Category: folly

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

Billionaire Theater

Bill Gates, taxes, tax, government, entrepreneurs, responsibility

“I need to pay higher taxes,” Bill Gates told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Sunday.

He was making a case against Republican tax cuts, but his actual argument? Insignificant. It’s just another unlearned, narrow-perspective “growing inequality” farrago. But his conclusion intrigues . . . as a man-bites-dog story, because people have this goofy idea that rich people are somehow against government and for reduced taxes.

They aren’t. Not even most of the richest.

“I’ve paid more taxes, over $10 billion, than anyone else,” says the man worth $90 billion, “but the government should require the people in my position to pay significantly higher taxes.”

Why? To spend his money better than he could?

Were all the wealth of America’s billionaires confiscated whole and that sum would actually pay off the federal debt (which I doubt), what do you think Washington politicians would do? Go on the straight and narrow and never over-spend again?

No. Politicians would take the new influx of funds as a signal to go on an even bigger spending binge.

But what about his mere income tax increase notion? What then? As sure as the Blue Screen of Death it would be applied down to millionaires, too. And then rates for less-than-millionaires would likely go up. We have a history with this. And what would that do?

It would hit up-and-coming entrepreneurs the hardest. It would nip Bill Gates’s company’s competition in the bud.

But surely Gates wouldn’t be mercenary in his theatrical play for media adoration, would he? 

Not Saint Bill!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom government transparency ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies too much government

Threat Assessment

Tide Pod, foolish, foolhardy, Atlantic, Jonathan Rauch, Benjamin Wittes, vote, voting, Republican, Democrat, threat, GOP

Don’t drink transmission fluid. Or perform a swan dive off the Empire State Building. Or munch on a Tide Pod.

Be cautious, in other words, of the advice offered in “Boycott the Republican Party,” the Atlantic opinion piece authored by Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes, both scholars at the Brookings Institution. Their erudite suggestion? Conservatives should “vote mindlessly and mechanically against Republicans at every opportunity, until the party either rights itself or implodes (very preferably the former).”

My Sunday column at Townhall.com, “Friendly Suicide Advice for the GOP,” reviewed their proposal and analysis. “[H]orrified” by President Trump, they see congressional Republicans as enablers of his “existential” threat “to American democracy.”

Big government has long frightened me, so I’m certainly not suggesting anyone relax just now. I do wonder, however, why these writers and others in the media have been so blasé to past presidential usurpations (noted in the column) with life-and-death implications.

Rauch and Wittes go so far as to reassuringly explain that “the Democratic Party is not a threat to our democratic order.”

Really?

In 2016, every single Democratic Party U.S. Senator voted to partially repeal the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Democrats’ proposal would have largely ended the prohibition that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” replacing it with “Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”

In our present “democratic order,” the Constitution recognizes the primary importance of walling off political speech from regulation by these very politicians. The Democrats seek to repeal that order . . . that freedom . . . that criticism.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
crime and punishment folly general freedom local leaders moral hazard nannyism privacy responsibility too much government

The Winds of Regulation

occupational, licensing, permission, unions, protectionism, regulation, license, law

Among the many goofy occupational licensing laws in these United States, Arizona’s licensing for professional blow-drying services is up there with the silliest. 

“Under current law, using a blow-dryer on someone else’s hair, for money, requires more than 1,000 hours of training and an expensive state-issued license,” we learn at Reason. “Blow-drying hair without a license could — incredibly — land you in jail for up to six months.”

This came into the news because of a campaign to deregulate the cosmetology industry — just a bit, anyway. Gov. Doug Ducey, in his recent State of the State address, “mocked the state agency that licenses stylists, barbers, nail technicians and affiliated professionals in Arizona, and endorsed legislation to remove training requirements for those who simply wash, brush and blow-dry customers’ hair.”

Licensed cosmetologists — well, at least some organized ones — have gone into a tizzy.

Hardly surprising, since occupational licensing, though usually argued for on consumer safety grounds, rarely finds consumers clamoring for it. 

It’s groups of established businesses, professionals.*

Brandy Wells, the sole non-cosmetologist on the state board overseeing the regulation of the industry, supports the liberalizing bill. So of course she has been called every name in the book. But even she was amused by one stylish denigration: “your logic on deregulation of cosmetology is much like your hair, dull and flat.”

The issue may seem trivial, with not all that much on the line — though jobs are . . . and freedom is. 

But it doesn’t lack for hot air.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* As Adam Smith argued, whenever businessmen (“dealers”) in the same industry group together, their proposals should be listened to “with great precaution.”

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly government transparency ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

Defiance?

Washington Post, lap dog, lapdog, Department of Justice, FBI, crime, accountability

“Once the party of law and order,” screamed the Washington Post’s top-of-the-front-page Sunday headline, “Republicans are now challenging it.”

