Category: ideological culture

Categories
ideological culture too much government

Moving to China?

Venture capitalist Eric X. Li, in an op-ed for the New York Times, “Why China’s Political Model Is Superior,” credits the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre with producing the “stability” that “ushered in a generation of growth and prosperity.”

As for America, Li explains that our problem is an “expanded” political franchise, “resulting in a greater number of people participating in more and more decisions.”

“Elected representatives have no minds of their own and respond only to the whims of public opinion as they seek re-election,” Li informs, and “special interests manipulate the people into voting for ever-lower taxes and higher government spending, sometimes even supporting self-destructive wars.”

Mr. Li points to California and predicts an American “future” of “endless referendums, paralysis and insolvency.”

But wait a second . . . Americans have no initiative or referendum powers at the national level. The people didn’t vote for this level of taxes, spending, war or massive debt – our elite political leaders did that. Too much control by the people? Hardly. Too little.

Note that the national government most affected by initiatives and referendums is Switzerland, which also has the world’s highest per capita income.

But, as Li tells us, “China is on a different path. Its leaders are prepared to allow greater popular participation in political decisions if and when it is conducive to economic development and favorable to the country’s national interests . . .” After all, “political rights . . . should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation.”

Those negotiations have left Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo in a Chinese prison.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture video

Video: The Importance of Institutions

You can’t free up society all on your lonesome:

Categories
First Amendment rights ideological culture national politics & policies

Contra Mandated Contraception Coverage

Regulators spawned by “Obamacare” have mandated that employer-provided medical insurance plans provide contraception as a benefit. 

The problem, as currently reported and debated, is that only churches are exempted — church-run or -affiliated hospitals, for example, are not. And so Catholic hospitals, along with other religious-based charitable endeavors, must conform, despite their commitment to age-old ideas about the sanctity of life, which they say contraception and abortifacients, especially (some contraceptive methods are de facto abortion-inducing), abridge.

Many conservatives argue that the mandate thus runs afoul of the First Amendment. But it turns out that many Republican politicians have supported similar mandates in several states.

Mike Huckabee signed one such mandate into law in Arkansas.

No big news that GOP politicians are often just as bad as Democrats, of course. But forget, if you can, the First Amendment angle. The mandate runs afoul of something even more fundamental: common sense.

Adding an umpteenth mandate to the list of regulations government places on contracts amongst employers, employees, and insurance companies hardly passes the smell test. The more benefits that government insists you contract for, the higher your insurance rates. The higher the rates, fewer are those who would willingly buy, thus scuttling the whole point of “health care reform.”

We ostensibly want more people to purchase major medical insurance. Not fewer.

It’s possible that some reformers seek precisely that, to put insurance companies out of business, leaving only government to take up the slack, as a “single payer.”

In the case of Republican reformers, however, is there a hidden agenda or just mere foolishness?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies too much government

Food Stamp Stimulus

Yesterday, we discussed the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare’s new rule testing the financial assets of food stamp recipients to determine whether or not they qualify for the benefit.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack recently traveled to the Keystone State to caution against restricting access to food stamps — officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — on the basis of a person’s financial assets. He contended that implementing the means test would cost money and that it wouldn’t “save the Commonwealth a single dime.”Tom Vilsack points a finger

State officials suggest Secretary Vilsack is way off on the cost of implementation. Moreover, it seems odd to argue there will be no savings at a new conference stuffed full of shrill warnings that too many poor people would lose assistance.

But two of Vilsack’s other arguments really caught my attention. First, he claimed the SNAP program is an “economic extender,” which creates agricultural jobs and positions at grocery stores and convenience marts. Second, he asserted that for each food stamp dollar provided by government an additional $1.80 to $1.90 in economic activity is generated.

In other words, food stamps stimulate the economy. It’s almost as if, even if there were no folks down on their luck, we’d still want to spread around some food stamp money for all the good it does.

