Category: folly

Categories
Accountability folly initiative, referendum, and recall

A Modest Proposal for Madison

“Ninety percent of life is just showing up.”

Well, Woody, tell that to Democratic state senators in Wisconsin. Or, should I say, in Rockford, Illinois . . . hiding from the Wisconsin police.

They’re not wanted for any crime. Wisconsin state troopers would simply take them into custody and deliver them to their worksite: the state capitol in Madison.

Unemployment soars, and folks with cushy jobs go underground. I hate to be so boringly practical, but people should show up for work or let their employer(s) know that they are resigning. Not showing up is irresponsible. (Of course, these are politicians.)

And the whole biz is about responsibility. Wisconsin Democrats don’t want to vote on Republican Governor Scott Walker’s proposals to make government employees contribute 5.8 percent of their pay toward their lucrative pensions and 12.6 percent toward their medical insurance premiums, and to end collective bargaining for benefits and work rules, while keeping it for pay.

These are legitimate issues for the legislature. Democracy is about voting on them — even when you won’t win. But by lurking next door in the Land of Lincoln, Democrats can deny the quorum necessary for the legislature to do business.

Citizens have one immediate recourse: Recall.

Under Wisconsin law, no elected official can be recalled in their first year in office. But eight of the 14 shirking senators could be recalled right now. Were a mere two of them recalled, Republican senators would alone constitute a quorum.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability folly too much government

Our Limited Abilities Require Other Limits

Last week I asked, in effect, Who regulates the regulators?

It does no good to say “the people,” because — as much as I want government to be ultimately controlled by the people — if you’re like me, you don’t know enough to micro-regulate high finance.

But there’s something I didn’t mention last Wednesday: The regulators don’t have that knowledge, either.

Even keeping eyeballs on simple fraud turns out to be difficult. Trying to micromanage high finance? Much harder.

But the congenital inability of regulators properly to regulate doesn’t mean that we must consign ourselves to a never-ending, Sisyphean cycle of boom and bust.

Many of the instruments of the modern federal government try to do too much. These very institutions, because they hubristically attempt to regulate away boom bust deliver just the opposite. They make sure booms go bust in messy ways.

Here’s a fresh example: “Lack of regulation” wasn’t the main reason for this latest bust. More important? The “too big to fail” subsidy. By giving Wall Street, big bankers, and financial intermediaries the impression that they would be bailed out in case of implosion, those very same folks behaved in such a way to risk said implosion, and thus needing the bailouts.

Which happened.

Which started the cycle all over.

Only by going back to basics can we improve our long-term economic outlook — not by government micromanaging the economy.

Nicely, citizens like you and me can understand these “basics.”

And defend them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
folly

The Candy-Cane Killers

Tragic holiday horror! Diabolical kids with bad sweaters, scheming with Grinch-like dastardliness to stab at the heart of the season! Openly distributing thinly disguised blades . . .

Openly! Well, the school administrators were on the case in a jiffy.

The ten culpable kids at the Haymarket, Virginia, high school — called, by a cruel joke of destiny, Battlefield High — belonged to the secret commando unit “Christmas Sweater Club,” so-called because they wear “the craziest sweaters they can find.”

Just the kind of loosely-knit cover story you’d expect from such warped-and-woofed yarn spinners.

On the fateful morning, before classes began, club members ruthlessly tossed two-inch candy canes to arriving schoolmates. These student instigators told Channel 9 that school officials charged them with trying to “maliciously maim” their fellow students. “They said the candy canes are weapons because you can sharpen them with your mouth and stab people with them.”

By the time disciplinary notices were issued, however, the complaint had lapsed into something about “creating a disturbance.” Mom Kathleen Flannery related an administrator’s earnest appraisal: “Not everyone wants Christmas cheer.”

Lesson? Obviously, tiny candy canes in the wrong hands are dangerous, especially if converted by frenetic licking into ferocious little shivs that could turn a playground into a killing field!

Also, tiny brains in the wrong school officials’ heads can be dangerous, too . . . especially when they can’t be sharpened at all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
folly free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Madison’s Angels to the Rescue?

Something called “behavioral economics” has arisen in recent decades, testing and probing many of the assumptions-cum-postulates of basic microeconomics. Researchers have discovered that human beings are prone to biases, cognitive errors, and a whole bevy of choice glitches. We are not perfectly rational.

Shocking, I know.

Some people draw an odd moral from this: Since people are such fools, they require the help of government to regulate them from utter folly and ruin.

Economist David Henderson quotes one of his Facebook friends, TV creative director John Papola, as supplying the “most succinct criticism” of this tack: “Why in the world do behavioral economists who study our flaws and irrational quirks advocate centralized power in the hands of a small group of flawed overlords? If people are irrational, so are government regulators, only they have corrupting monopoly power.”

You’ve seen this kind of argument before, in political theory. James Madison famously noted that

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

Just so: Were we entirely rational, no regulation would be necessary — no laws would. But, given universal human limitations, the regulators themselves require regulation, and a (non-existent) supply of non-biased, error-resistant rationality, to boot.

Forget vast reams of regulations and huge teams of bureaucrats. Instead, perfect the basic rule of law, regulating markets by a well-conceived basic set of rules.

And expect some imperfection.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
folly too much government video

Video of the Week: California PERS Aristocracy

In vignette after vignette, this mash-up provides a helpful (and amusing) take on California’s pension fiasco:

It’s not easy thinking about government-enacted pensions, I guess. Everyone wants to retire young and well-off, and no one wants to appear stingy. But there has to be responsibility in how these things are set up.

I touched upon the subject earlier this week, in “Pension Declension.” Two of my commenters — Charles Sainte Claire and SkipppingDog — strike me as perhaps not quite getting why pension reform is necessary.

What Charles and Skipping aren’t saying is that a defined benefit plan guarantees a certain return whether or not the money has been invested to produce such a return. So, where does the money to pay the defined benefit come from?

Yep, you guessed it: The taxpayers. Future taxpayers who can’t even be blamed for having elected the dishonest pols who cut these fraudulent deals with the politically active and powerful public employee unions.

In the public sector, the pressure will then be off the workers and politicians to actually fund today what will be spent tomorrow. Which means embracing the sort of chaos now destroying states and municipalities in California and across these United States.

What about in the private sector? Did someone say “private” sector? Well, even in the private sector, it will be the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill.

To suggest that defined benefit plans are the way to go is to suggest that workers can have whatever they desire and some magic person named The Taxpayer will always be there to pay for it. It is to embrace fleecing future generations.

Of course, we’ll be told that it “worked well in the past.” In a manner of speaking. After all, Bernie Madoff’s fraudulent scam worked well “in the past.” Most rip-offs “work well” . . . that is, until the very moment when honest, hard-working people realize they’ve been had.

Categories
folly free trade & free markets too much government

The Alternative to the Public Option

The congressional “progressive” caucus still wants to impose a public health insurance option, allegedly to “reduce the deficit.”

According to caucus kingpin Raul Grijalva, deficit hawks are “hypocrites” for predicting that government spending would balloon were a public option imposed. Their “excuse . . . that it was going to be too expensive is phony,” according to Congressman Grijalva.

The progressives’ notion seems to be that accelerating the pell-mell government takeover of the medical delivery industry is the very best thing one could do to reduce the deficit.

If that’s the case, then why not also “reduce the deficit” with respect to other sectors of the economy in which government spends any money at all — that is, in any economic sector — by launching a government takeover that eventually swamps private markets altogether?

By “progressive” logic, communizing the whole economy must be the best way to foster fiscal sobriety in DC.

Absurd, I know.

Perhaps Grijalva’s deceived by his franking privilege. The public option for postal delivery works so well. For him. For the rest of us, we have to pay the billions the USPS loses every year.

The solution to the USPS’s constant, persistent failure is not to regulate and nationalize Fed-Ex and UPS and every other alternative.

Real progress requires the opposite of Grijalva’s “progressivism”: Pry government out of both health care and postal delivery. This is not a radical idea. It is only . . . well . . .

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.