Category: national politics & policies

Categories
folly national politics & policies

Copyright and Wrong

Even if one disagrees that patent and copyright laws should be shelved (as some critics contend), no sensible person denies that these protections are subject to pretty ridiculous abuse. People have claimed extraordinarily ludicrous proprietary rights to everything from commonplace words (“spike”) to generic software functions (click to buy).

Now we have German publishers demanding payments from Google and other aggregators for the crime of pointing visitors to the publishers’ websites. Fair-use excerpts are unfair without compensation, according to the German Association of Newspaper Publishers and others. The idea seems to be, “You must pay us if you give our work free advertising.”

Suppose the demanded licensing rules were confined to commercial contexts. If applied consistently, the rules would jeopardize a wide range of hitherto uncontroversial citations, e.g., in book and movie reviews, not to mention books and movies. Making the demand even sillier is that Google enables sites to block any displaying of their content, or to reduce a search result for their site to a bare link with no snippet of text. No site is obliged to benefit from the horror of receiving Google-directed traffic.

Google is arguing its case publicly, and German business sentiment is hardly united in favor of mandatory licensing. According to Bernhard Rohleder, who heads an association of German technology companies, such legislation “would be unique worldwide [and would tell] investors: Innovative online services are not desired in Germany.”

Let’s hope sanity prevails. (Send me a nickel if you quote me on that.)

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Spelling Stagnation

The just-re-elected president had promised to slash the deficit in his first term. That didn’t happen, but there’s talk of back room deals being made right now, saith Politico:

Taxes will go up just shy of $1.2 trillion. . . . Entitlement programs, mainly Medicare, will be cut by no less than $400 billion — and perhaps a lot more, to get Republicans to swallow those tax hikes. There will be at least $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and “war savings.” And any final deal will come not by a group effort but in a private deal between two men: Obama and House Speaker John Boehner. . . .

However, the cuts all come in the far, Star Trekkie future. Nick Gillespie of Reason not unreasonably asks if Boehner is really “Dumb enough to take $400 billion in cuts a decade from now in exchange for $1.2 trillion in tax hikes that start ASAP?” Gillespie defines “dumb” in the context of history:

[T]here’s a clear pattern: Republican presidents ratchet up spending and Democratic presidents consolidate the increases. This reality is at almost complete odds with political rhetoric. . . . Perhaps the near-total disconnect between rhetoric and reality is the reason why we can’t get anywhere — taxpayers are constantly being misdirected by the powers that be.

Still, Republicans have stood for lower tax rates. Are Republicans alone in “standing by principle”? No.

There’s another: the 77-member Progressive Caucus “will not support any deal that cuts benefits for families and seniors who rely on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to put food on the table or cover their health costs.”

So, realistically, there is no insider constituency for reducing spending. If enough congressional Republicans vote to increase taxes, they’ll be bilked. Meanwhile, debt overhang strangles the economy, and increased taxes will also cut into the investments that make jobs.

Thus stalemate spells stagnation.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies tax policy

The Muppet Is Right

Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist is being mocked by oh-so-funny lefty pundit Matthew Dowd because Dowd dislikes the anti-higher-tax-rate pledge Norquist invites politicians to sign.

Some long-serving Republicans have renounced the commitment they made to their constituents to “oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses.” Senator Saxby Chambliss says he cares “more about the country than . . . about a 20-year-old pledge.” Co-Republican and co-pledge-signer Senator Lindsey Graham agrees.

“Grover Norquist is an impediment to good governing,” Dowd said on This Week, ABC’s Sunday morning talking-head program. “The only good thing about Grover Norquist is, he’s named after a character from Sesame Street. ”

Welcome to sound-bite alley. Lucky for Norquist his first name isn’t Elmo or Snuffleupagus, eh?

Expanding on the theme of Norquist’s putative irrelevancy, Time’s Joe Klein says Norquist has passed his “sell-by date.”

Let me interject a question neither about muppets nor sour milk: What is “good governing”?

Does it require stripping the wallets of taxpayers to fund every conceivable government program concocted by those who would run every aspect of our lives?

Those who most eagerly wish to loot the rest of us seem, at the moment, to have the upper hand. That doesn’t mean that the rest of us should supinely wait to be rolled over. The fight for freedom is always relevant. So is keeping one’s word.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies tax policy too much government

Let’s Jump!

When I was a kid, my mother would rhetorically ask, “If your friends jumped off a cliff, Paul, would you?”