Vilsack made absolutely no mention of the economic activity interrupted when government took that same dollar from the person who earned it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

Wealth on Welfare

Should a $2 million lottery winner be heartlessly denied food stamps?

In the Philadelphia Inquirer, Jay Ostrich, public affairs director at the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy, tells the story of “Leroy Fick, who won a $2 million lottery jackpot, but still legally collected food stamps.”

That is, until “Michigan enacted a $5,000 asset test” for those applying for food stamps, thereby stopping “exploiters such as Fick from taking advantage of the system.”

Now the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare is doing likewise, implementing rules to block food stamps for anyone under 60 with $2,000 or more in assets ($3,250 if over 60 years of age) — excluding one’s home, car, a second car (if valued under $4,650) and retirement savings.

With state and federal welfare spending up 52 percent since 2002, and the friendly state facing a budget crunch, an estimated 2 percent of recipients could be affected to the tune of $50 million in annual savings.

But Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter calls the change “one of the most mean-spirited, asinine proposals to come out of Harrisburg in decades.” It’s “a disgrace,” according to State Sen. Shirley Kitchen (D-Philadelphia).

The Philadelphia Inquirer editorialized against the asset test on the grounds that it would “punish families for having a few dollars in a bank account.”

Punish? Not getting a handout is hardly punishment. The law just means that those with significant assets have to buy their own groceries.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture individual achievement too much government

Skipping the Political Pomp

Tim Thomas is the All-Star goaltender for the Boston Bruins, winners of the National Hockey League’s 2011 Stanley Cup — which “was won by defense as much as by offense,” President Barack Obama said yesterday at a White House event honoring the team:

Tim Thomas posted two shutouts in the Stanley Cup finals and set an all-time record for saves in the postseason, and he also earned the honor of being only the second American ever to be recognized as the Stanley Cup playoffs MVP.

But Thomas wasn’t there to hear the president’s praise. He chose not to attend, explaining cogently in a statement:
Tim Thomas

I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. . . . This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country.

Boston Bruins President Cam Neely explained that Thomas’s “views certainly do not reflect those of . . . the Bruins organization.”

Sportswriter Joe McDonald charged that “when the president of the United States invites you . . . you go and represent the team,” and that “Thomas instead chose to represent himself.”

Yes, as Thomas admitted: “This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.”

His quiet, conscientious choice to stay home — no news conference or interviews — was heard loud and clear by me.

It’s Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture political challengers

New Orbits for Old

A recent study using something called “gravitational microlensing” suggests that every star has at least one planet. There are a lot of planets out there. So there “must” be Earth-similar planets. And “therefore” life. Intelligent life. And, and, and . . .

Back on Earth, the search for intelligence amongst the Republican presidential candidates (not to mention the Democratic incumbent) is a more haphazard affair. We lack that crucial microlensing.
Mars, the red planet
Yesterday I noted a peculiar alignment: Ron Paul defending Mitt Romney, with the other Republican wannabes piling against Romney in a disgraceful showing of anti-capitalism. Rep. Paul defended Romney not out of Republican loyalty, but out of principle. Does this suggest an affinity between the two, heretofore unnoticed?

Maybe. On the face of it, Romney doesn’t seem all that dissimilar from Barack Obama – not in foreign policy, surely not in big government instincts (the purveyors of unconstitutional medical regulations, each) — but his work in business does suggest that Romney might be an improvement on Obama, if elected. Marginally moving towards Paul’s apogee.

But the country needs more than just a marginal improvement, right now. Another centrist — even one who understands the social utility of the hostile takeover — won’t balance budgets. Not when the Washington orbit remains retrograde, unable to stop spending and borrowing like tomorrow is somebody else’s problem.

Which is why Ron Paul’s candidacy will retain traction for many primaries to come. Since our problems are the mainstream, Paul fills the need for something extra-mainstream — and, to normal political folks, that will undoubtedly seem “extra-terrestrial.”

