Category: national politics & policies

Categories
Common Sense folly media and media people national politics & policies

Cruz Country

Cruz Country

The cultural differences between left and right may be stronger than the political.

When Sen. Ted Cruz answered a question about his musical taste posed by a CBS news correspondent, and he announced that his preference switched after 2001, 9/11, the leftosphere fell of its rocker and into convulsions.

Why?

He said he switched from listening to classic rock to country, and did so because the country music culture responded to the 9/11 atrocity so much better than did rock-and-roll culture.

Confession: my musical tastes lean toward classic rock. But there’s no way I would get upset about a politician’s musical choices — unless he started listening to Wagner while reviving an interest in National Socialism.

But boy, on the left there was a lot of outrage and indignation. At least, Matt Welch of Reason quoted a good spattering of it, and I found more on Twitter and elsewhere. On Slate? Snark. A YouTuber tubed Cruz’s change as “pandering.” And in New York magazine, Jonathan Chait identified Cruz’s professed change-of-taste “an incredible testament to his personal willpower.”

Huh?

You may or may not like country music, or appreciate the last 30 years of it, or its origins, or its commercialization, or the twang, but that stuff’s really not that important.

A conservative found political reasons to change his listening habits. Wow. A matter  of self-definition? Whatever. It neither builds up nor undermines his philosophy or program.

Though certainly Conway Twitty’s “It’s Only Make Believe” provides more than a cultural context for understanding much of what happens in Washington.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Categories
Common Sense folly national politics & policies too much government

The Latest Big Fix

Government Fixes

Transformer-in-Chief Barack Obama is at it again.

The president’s latest tune is a variation on a very old theme: whatever government breaks “requires” a new government program.

See a problem; propose and enact a government solution; the problem gets worse, some new ones pop up; blame everything on the voluntary, “freedom” side; demand more and newer government programs.

It’s a trap. Literally, since it involves more coercion by government at every step.

Here’s the story: President Obama was largely repudiated at the polls last November. The performance of his administration and congressional allies proved so lackluster that his party couldn’t muster much of a vote in their favor.

So now Obama promotes the idea of compulsory voting.

“It would be transformative if everybody voted,” Obama said. He mentions Australia, which has had mandatory voting for a while. He doesn’t mention North Korea, which also forces its citizens to vote, or that totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have often used compulsory voting to give their dictators a patina of “democratic legitimacy.”

I’d be embarrassed to bring it up.

Obama brought it up in the context of fighting the influence of big money.

So, to fix particular problems, government gets involved in the economy generally, everywhere — and not by playing umpire to establish a “level playing field,” but by siding first with one group, then with another, with mandates, prohibitions, regulations, etc. (He calls all this “fair,” incredibly.) Naturally enough, affected businesses and individuals petition for insulation from each and every proposed “fix.” Many go on for special favors. This leads to increased money in campaigns, as well as increased lobbying.

So now? Direct coercion of citizens — simply to “get out the vote.”

It’s always force with these folks.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Categories
Common Sense government transparency national politics & policies

What a Day for an Insult

Freedom of Information

Much of politics is timing. When you release information is key.

One favorite “statesman” trick is to bury unflattering information by “releasing” it on a Friday, right before the weekend.

This gives politicians a respite. Surely world events will have spewed up some worse (that is, more interesting!) story over the weekend, so on Monday, when journalism and its followers are back into the work week, coverage will be distracted and lessened.

I guess that’s why the White House waited till last Friday to explain it was officially removing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from the burdens on its Office of Administration.

Barack Obama, when he was running for office, proclaimed that his administration would be “the most transparent in history.” But he’s been following President Bush in keeping the administrative side of the White House as opaque as possible.

White House flunkies say this “cleanup” of FOIA regulations is “consistent with court rulings that hold that the office is not subject to the transparency law.”

Accept that, arguendo, and it still looks bad for the “most transparent” prez of all. He didn’t have to do this. He just wanted to.

Adding insult to injury, as noted by Gregory Korte in USA Today, “the timing of the move raised eyebrows among transparency advocates, coming on National Freedom of Information Day.”

This all relates to the current Hillary email scandal, too. It just so happens that the White House office now unencumbered by FOIA requirements is in charge of filing . . . old emails.

Coincidence?

Perhaps that’s why they risked announcing this on Freedom of Information Day. The irony was lost over the weekend.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Categories
Common Sense national politics & policies Popular responsibility

My Privilege Isn’t White

Privilege

“White privilege” is all the rage . . . on college campuses. But is there anything substantive to the notion?

As long as some folks view individuals as nothing more than their race, I suppose one can accrue a few advantages simply by being part of the largest racial group.

Moreover, as I explained at length in my Sunday column at Townhall.com, numerous government policies do indeed hit minorities harder.

