Category: government transparency

Categories
Accountability ballot access general freedom government transparency initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders national politics & policies political challengers responsibility tax policy term limits too much government

What Unlimited Government Costs Us

Tim Eyman, doll, petition, taxes, Washington, initiative, democracy, voters

“Olympia can’t restrain itself,” Tim Eyman wrote the other day, a judgment on legislative irresponsibility hardly unique to the Evergreen State. Citizens around the country have cause to lament the difficulty of obtaining anything close to a good legislature. 

Too often the merely “bad” would constitute a significant improvement.

Which is why legislators need to be put on a short leash. Limits on government must be written into law, where possible into either the U.S. Constitution or state constitutions, so the limits cannot be tampered with by legislators, good or bad.

Washington State initiative guru Tim Eyman, cited above, has made a career of working for just those kinds of limits. In 2007, Eyman and the citizen group Voters Want More Choices petitioned onto the statewide ballot a requirement that any tax increase must receive a two-​thirds vote from both legislative chambers. 

Voters passed the measure* in 2007, 2011 and 2012. 

In an email to supporters this month, Eyman presents data — an “amazing real-​world comparison” — to help us understand how effective the limits were … while they lasted.

He notes that “with the 2/​3 rule in effect from 2008 – 2012, those 5 legislative sessions cost the taxpayers $6.894 billion” in increased taxes.

And he compares that to the five years (2013 – 2017) since the state’s highest court struck down the voters’ two-​thirds mandate: “WITHOUT the 2/​3 rule, those 5 legislative sessions cost the taxpayers $23.679 billion.”

“Without the fiscal discipline imposed by citizen initiatives,” Eyman concludes, “politicians cannot hold back.”

Now we have hard evidence for what unlimited government costs us: more than three times more!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Washington State’s ballot initiative process allows voters to pass simple statutes but not constitutional amendments. For two years after passage, legislators must garner a two-​thirds vote to override a ballot initiative. After those two years, only a simple majority is required.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom government transparency ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies too much government

No Joking Matter

encryption, freedom, Chen Sho Uli, China, Chinese, Orwell, repression

He thought he was just horsing around.

Using the popular app WeChat, a Chinese construction worker supervisor Chen Sho Uli made a gossipy joke about government officials while chatting in a chat group. But being too casual about what you say — and where — can be dangerous in China. For his sin Chen was incarcerated for several days. 

“Picking quarrels” is another no-​no in the country.

In lieu of Orwell’s telescreen in every room, modern Internet technology enables repressive governments to punish citizens for thoughtcrime that becomes app-​speech crime. If the Chinese government can spy on you, it will. And penalize you for remarks it deems offensive to the dignity of the state.

Because of such repression, blogger Stephen Green observes that “strong encryption is everybody’s friend — except the tyrant’s.”

Agreed. Encryption is an important line of defense. 

But some societies require this more than others, because harmless, incidental communications are not equally attacked by government, from country to country. Which means that encryption is actually a second line of defense. 

The first is a cultural and political tradition respecting individual rights.

For one thing, robust encryption helps only those who engage in hyper-​careful private discourse, or hyper-​careful anonymous public discourse. Encryption won’t help thinkers of controversial thoughts who wish to express those thoughts publicly and under their own name. Everywhere we can, then, we must strengthen both the technological and cultural defenses of open discourse — recognizing that the latter is the more crucial and fundamental.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment government transparency moral hazard national politics & policies

New Standards?

harassment, sexual, assault, public, private, training, Al Franken, John Conyers

“This is a country trying to establish, and certainly a U.S. Senate trying to establish new standards for acceptable behavior,” Peggy Noonan told her fellow panelists on Meet the Press yesterday. 

She is at least half mistaken.

Groping a woman who is stuck posing for a photo with you at the state fair, as Sen. Al Franken (D‑Minn.) was accused, has never, ever been publicly viewed as “okay” or “nice work if you can get it.” And believe-​it-​or-​not, Americans are not ambivalent about the propriety of Congressman John Conyers (D‑Mich.) taking meetings in his underwear. Nor do folks find it fathomable that members of Congress such as Rep. Blake Farenthold (R‑Tex.) paid off their accusers with our tax dollars.

The standard has always been that such behavior is 100-​percent wrong. And yet Ms. Noonan is correct to suggest a new official standard for … both houses of Congress.*

But in a recent video for Breitbart, actor Jackie Mason mocks the idea of sexual harassment training. “When you’re three years old, you learn how to behave with people. You learn how to control yourself,” Mason rants. “Now Congressmen, who are 67 years old and 98 years old, are being told they have to take training at this age to learn how to behave with women.”

We see that, in media, in Hollywood, in Silicon Valley and among the corporate elite, credible allegations of sexual abuse are met with swift action: firings, dismissals, contracts voided. Out!