In Washington, all intelligent life lies beyond the usual orbits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture national politics & policies

Firing People for Fun & Profit

After winning the New Hampshire primary last night, Mitt Romney charged that “some desperate Republicans” have joined forces with President Obama “to put free enterprise on trial.”

Newt Gingrich calls Romney a “vulture capitalist” and blasted his work as CEO of Bain Capital as “bankrupting companies and laying off employees.” Rick Perry snidely attacked Mitt for “all the jobs that he killed,” adding “I’m sure he was worried he would run out of pink slips.”
Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney
A Wall Street Journal report quoted Jon Huntsman: “What is clear is [Mr. Romney] likes firing people.”

So, did Romney say “I like being able to fire people”? What he said was, “I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”

I, too, like being able to fire companies who don’t adequately supply the services I demand.

Yet, what about Romney’s work at Bain Capital?

Bain Capital took firms having trouble making a profit and attempted to make them more profitable. Sometimes that meant cutting back the work force to avoid bankruptcy, where everyone would lose their jobs. Sometimes it meant cutting up a company and its assets and selling them to entrepreneurs who could do better.

Not all businesses succeed. No surprise, then, that politicians used to spending a seemingly unlimited supply of other people’s money regardless of performance fail to understand this simple reality.

To his credit, Ron Paul defended Romney, saying of Gingrich, Huntsman and Perry, “I think they’re wrong. They are either just demagoguing or they don’t have the vaguest idea how the market works.”

Or both.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture

Downs and Ups

We hear more about inequality when times get tough than when the economy is booming.

This suggests most people are satisfied with positive growth, but that, when the opposite occurs, some fall back to covetousness and envy. When dissatisfied, we look around for someone to blame.

So what’s roadblocking the long-run upward trend?

There’s the recent bust in the ol’ boom-and-bust. But there’s a deeper problem here. Maybe.

Sheldon Richman, editor of The Freeman, notes that America’s upward mobility is stymied by a whole heckuva lot of government intervention . . . and that a New York Times story about how Americans “enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe” should surprise no one, for America isn’t “the land of the free” and Europe isn’t exactly  “socialist” — it’s more a case that the “economies of America, Canada, and Europe are all variations of corporatism, in which government power primarily benefits the well-connected and well-to-do.”

America differs from Europe in the particulars of its interventionism, not in kind.

Still, things could be worse. Veronique de Rugy, writing in the February Reason (not yet online), shows that downward mobility was in evidence pre-Bailouts. Of 1999’s 675,000 millionaires, only 38,000 remained millionaires in 2007.

That, surely, is enough 1 percenter income decline to satisfy your worst schadenfreude.

On a brighter note, de Rugy insists there’s still dynamism in the American economy, and that the lowest income earners had, during the same pre-bust period, made substantial gains.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense general freedom ideological culture

Happy Common Sense Day

Credit George Washington for mobilizing our military to win the Revolutionary War. It was Thomas Paine, though, who did the most to mobilize the people in support of the cause of freedom and independence from Britain. He did it with his stirring pamphlet, Common Sense.

Originally published anonymously on this very date 235 years ago, and addressed to “the Inhabitants of America,” Paine’s polemic circulated to a higher percentage of the American population than any book save the Bible.
Happy Common Sense Day
One reason for its success was Paine’s style, which was much more accessible to the common person than most political writing of that time. In fact, Common Sense was read aloud in public, allowing citizens who lacked letters to engage in the debate over separation from the British empire — some seven months before the Declaration of Independence.

Common Sense attacked both the evils of monarchy, generally, noting that “Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins . . .” and the British monarchy specifically, referring to William the Conqueror as a “French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives.”

Paine’s pamphlet cogently endorsed republican forms of future government. “Society in every state is a blessing,” he wrote, “but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one. . . .”

More than two centuries after its publication, Paine’s message still rings prophetic: “The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.”

That remains true. And Paine’s mission remains ours: To resist tyranny, to “prepare an asylum for mankind.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.