Moot question now. My friends don’t dare jump, nor do my political enemies. Face it, Ma, nobody wants to do a swan dive off the fiscal cliff.

Except for me.

It now appears that enough House Republicans will join Democrats in voting to raise taxes on the so-called “wealthy,” thus hiking up taxes on some of my countrymen. It will do little to raise revenue, and nothing to control spending.

We taxpayers should stand together. I oppose being divided and conquered. And when they ask us to turn over Spartacus — er, the wealthy — we should each declare, “I am wealthy!”

Debt-delivering, big-spending politicians relentlessly provide us with pious pronouncements to the effect that, though we simply must stop piling up such debt and cut wasteful and out-of-control spending, because such fiscal responsibility remains unthinkable, at present, we must postpone responsibility till later.

They see the fiscal cliff and insist we climb higher.

Let’s face this fiscal cliff honestly, let’s not pretend that the acme of responsibility is funding government on the backs of the few. Besides, if there is no political will to make spending cuts today or tomorrow, why would anyone expect such backbone to miraculous appear . . . later?

I see the cliff and say, “Let’s jump!” While we can still land safely.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

It Could Be Worse

If your candidate or issue didn’t win on Tuesday, then, sure, Western civilization is completely finished, kaput. No doubt.

But still, let’s look at the bright side.

At least the presidential election provided a $2.5 billion stimulus to the economy, without raising anyone’s taxes (yet) or borrowing a nickel from China. And what a fabulous circus to, well, take our minds off the nasty state of our economy and our politics.

Or maybe not so much.

But consider: For all the corruption in our country’s politics, aren’t you glad you don’t live and work in Russia, where near-superman President Vladamir Putin is the Big Kahuna? Putin just sacked his defense minister. The cause for the minister’s dismissal? Corruption! So, everyone is wondering: what was the real cause for the firing?

Now, that’s a culture of corruption.

Forget politics. Just be thankful you’re not Alex Ocasio hunkered down in his New York City apartment waiting for a nor’easter to clobber his community as the too-soon second whammy following Hurricane Sandy. During Sandy, Ocasio and his neighbors stopped a group of looters after they broke down the door. “They tried to say they were rescue workers,” he told the Washington Post, “then took off.”

Now he won’t leave for higher ground, putting a sign on his door: “Have Gun. Will shoot U.”

In a crisis, I think I’d rather have Mr. Ocasio for a neighbor than FEMA for a savior.

So, what’s the political sunny side to Election 2012? Is there any?

Sure. Executive term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies

Where Reality Sells

A lot of people, Democratic and Republican, have been saying that yesterday’s election was “the most important in our lifetime.” It wasn’t — and wouldn’t have been had the presidential race gone the other way.

But as it is, the outcome was hardly shocking. An incumbent got re-elected. Wow.

The Senate solidified its Democratic position; the House remained solidly Republican. America after Election Day looks almost exactly the same as America before.

So, why so little change?

Blame it on “hope.”

Face it: in electoral politics, fantasy sells. Mainstream politicians love to promote The Dream. Not the American Dream, which is about hard work and honest dealing, but the Changeling Dream, about getting something for nothing. Or getting ahead at others’ expense. At present, this Dream rests upon spending more than government takes in forever and ever, believing that somehow there are no disastrous consequences to the resulting accumulation of debt.

Democratic politicians may be better able to describe their lavish dreams for all that government can do, but Republican office-holders sure seem to hang out on that same street in Dreamland.

Now they’ve just about all been re-elected to go back and hang out for another term.

What can we do? Hope they change their spots?

No. That’s too passive. “Cast your whole vote,” Henry David Thoreau wrote, “not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence.”

How? In 2013 and 2014, citizens can petition to put important issues on state and local ballots. We change the terms of political debate; we gain the upper hand — and put common sense back into government.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Panel Decides “Death”

The practice of medicine historically straddled between being a business profession and a charitable endeavor. When government took it over — nearly in one big gulp, in Great Britain— that uneasy mix mutated, leaving us with the occasional bout of stark horror.

A British woman suffering from cystic fibrosis has been denied a new wonder drug that the manufacturer has agreed to provide for free, while the National Health Service gets around to approving it. But NHS says no.

Her family say she will die soon without it, yet managers at Heartlands Hospital in Birmingham say it would be unethical to provide the drug under the deal, only for it to be withdrawn later.

The drug, Kalydeco also known as ivacaftor, costs £182,000 per patient per year, and works for five per cent of people with CF who have a certain defective gene, around 270 people in England.