Our “representatives” should be ashamed not merely of their loathsome colleagues, but of being “out-​democracied” by corporate America.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

 

* The current House system protects powerful politicians and staffers with secrecy and even uses taxpayer money to pay off victims.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom government transparency initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders moral hazard national politics & policies term limits

Illinois’s Chicken-​and-​Fish Supreme Court

Illinois, Supreme Court, term limits, initiative, democracy, gerrymandering

A constitution is the law of the land only to the extent that it’s enforced. And in Illinois, the right of citizen initiative — provided for in the state constitution — is not enforced.

The constitution’s wording is explicit: “Amendments … may be proposed by a petition signed by a [specified number of electors].… Amendments shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV.”

Does that Article IV discuss the subject of election procedures, including eligibility requirements, thereby opening the door to a citizen-​initiated term limits amendment? Yes, it does. Section 2, subsection ©, for example, specifies citizenship, age, and residency requirements.

Yet the Illinois Supreme Court has repeatedly chucked the results of effective petition drives to get a state legislative term limits question on the ballot.

The justices rely on the venerable Fallacy of Tortured Misreading. 

Former Illinois legislator Jim Nowlin recently pointed out that in 1976, the court concluded that the wording about how initiative proposals “‘shall be limited to structural and procedural subjects’… meant a proposal must make both kinds of changes.” The lone dissenter on the court “opined to the effect: When I see a restaurant sign that says, ‘We have chicken and fish,’ that doesn’t mean you have to order both chicken and fish!”

The right of citizen initiative is a crucial means of reforming government when those in government won’t reform themselves. The citizens of Illinois have that right. But, for now, they also don’t.

That ain’t Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
folly government transparency media and media people national politics & policies too much government U.S. Constitution

Peel Back the Onion

The Onion, satire, humor, CFPB, bureaucracy

Yesterday, an Onion title caught my attention: “Hooded Members of Congress Drown Another Love Child in the Potomac to Prevent Affair from Getting Out.” This is not funny because it is true, but because it is so close to the truth. Too close for comfort.

A similar story, the day before, sported a title so sublime that you do not really need to read further: “Al Franken Tearfully Announces Intention To Step Down From Role As Harasser Of Women.” The week before that, another satire gave us this extravaganza: “Paul Ryan Announces New Congress Sexual Harassment Training Will Create Safe Work Atmosphere, Plausible Deniability.”

But sex scandals are easy. If The Onion were seriously in the satire biz, the farcical-​on-​the-​surface nonsense of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau brouhaha that I wrote about on Tuesday would get incisive treatment as well.

My advice to Onion writers? Don’t go halfway into the problem, like David A. Graham does in The Atlantic: “The Fight Over the CFPB Reveals the Broken State of American Politics.” Sure, that’s true. But concluding that “neither party sees the political process as effective in resolving these basic issues is worrying” hardly goes far enough, and the next line — “the fact that they might both be right is worse still” — shies from the full extent of the predicament.

The Constitution was designed to avoid problems like the CFPB nonsense. Start there. Something like this comes close: “Politicians Shocked, Shocked to Discover That an Un-​Constitutional, Partisan Bureau Becomes Subject to Constitutional Dispute Along Partisan Lines.”

I have confidence that, if The Onion went there, it’d be funnier. 

Even without a sex angle.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom government transparency ideological culture insider corruption moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Invulnerable Government

cfpb, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, director, Richard Cordray, Mick Mulvaney, deep state, administrative state, bureaucracy

As of this week, there are two heads of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Two claimants to the throne, so to speak. 

The bureau’s previous director, Richard Cordray, resigned last week, and as he left he appointed a deputy director, Leandra English. Ms. English sent out a nice Thanksgiving email, billing herself as “Acting Director.”

Meanwhile, in advance of Cordray’s exit, President Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney to fill the role. Mulvaney showed up at work yesterday and took possession of the director’s office. He ordered a hiring freeze … and brought donuts.

It gets juicier. English has filed suit against the president and his appointee, claiming to be, herself, the directorship’s rightful heir. She cites the enabling legislation, which allowed for deputization by the director. And she cites her commitment to the agency’s mission, of which Mulvaney and Trump have none.

Republicans generally regard the agency as having gone rogue. 

And the squabble over the directorship sure seems to validate that charge. 

The legality? Presumably, the legislation that established the agency — which deliberately insulated the CFPB from oversight by funding it from the Federal Reserve — does not void an established law, the Vacancies Act, which does allows the president to fill vacated posts.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has taken up English’s side in the dispute, because she believes in the agency’s mission.

Now, I get it: to make government as impregnable as a high mountain fortress is an idea that many folks flirt with, from time to time. But the results are always the same: government secure from democratic checks and constitutional balance.

Come on, Democrats! Give democracy a chance.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing