Category: national politics & policies

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies term limits

Reform Follows Function

Waiting for this week’s Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, which most folks expect to strike down the mandate and perhaps the entire law, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley argues in the Washington Post that the court should be expanded from nine justices to 19.

FDR, no doubt sitting up in his grave listening for details, would find Turley’s suggestion of allowing each of the next five presidents to choose two new justices very politic, even sneaky.Jonathan Turley

One reason to add more justices, Turley hazards, is the damage caused to popular government when controversial issues are decided narrowly. Predicting a 5-4 vote on Obamacare, he unaccountably thinks it would be less controversial to then give the President two new justices so that this law (or other Obamanisms) would be upheld 6-5.

If I have my arithmetic correct, there can be legal cases decided by a single justice with any odd number of justices . . . nine, eleven, 13, 15, etc. That is why we choose odd numbers, if not odd justices.

Prof. Turley is correct, however, in addressing the awesome power of each Supreme Court justice, the fierce political battles each nomination now engenders and the ensuing politicization of the Court. He simply applies the wrong medicine.

A better reform would be to end lifetime tenure for justices on the High Court (but not for lower level federal judges). By requiring rotation no one could lock in a majority on the court for decades without sustained majority support of the people.

Turley informs us that 60 percent of the public already favors this approach. But the Washington elite? No such support.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers too much government

The Monkey on Their Backs

The “war on drugs” is not a mere metaphorical war, like the “war on poverty.”

The biggest problem with the term is not the subject, but the object: Our forces don’t shoot at pills and pipes and chemicals and syringes.

They shoot at people.

Sometimes dealers. Often just users. Too often innocents . . . “collateral damage” in a war that seems never to end, because impossible to win.

But if the war seems bad in America — now a land with the world’s largest gulag — it’s far, far worse in Mexico, especially since President Felipe Calderón turned the military on his own people, in the vain hope of subduing the drug traffickers.

What did he get for his efforts? Blood, death and terror.

The body count is over 50,000.

I’ve long advocated drug legalization. I don’t need to elaborate the reasons, not after 50,000 deaths have been weighed in on the pro-drug war side, but I probably should mention a few notions that the drug-war mentality suppresses: individual responsibility, a rule of law, and peace.

In America, our politicians slowly awake to the truth that killing people to prevent them from ruining their lives with drugs is a fool’s mission. But few yet commit to actual change.

In Mexico, on the other hand, the top three candidates to replace Calderón — whose service is limited, by law, to just the one term — go a step further: All agree that the drug war has to be scaled down.

Little talk, so far, of legalization, but hey: The addiction to war is a tough monkey to shrug off.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

How Not to Help the Poor

Q. When’s the best time to kick out the bottom rungs of a ladder?

A. After everybody’s climbed it.

So, when’s the best time to raise the minimum wage?

After everybody is being paid at a higher rate.

Contrary to innocent expectations, minimum wage laws don’t guarantee that people will be hired to work at or above the minimum. Instead, they prohibit businesses from hiring (or workers from accepting jobs) below the minimum rate. That is, rates are guaranteed, but the jobs are discouraged.

A recent push by House Democrats to raise the national minimum wage to ten bucks per hour was stalled by leadership. Left-leaning representatives cried foul. But a report in The Hill explains the reluctance: “Concerns about the economy have increased since last Friday, when a jobs report showed an anemic May during which only 69,000 jobs were added. A higher minimum wage could discourage employers from creating more jobs and that, in turn, could hurt President Obama in the election.”

It turns out that the more clever Democrats are considering, instead, a plan to slowly, gradually raise the rates.

This would mean fewer unemployed right away. The fewer people hurt, all the less likely that voters would put two and two together and blame them, and their minimum wage rate hike.

This is how politicians hurt Americans, most of the time: In increments small enough not to cause an uproar.

In this case, it’s the poorest who are hurt most, those who haven’t yet climbed the proverbial ladder. Democrats, ideologically blind to the results of their regulations, feel nothing.

Besides, they know that, in America, most poor folks don’t vote.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Yes, It Can Happen Here

Take a moment from your regularly scheduled dose of daily optimism, and look on the dark side.

The recent political events in Greece, in which a stable government was not formed, requiring whole new rounds of voting, have received some attention on the nightly news. But there’s still a feeling of “it can’t happen here.”

That’s a great disservice. Because it can happen here.Greece on Fire

And this is not just “political instability.” We’re not talking about a political hot potato going nuclear. We’re talking about complete financial implosion. That’s what happens when government is involved in everything.

“Conservatives” and “progressives” have set up for us a house of cards. So what is now happening in one of the great cradles of Western civilization is likely to happen to the whole of today’s big-government-based civilization.

How bad can things get? Well, for chilling reminders of what a true collapse is like, consult the Economic Collapse Blog. A recent article gave us a top ten list of “things that we can learn about shortages and preparation from the collapse in Greece.” The top five are frightening enough:

  1. Food shortages can actually happen (indeed, have already begun in Greece, starting with the prisons — and remember, America has more prisons than anybody)
  2. Medicine is one of the first things to become scarce (which is bad, if you require meds to live)
  3. The power grid goes down (which means almost everything goes down)
  4. You can’t even take water for granted (and you can’t live without water)
  5. Your credit and debit cards will probably stop working

So, congrats to Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, et al. — they won’t have to preside over the next great crisis. Nor we endure them.

Hey, look on the bright side.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
folly national politics & policies

Digital Divide 2.0

Remember the worrying over “the digital divide”?

During the “concern’s” heyday, I was more than a tad skeptical, as were many others. There’s only so much hand-wringing that a balanced, working person can stand.Newton Message Pad, by Apple

Now we learn that all the yammering “inspired many efforts to get the latest computing tools into the hands of all Americans, particularly low-income families.” I’m not aware of any government programs to accomplish this, but then I don’t follow the handouts economy as closely as I could. But I do know that some charities got involved, putting computers into rural libraries and computer centers, for instance. (The Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation did a lot of this, years ago. Funny, though: I notice they didn’t supply any Macintosh computers.) And recylcing centers and garage sales made used computers — often hampered only by slightly out-of-date tech — available for pennies on the dollar.

If you want a computer in America, you can find one.

The New York Times tells us about an “unintended side effect” of all this computing power in the hands of the poor. The miserable masses, yearning to breathe free, are misusing the technology!

As access to devices has spread, children in poorer families are spending considerably more time than children from more well-off families using their television and gadgets to watch shows and videos, play games and connect on social networking sites, studies show.

This is called a “growing time-wasting gap.”

Reason’s Jacob Sullum neatly mocked this: “Silly lower classes! Don’t they realize this wonderful new technology is for self-improvement, not for pleasure?”

Maybe it’s time to stop taking politicians — and the “experts” who plead with politicians (to gain access to tax monies) — seriously.

Seriously.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Withdrawal, with Enduring Presence

President Barack Obama recently signed a much ballyhooed Strategic Partnership Declaration with Afghan President Harmid Karzai, ostensibly to remove all U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. He trumpeted the withdrawal in pursuing a second term, aware that most Americans want out. A late March New York Times poll found 69 percent of the public against our continued presence.

Yet when Mr. Obama’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was questioned, last Sunday, on ABC’s “This Week,” about the Taliban gaining strength awaiting a U.S. pullout, he replied, “Well, the most important point is that we’re not going anyplace. We’re gonna, we have an enduring presence that will be in Afghanistan.”Afghanistan

So, our forces can somehow both leave the country and remain there . . . simultaneously?

Yes, they can!

Well, no. The administration is being duplicitous. Our leaders plan to leave a “residual force” in country for the next ten years. Americans will train (and pay for) the Afghan army. When our state-fed media report that U.S. combat troops are all leaving, tens of thousands of U.S. and NATO soldiers will almost certainly remain.

If you ask me, our original goals in going to war in Afghanistan have been achieved — it is long past time to bring all troops home. But whatever one’s view, we can surely agree that our leaders ought to talk honestly about issues of war and peace. Not trick us.

President Obama should admit that just like his likely Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, he has no plan to actually remove the United States military from Afghanistan within the next decade . . . or ever.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Learning from Krugman

We often have much to learn from our intellectual opponents. But some opponents we must deal with only because they are there . . . in some inescapable way.

Paul Krugman, for instance, is a Nobel Laureate economist. We deal with him not because his technical work is more relevant than the work of a hundred other economists, or because he wrote a really fine essay on the law of comparative advantage. Or because some Swedes thought enough of him to give him a big award and cut him a huge check.

We deal with him because he has a column and a blog at the New York Times.Paul Krugman, economist of a different color

And for the Times he’ll commit almost any sort of fallacy or public foolishness. Thanks to the New York Post, you can read a grand demolition of Krugman’s modus argumenti. “Krugman is a most unusual economist,” Kyle Smith writes:

Others may measure their words, issue caveats, acknowledge that the research isn’t conclusive, admit that their biases influence their reading of facts. Not Krugman. . . . He changes the subject, ignores inconvenient evidence and plays playground bully to people he sees as ideological enemies (a list longer than Nixon’s). He blasts away at others’ work without even providing the basic courtesy of a link to what he’s talking about. . . .