It corrects a malfunctioning protein which causes the characteristic build-up of fluid and mucus in the lungs that causes devastating damage.

A long shot, apparently. But is that any reason to deny a charitable offer?

These kinds of deals get offered and accepted in America all the time.

But then, when a private insurance company here decides not to cover some drug or treatment, that’s an excuse to excoriate American capitalism — while forgetting about all the characteristically American workarounds. But in “single-payer” Britain we see the state acting as a proverbial “death panel.” The outcry against socialism should be just as loud, if not louder.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Cliff Dwellers

When you hear talk about “the fiscal cliff,” ask, “Which one?”

This coming January, if Congress and the president fail to take action, every American who pays income taxes will pay more. Also set to increase? Payroll taxes, which every worker pays.

But even if we can avoid falling off those cliffs, another threatens.

It has been identified by finance professors Robert Novy-Marx at the University of Rochester and Joshua Rauh at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, who summarized their recent research paper, “The Revenue Demands of Public Employee Pension Promises.”

The bottom-line? Looking at the pension commitments state and local governments have already made to public employees, the professors “found that, on average, a tax increase of $1,385 per U.S. household per year would be required, starting immediately and growing with the size of the public sector.”

That’s only the average. “New York taxpayers would need to contribute more than $2,250 per household per year over the next 30 years,” according to their analysis. “In Oregon, the amount is $2,140; in Ohio, it is $2,051; in New Jersey, $2,000.”

Politicians have promised lavish pension benefits. And then not funded them. Plus, employees often outrageously game the system, spiking their benefits to the tune of millions over decades of retirement — like the Illinois teacher’s union lobbyist did by teaching a single day in the classroom.

If we don’t get the problem under control, this cliff keeps getting higher, making, as the professors put it, “the $1,385 per-household increase required today seem cheap.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom national politics & policies

Celebrities, Cannabis, Change

A new website, Marijuana Majority, makes an impression by listing famous people who think America’s laws against marijuana are crazy, unjust, or at least not very wise.

The site is elegant; it presents a long list. And by offering statements from each celebrity, we get a few ideas beyond the “marijuana should be legalized [to some degree]” message. Lawrence O’Donnell makes something close to an actual argument:Sarah Palin on Marijuana

Since Gallup starting asking Americans if marijuana should be legal back in 1969, most have always said no — until now. In a Gallup poll released yesterday, 50 percent said pot use should be legalized. . . . A minority of 46 percent continue to say marijuana should not be legalized. . . . In a democracy we should expect such a dramatic shift in public opinion to be reflected in our public officials.

Evangelist Pat Robertson offers the practical point, often iterated:

I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol. I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to, but it’s just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.

A lot of folks, including British entrepreneur Richard Branson, enthuse about the taxing possibilities:

[I]t’s currently estimated that the annual revenue that would be raised in California if it taxed and regulated the sale of marijuana would be $1,400,000,000!

But this is not primarily a propaganda-by-the-word site, it’s a propaganda-by-the-celebrity site. Alas, the bulk of celebrities hail from the entertainment industry . . . not the most convincing bunch on the whole.

Still, the barrage of support and ideas is impressive, showing you don’t have to be a stoner to want to liberalize marijuana laws.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies political challengers

Silence, Please?

At this time in an election year, condemnations of “negative” political ads crescendo to fortissimo. But hey: Are folks really so attached to watching the standard menu of TV advertisements for GEICO, Viagra, and Chia Pets?

I doubt it. I think they worry about what such nasty attacks say about our political process. Granted, many 30-second political spots stretch the truth like a pretzel, though not any more than the candidates regularly do in person.

Still, political debate today is no nastier than it was when Washington and Adams and Jefferson roamed the earth.

And TV wasn’t even very big back then.

“An onslaught of negative political advertisements in congressional races,” the New York Times relates, “has left many incumbents, including some Republicans long opposed to restrictions on campaign spending, concluding that legislative measures may be in order to curtail the power of the outside groups behind most of the attacks.”

Incumbents are smart . . . and informed about campaigns. I’ll bet they know that in the 54 races lost by incumbents in 2010, Super PACs spent on average over $900,000. In races incumbents won, about $75,000.

“Incumbents have a lot more money than challengers do,” Professor Bradley Smith, former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, points out, “and Super PACs help to level that playing field and make challengers competitive.”

Incumbents think that elections are a time for them to speak. It’s all about them. Plus, no one — great, lousy or mediocre — likes to be attacked.

But elections in a free society are a time for everyone to speak.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.