The War on Drugs has ravaged the black community much more than the white community, for example. This may result more from the higher poverty rates for minorities than to race alone: Police and prosecutors are more likely to arrest and harshly prosecute the poor for no better reason than that the poor are less able to defend themselves, legally or politically.

That’s wrong. We very much need major reforms of unaccountable police power and abusive prosecutors as well as end the drug war.

But getting back to that trendy “white privilege” — it misses a big source of “unfair” advantage.

I’m white, but my privilege mostly isn’t. Of my many advantages, my skin pigmentation nowhere near tops the list.

Whatever success I’ve enjoyed derives mostly from this: I was reared by two parents who supported me, nurtured me, corrected me and cared about me every day from before I was born to now.

No government program, no amount of money, can best that gift.

The most critical element in the success of black and brown and yellow and peach and white kids is not a politician who cares, but a parent — or, better yet, two — providing a nurturing environment, including tough love.

We could all use more of the “unfair” advantage that parents provide.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Categories
folly general freedom national politics & policies too much government

Non-neutral Net Neutrality

Worried about its costs, Netflix has asked millions of customers to support so-called “net neutrality” policies to curtail the freedom of action of broadband companies like Comcast. Netflix, a huge suck of bandwidth, doesn’t want to have to make deals with ISPs like Comcast to deliver service to its customers.

One goal of “net neutrality” is to prevent Internet providers from affecting Internet access via such nefarious practices as charging different rates for different levels of service (a ubiquitous form of “discrimination” without which markets cannot function). Mises Institute writer Ryan McMaken wants to know what problem the new regulations are supposed to solve: “Who is being denied access to the web?”

Since the Internet first became generally available, it has become only more widespread, service only faster.

Any problems caused by existing government barriers to entry should be solved by dismantling those barriers. But according to FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, the voluminous new regulations go in the opposite direction, giving the agency “power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.”

The FCC has voted to proceed with the regulations. The result will likely throttle the quality of broadband service.

Netflix and other advocates of the regime have also foot-shootingly increased the chances of intrusive new regulations of their own net-based businesses.

Any sweeping assault on our liberty is hardly “neutral.” Regulations like those proposed always favor some over others, the essence of partiality. What we need from government is not “neutrality” with respect to our freedom, but consistent upholding of our right to it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Categories
general freedom ideological culture nannyism national politics & policies too much government

Marriage Savings

Paul Jacob on how governments can save money, and clean up the marriage business, too

We’ve all seen lawmakers yammer on and on about how they want to “streamline” government, or “save the taxpayers money.”

But they rarely show us much for all the talk.

Paul Woolverton, writing this weekend in the Fayetteville Observer, noted one such lapse after the North Carolina Senate voted to create a law to let magistrates “opt out of conducting any weddings if they have a religious objection.”

The problem? “No one in the debate,” Mr. Woolverton asserts, “questioned the underlying premise that a magistrate or clergy member is necessary to seal the marriage contract.”

The involvement of the state in the marriage contract biz is unnecessarily complicated, he explains. “As fiscal conservatives,” Woolverton insists, they could have taken the opportunity to ask something more fundamental:

A man and a woman pay the government $60 to get a government-approved marriage license. Why should they then have to visit another government office and pay the government another $20, or hire a government-designated third party for a fee or “donation,” to finalize their marriage contract?

Woolverton suggests streamlining the process: “. . . [G]overnment should make its involvement the least intrusive it can be. It should record marriages when couples visit the Register of Deeds to buy their marriage licenses.”

And that’s it.

Betrothed couples can legally testify to meeting any and all state requirements — and officially inform the state of their pre-marriage and married names.

Those who want the services of a priest or rabbi or preacher or imam can hire one, or cajole one. Or two.

That’s just not state business.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Categories
crime and punishment national politics & policies responsibility Second Amendment rights

Herd Immunity to Violence

I praised Juan Williams the other day. Let me balance that out.

On Tuesday’s The Five, a Fox news opinion chat show, in the wake of the Mall of America terrorist threat, Greg Gutfeld decried “gun-free zones” advancing the “more guns, less crime” argument that economist John Lott has more famously made.

Mr. Williams expressed incredulity. “I don’t think that makes sense, that everybody in the mall has a gun. Let the police protect us.”

Gutfeld laughed. There was banter. Some accusatory explanation. Oh, you lefties! But then Gutfeld regrouped.

“This is not an either/or — like everybody’s armed [or] everybody’s not. The concealed [carry] permit creates a level of uncertainty on the people that are choosing an attack.”

Other things being equal, the secretly (or discreetly) gun totin’ are safer than the rest of society. The more folks who secretly carry means that those prone to violence face higher risks.

There may be more than one reason why gun violence has plummeted over the past two decades. But one must be this: as Americans have accumulated more guns per capita than ever before, as more households possess guns than ever, the “celerity of punishment” (that old Benthamite term for swiftness of bad repercussions) has increased, nudging the marginally criminal to choose to commit fewer violent crimes.

Making society safer.

Since Williams seemed to have some difficulty with this, let’s translate it for him: compare gun violence and peaceful gun ownership to viral infection and vaccination.

It’s herd immunity, only to violence. Just as the more vaccinated make us all safer, the more peaceful people discreetly carrying guns make us all safer.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

No Back Doors

President Obama wants a conversation about encryption. “I lean probably further in the direction of strong encryption” than do some in law enforcement, he says; but he knows the “pressure they’re under to keep us safe.”

We had a “conversation” about our right to robustly encrypt our stuff in the 1990s, after Philip Zimmermann (pictured) created Pretty Good Privacy software to easily render data invulnerable to intruders, including officials eager to bypass any encryption at will. The government threatened to prosecute Zimmerman on bogus charges, but eventually dropped the matter. PGP proceeded apace.

CNET writer Declan McCullagh said it all in a recent tweet: “Obama wants ‘public conversation’ about encryption? Sure: It’s here, we’re not inserting backdoors, get used to it.”

Twitter-user “vruz” adds: “Remember when we had to have a responsible dialogue on the NSA’s mass criminality? When Obama says ‘conversation,’ he means dilution of discourse to co-opt it and make it meaningless.” #ouch.

Contrary to the president’s implication, privacy and safety reinforce each other. Ability to protect our privacy makes us safer from those who would use our passwords, Social Security numbers, and home addresses against us.

Yes, terrorists can use encryption to hide nefarious plans — just as they can use curtains that way. And basements. And cones of silence. Many things deployable for benign purposes can also abet vicious ones. But does this mean that everything innocent people have and do should be easily accessible to government officials — or savvy cyber-criminals?

Or terrorists?

No.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Job Growth in 2014

President Barack Obama takes full credit for the job growth in 2014. Democrats on the Internet relentlessly push these growth rates with typically goofy superlatives like “highest ever” or “highest growth rate in decades.”

So, what did Obama and the Democrats do in 2013 and 2014 that led to the growth we saw last year?

Well, Obama refused to renegotiate with Republicans on any unemployment or budget reforms.

As 2013 ended, we heard Democrats complaining that stingy Republicans were letting federal government extensions of unemployment compensation (which had been re-extended many times) lapse altogether. Obama predicted disaster. The Keynesian economists who circle the Democratic Party like moths to a candle held to a simple prophecy:  because of a hit to “aggregate demand,” unemployment would increase.

Instead, in 2014 employment bounced back.

In a droll quasi-opinion piece, “President Costanza’s Jobs Boom,” the Wall Street Journal reports that “job growth in 2014 was roughly 25 percent higher than any post-2009 year. Joblessness plunged to 5.6 percent from 6.7 percent. Net job creation averaged 246,000 a month.”

Citing a National Bureau of Economic Research study by economists Marcus Hagedorn, Iourii Manovskii and Kurt Mitman, which treated the abrupt policy change as a “natural experiment,” the Journal reveled in the knowledge that the increase in incentives from lapsed benefits led unemployed workers to (gasp!) seek jobs.

And they found them. Granted, many of the new jobs are not as good as their pre-bust jobs. But they are jobs, which is better than nothing.

So when your big-government promoting friends attribute 2014’s job growth to Democratic policies, ask which policies, precisely. And ask why Obama’s predictions of 2013 for disaster in 2014 didn’t pan out.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
education and schooling national politics & policies

The Education Nightmare

Ever have a nightmare . . . about school?

I can’t remember enduring a “dog ate my homework” or “naked in front of the class” dream recently — it’s been a long time since graduation — but economist Bryan Caplan discusses a different variety on EconLog: those nightmares in which one “realizes” that one lacks a credit to have graduated, and so must go back to college, late in life, etc., etc.

Caplan says many people have such unsettling dreams.

More interestingly, he muses that “I’ve never ever heard of someone dreaming about suddenly forgetting whatever job skills they learned in school.”

That is, people worry about trivial infractions of arcane qualifiers for a credential, but people don’t worry about the alleged purpose for going to school and getting credentials: learning something.

This Kafkaesque comedy rests on our “deeply rooted beliefs” that

crossing educational finish lines has a big effect on employability but little effect on job skills. The nightmare isn’t that you suddenly can’t do your job. The nightmare is that you’re the same person you were yesterday, but society throws you into limbo because your papers aren’t in order.

Caplan is writing a book titled The Case Against Education. He argues that we’ve come to rely too much on credentials, that pushing schooling and accreditation has not produced a net benefit to society.

He, a college professor, happily admits that, for bright people who test well, schooling can provide enormous private benefits. But that’s no ground for public subsidy.

Policy should surely encourage increasing skills, not making it easier for some folks to get jobs regardless of skills.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.