Category: ideological culture

Categories
education and schooling general freedom ideological culture nannyism national politics & policies

Fat Lot of Good That’ll Do

It sounded like a good idea — Michelle Obama would get involved in a campaign to reduce childhood obesity. Obesity is a problem, yes, and a good cause for the First Lady. But, today, advocacy must always be paired with legislation.

An AP news story provides all you really need to know:

A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom.

So now we are to have federal government’s micro-​mismanagement reach far beyond the curriculum. The basic idea being … give up on parents. Give up on local control. Go, Washington!

Our national nannies took special care with the bill’s language, adding the category of school fundraisers as a special target of the regulations. Apparently, they can’t stand the fact that, on special occasions, mothers and fathers bake up sugary treats to sell, to support special school activities that affect their kids.

I guess they want us to sell broccoli. 

Yup. That’ll send the school band to Disneyland.

The whole bill is a bad idea, and not just because Washington can’t tell special occasions from one’s day-​in/​day-​out diet. The very singling out of special fundraisers for federal attention shows just how far into our lives Washington’s busybodies believe they can insert themselves. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture too much government

Where Democrats Go Wrong

When we find ourselves in a pickle, it’s a good idea to ask: Where did we go wrong? 

I’ve often probed how America got itself into the present mess. I’ve noted how easy it is for politicians to lose touch with the common sense of the American people — so much so that they cannot even imagine balancing a budget while they are in office. 

Further, I’ve often castigated Republicans for betraying their promises to cut spending.

But what of Democrats? Where’s the common sense?

When President Obama proposed a non-​military pay freeze on federal workers, the Democratic National Committee’s “Organizing for America” (OFA) QUANGO asked its supporters for help. Fine. But what happened? The Democratic base went ape. Bananas. Noodles-​out nuts.

Example? David Dayen of the FDL News Desk. “We’ve officially gone around the bend,” he wrote, thereby going ’round the bend. He characterized the carefully worded letter sent out by OFA with a “this is what we’ve been reduced to” snipe.

Dayen and too many other Democrats think their ideology means always increasing government worker pay. Even if government workers prove almost impossible to fire, have great benefits, and comparatively high pay, they must not be asked to make a tiny sacrifice. Not even while others suffer.

If these partisans’ core concern were really helping Americans, including the poor, they wouldn’t be so fixed on keeping federal pay as high as it is.

But, priorities, you know.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

The Murky, Muddled Middle

We’ve seen a lot of insightful reflection about what the recent elections say about the prospects for liberty and the efforts of many Americans to fight for endangered liberties.

One lesson I hope we’re on the way to unlearning is how allegedly “praiseworthy” it is to evade any clear-​cut defense of fundamental political principle. How allegedly “critical” it is to compromise not only on the details of a program that does advance one principles, but also on the basic principles themselves.

In a recent communiqué, Representative Ed Emery rejects the notion that “moderates” lost, sometimes spectacularly, because voters “weren’t thinking.” No, “Moderates lost because voters woke up to the truth that lukewarm does not protect personal liberties; it compromises them [and] protects the status quo.…”

But not even the status quo is protected by huddling in the middle of the road. The premier beneficiaries of the worship of the muddled middle are those who do advocate certain fundamental (and poisonous) ideological principles but who succeed in posing as practitioners of “moderation.” Today, the radical left calls itself “the center” and screams bloody murder about “extremism” when anybody offers cogent objections to their socialist agenda. “Compromise,” to them, means only tweaking the speed at which we hurtle ever closer to full government control over our lives.

Let’s not submit to this intimidation, this fraudulent debate-framing.

Let’s demand a fair and open clash of basic political principles.

That’s a battle we’ll win.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies too much government U.S. Constitution

Perfect Safety?

Maybe the most interesting thing to come out, so far, from the “porno-scanner”/TSA-gropings controversy is this statement by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas: “You can’t provide perfect safety.”

Going on, Rep. Paul denied that it is “the government’s role … to provide safety.”

It isn’t; it’s to protect our rights. But here we’re being told that we go to the gate, we buy a ticket, and you’ve lost your right, you’ve sacrificed your right. Where did that come from? It’s about the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard.

Rep. Paul has introduced legislation that would prohibit physical contact between TSA screeners and would-​be airline passengers, and would prohibit taking images of people’s bodies using X‑Rays, millimeter rays, etc..

Ron Paul sees all these new, invasive screening techniques as based on the idea that it is the government’s job to ensure airline invulnerability to terrorism, not the airlines’. He suggests putting the onus back on the airlines, who would likely be more respectful of their customers than the TSA is.

9/​11/​01 caught the airlines and the government with their pants down. Maybe the best solution to this security lapse isn’t to institute intrusions into our pants, or the kind of X‑Ray vision scanners that boys used to be enticed with in the back of comic books.

There must be better ways. 

Alas, government probably won’t find them. Which is why Ron Paul is on to something: It should be up to private enterprise.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Video of the Week: Quantitative Easing Explained

Earlier this week I did a short Q&A about the latest in monetary policy: quantitative easing. This video goes into much more detail. And is pretty funny:

For an extended, non-animated explanation of QE, try a helpful article by monetary economist Leland Yeager: “The Fed’s Easy Money.”

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture

Three Cheers for Robert Murphy

Here’s something worth three cheers. Possibly four.

Robert Murphy is a prolific young economist of the free-​market “Austrian” school of economics, which has a vibrant online presence at Mises​.org, the website of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

In October, Murphy decided to challenge Paul Krugman, the prominent economics professor, author and New York Times columnist, to a debate on Keynesian versus Austrian business cycle theory. After all, as Nobel-​Prize-​winning economist and partisan left-​wing scribbler, Krugman tends to insist on policies the opposite of what any reasonable economic conclusion might be. 

Krugman’s extremist, Big Government über alles positions should make for a great fireworks display in a well-​attended debate with the scrupulously sane and reasonable Murphy. Point-​counterpoint. The debate would also be a great venue for Murphy to publicize the sorely needed Austrian explanation of why massive governmental perversion of capital structure and market incentives ain’t exactly the best way to foster economic growth.

Murphy launched an Internet campaign, complete with goofy (and funny) animated YouTube video, to pressure Krugman. Murphy is asking folks to pledge a sum to the Fresh Food Program at a New York food bank that would be collected only if Krugman does debate him. 

At last count, pledges have topped $50,000.

I hope Krugman agrees. Feeding hungry people is a good cause, and so is saving the economy from annihilation by Krugmanesque economics. 

Meantime, give Murphy at least three huzzahs for pluck.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.