The story’s lede: “Republican leaders’ open defiance last week of the FBI over the release of a hotly disputed memo revealed how the GOP, which has long positioned itself as the party of law and order, has become an adversary of federal law enforcement as the party continues its quest to protect President Trump from the Russia investigation.”

Huh?

Defiance,* by definition, is “bold disobedience.” But the Constitution tasks Congress with control (by oversight and purse string) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice. Because subservient, it is the FBI and DoJ that can disobey. Not Congress.

While some Republicans seemingly switched sides on the appropriateness of criticizing the FBI over the Nunes memo release — congratulations are in order! — the same point, reversed, can be made (even humorously) about some on the Left now condemning such criticism.

Criticizing the government — including law enforcement agencies — has always been as American as apple pie.

The Post supports an ever-increasing role for the federal government, favoring Democrats. But now, Trump Derangement Syndrome has apparently pushed the company-town paper over the edge . . . to Media Madness (the title of Howard Kurtz’s new book, which the paper sophomorically savaged).

How ridiculous to characterize Republicans as enemies of “federal law enforcement” because they believe some within the FBI acted improperly, perhaps unlawfully.**

The Post should remember that its journalistic street cred didn’t come from reporting partisan spin as fact, but from what some saw as “defying” the president and publishing “national secrets” in search of the truth

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* The Post wasn’t alone. Politico echoed the message in its story, “GOP defies FBI, releases secret Russia memo to partisan fury,” and so did other media outlets.

** Moreover, Republican leaders have been clear that the memo does not impact Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

PDF for printing

 

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

Farce and Fury

Grammys, hypocrites, Hillary Clinton, Michael Wolff, Fire and Fury,

NBC’s Today covered Sunday night’s Grammy Awards — the music industry’s shindig that I mark my calendar each year to be sure to miss — under the labels “The Grammys Get Political” and “Music & #MeToo Movement Take Center Stage.”

Reuters declared that “the surprise star of the night was former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reading from Michael Wolff’s controversial book Fire and Fury.”

That the music industry wraps their product in partisan politics? Their business. And to be fair, Hillary’s part of the skit was actually kinda funny.

What’s not so funny? Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Wolff lionized as exemplary #MeTooers . . . while being the opposite.

First, were Grammy organizers oblivious to the breaking story that Hillary Clinton overruled her 2008 campaign manager to keep, rather than fire, a male employee accused of sexual harassment, ultimately reassigning the female victim, instead? To make matters worse, in tweets Mrs. Clinton seemed to take great credit for the young woman being “heard.”

Liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus called Hillary’s response “head-exploding stuff.”

Second, CNN reports that the author of Fire and Fury, Michael Wolff, “has been spreading a rumor that the President of the United States is having an affair, and in a coyly worded exchange on Real Time With Bill Maher implied that it was with [U.N. Ambassador Nikki] Haley.” Wolff told Maher that he was “absolutely sure” of it . . . but not quite certain enough to put it in the book.

Haley, the former South Carolina Governor, called the rumor “false” and “disgusting,” noting it is an age-old, sexist slap against women.

So, why were Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Wolff celebrated on this stage?

And not Nikki Haley?

Makes no sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly general freedom local leaders moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies Popular privacy Regulating Protest too much government

The Last Straw

plastic straws, nanny state, fine, crime, California, freedom

How much should we fine waiters who destroy our planet?

For how long should they go to jail?

I don’t know where you would hold such an evildoer after the earth has been destroyed. Or where he’d go when released. But we’re speaking hypothetically. Assume that planet-destroyers can be imprisoned on the moon, which let’s just say still orbits the earth’s decimated remains. Or assume that after being destroyed, the planet can be reconstructed. After serving his sentence, then, the waiter would be released to a reconstructed earth.

In that case, a maximum $1,000 fine as suggested by Ian Calderon, Democratic majority leader of the California State Assembly, seems only fair. However, a maximum of six months in jail is excessive. In my opinion, planet-destroying waiters should suffer no more than 100 days in jail.

Calderon has proposed a bill, AB-1884, to fine and/or imprison waiters who offer unsolicited plastic straws to restaurant patrons. In response to criticism of his silly and vicious bill, Calderon says hey, it’s “NOT a ban” on straws! Oh, okay. Anyway, “Penalties are based on the code section the bill is currently in, which it will be amended out of,” which sounds like Calderon was prior to the uproar . . . what, joking?

As long as we’re amending, let me amend my own implication that people who offer, use, make or sell plastic straws* are in fact helping destroy earth. Just kidding!

The earth will survive plastic straws. Will it survive the Calderons of the world?

Open question.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Not that I’m confirming or denying ever using one myself.

PDF for printing