retires, the demographics turn Social Security against society’s main purpose: building a future. The culture refocuses on retirement … preparing for death.

Another way — on top of growing debt and increasing regulatory burden — we’re leaving our kids with less than we had.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Social Security, wealth transfer, young, old, elderly, Germany, Japan, baby boom

 

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets moral hazard porkbarrel politics too much government

Crony Corn

pig, port, corn, ethanol, subsidies, gas, fuel, Common Sense, Paul Jacob

The presidential campaign officially begins in Iowa. The Hawkeye State is also the nation’s corn-​growing champion. Each year, Iowans sell 47 percent of that crop to produce ethanol, which accounts for a not-​insignificant 8 percent of the state’s gross product.

Ethanol has friends in Washington, too. Congressional wizards have mandated that the gasoline pumped into cars throughout the land be diluted with ethanol — talk about a market guarantee!

At National Review, Jeremy Carl explains that “energy-​policy experts of all political stripes can agree … mandates and subsidies to promote the use of corn ethanol (a policy first implemented by Jimmy Carter) are wasteful boondoggles that harm our environment and food supply while imposing billions of dollars of hidden costs on consumers. However, most energy-​policy experts are not running for president in the Iowa caucuses.”

In 2008, both Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain flip-​flopped to support the ethanol subsidies they had previously opposed.

But, this year, Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul haven’t pandered along.

When Cruz rose to first place in the polls, Gov. Terry Branstad attacked, arguing, “It would be a big mistake for Iowa to support [Cruz]” because “his anti-​renewable fuel stand … will cost us jobs, and will further reduce farm income …”

Yesterday, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Cruz, “Why should [Iowa] voters side with you over the six-​term governor of this state?”

“I think there should be no mandates and no subsidies whatsoever,” Cruz replied.

In today’s Iowa caucus, can Cruz overcome the forces of crony corn?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

pig, port, corn, ethanol, subsidies, gas, fuel, Common Sense, Paul Jacob

 

Categories
Accountability folly ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Hard Words, Soft Left

socialism, democrats, Hillary Clinton, Common Sense

“The word ‘socialist’ is a really hard word,” warned former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

“Now, I love Bernie Sanders, really,” Granholm added, acknowledging she’s okay with his socialist policies — just not the term.

Not in mixed company.

The former governor of the Wolverine State was responding to a question — “How about the charges ‘he’s a socialist’?” — from Martha Raddatz, who was hosting ABC’s This Week that week.

“The socialist label is something that he applies to himself, right,” Granholm noted. “So the question is how does that play across America?”

Armed with a Gallup poll, Granholm answered that socialism doesn’t play very well at all. Voters are “even” less apt to vote for a “socialist” than for an “atheist.” In case you wondered.

So, what is the difference between a socialist and a Democrat?

“You’re the chairman of the Democratic Party, tell me the difference between you and a socialist,” Chris Matthews had implored Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on MSNBC months ago.

“The relevant debate we’ll be having over the course of this campaign,” dodged the DNC chair, “is what’s the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.”

Chuck Todd, noting that Bernie Sanders “is an unabashed socialist” who is always praising European social democracies, echoed the question on Meet the Press: “what is the difference?”

“It’s always fun to be interviewed by Chris Matthews and I know that he enjoys that banter,” bobbed an answer-​less Wasserman Schultz. “The important distinction we’ll be discussing in this campaign [blah, blah, blah] …”

Earlier this month, Matthews likewise asked Hillary Clinton to state the difference. Mrs. Clinton said she wasn’t a socialist but, instead, “a progressive Democrat.”

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz wouldn’t answer the question either,” Matthews replied.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

socialism, democrats, Hillary Clinton, Common Sense