And Smith goes on, in part to review Krugman’s new book, End This Depression Now! (turnabout being fair play, no link from me). Not surprisingly, Krugman’s advice is a Democratic politician’s delight: spend more. Lots more.

Smith’s destruction is funny, and devastating. My complaint with Krugman has long been his relentless partisanship. But Smith reminds me that we have something to learn from Krugman, too: How not to promote a cause we regard as good.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Slowest Spending in Decades?

Government tends to grow in spurts, with budgets not decreasing after each spurt. This “ratchet effect” of fast growth then tapering off amounts to a long-term trend: growth.

You’ve probably seen Rex Nutting’s MarketWatch squib, the subject of many a Tweet and Facebook post. Entitled “Obama spending binge never happened,” it begins, “Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.” Nutting reframes the issue as one of the rate of spending growth . . . just as Republican apologists did in the ’80s, even though spending under Ronald Reagan’s first term grew at a whopping 8.7 percent — a bigger rate increase than Obama’s. Nutting entitles his graph comparing administrations’ spending growth rates “Slowest spending in decades,” indicating not how much Obama has been spending over revenue, but year-to-year rates of increase.Barack Obama, Spree Spender

The prez gets a bad rap.

Well, yes and no. The graph should make party-loyal Republicans and Bush admirers cringe with shame. Sure. But Obama and the current Congress are still spending. Hugely. And rapidly — those dollars fly out the door!

Further, by maintaining high annual deficits, Obama has increased the federal debt so that this year it has shot above 100 percent of current Gross Domestic Product, a first for my lifetime.

Obama can be blamed for not doing the decent thing after the horrible six years of united government under the Republicans, he didn’t reduce spending.

In other words, he’s no Warren G. Harding, who presided over a huge contraction of government spending, thereby helping usher in a quick recovery from the post-Great War bust.

We could use a man like Warren Harding again.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers too much government

So Goes the Ancient Chinese Curse

Election news from the weekend tells us that Ron Paul won the majority of delegates at Maine’s GOP state convention, with a sizable hunk of Republicans saying, yet again, “no” to Mitt Romney.

In France, Nicolas Sarkozy got ousted, as French voters put in a self-declared socialist for the second time since World War II.

Meanwhile, in beleaguered Greece, elections gave no clear majority to any party.

Since the new French president, François Hollande, has pledged to fight back against German “austerity” measures, and since Greece, too, resists those “bailout” procedures, it looks like the collapse of the European Union may be at hand.Stop Overspending

On one level, Greek and French voters seem to prefer to live in that special fantasy land where you can grow government and debt indefinitely and expect good times to roll on forever. On another, they are reacting, at least in part, to the idea that austerity is being pushed by foreigners, that they have been forced not by reality to reform, but by . . . Germans!

Americans wouldn’t be happy about having a policy shoved down their throat by France. Or Germany. Or (more likely) Beijing.

It’s not easy accepting less than one is used to.

Which is why, here in America, neither Obama nor Romney talk seriously about measures to balance the budget. Obama lives in la-la land, and Romney thinks that Rep. Ryan’s plan — which allegedly would balance the budget scores of years from now — is a responsible fix for the irresponsible reality of the day.

Only Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are really taking reality seriously. Perhaps that’s why they are still in the race.

Thus it is, in interesting times.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

It’s a Trap!

There is a reason I usually concentrate my political efforts on initiative measures: by being selective I can avoid making things worse.

Electoral politics, on the other hand, is always fraught with dangers: compromise and betrayal are the norm.

And the voter, when observant, often gets the feeling he’s being “played.” And he (and she) is.

This week I argued that Romney not being elected might be a good thing. I piled on to this notion by supporting Gary Johnson’s Libertarian Party run. Most of my readers who commented disagreed. Vociferously. Their main point? Obama must be stopped.

I note that my readers addressed almost none of the actual reasons I floated for equanimity in the face of a Romney defeat. Instead, they reiterate: Obama must be stopped. I agree, his policies must be stopped; but, in turn, reiterate my point: Romney will do little to reverse course.

Let’s not forget that George W. Bush and the united GOP Congress significantly increased the size and scope of government, and its debt . . . in effect, paving the way for Obama. Too few of us dubbed it “socialism” back then.

Romney seems all too likely to repeat this performance.

We certainly don’t need another president praising free markets and limited government while moving us step-by-step closer to a quasi-socialist serfdom.

I suggest we concentrate on Congress — especially new blood in the old institution — and on Court action, for the most effective resistance to the Democrats’ (and Republicans’) insane lust for spending and debt.

And we need creative initiative action in the states.

By resting hope on a Romney “victory,” I fear conservatives are walking straight into a trap, a familiar trap.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.