Category: national politics & policies

Categories
education and schooling national politics & policies

Can Senators Learn?

An 868-page bill said to be a fix for the loathed, landmark “No Child Left Behind,” was recently introduced allowing senators only 48 hours to read and consider it. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) objected, declaring, “This process is rotten from the top to the bottom.”

Sen. Paul called that a “tragedy.”

No senator could argue with his criticism of the process, of course, but Sen. Michael Bennett of Colorado did take to the floor to argue it was an even bigger tragedy that so many children failed to reach proficiency in math and reading. He begged Sen. Paul to stop objecting so the bill could move forward and be passed.

Sound reasonable? Well, Bennett did not claim to have read the entire bill, only that (like so many other bills passed in recent years) the legislation is so desperately needed that no time  could be spared to actually read it and deliberate.

Sen. Paul also lambasted the idea that senators had not held hearings where they might listen to the teachers and administrators struggling to comply with the federal mandates in No Child Left Behind. “I’ve yet to meet one teacher who’s in favor of No Child Left Behind,” he offered. “They abhor it.”

For his efforts, Paul got a hearing on the legislation, scheduled for November 8. Now let’s hope he can get senators to sit up in their seats and pay attention.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Depression Low Notes

Though President Obama has a reputation amongst conservatives for being “soft” on illegal immigration, he has, in fact, presided over an administration that has sent record numbers of folks back to their countries of origin.

And this has hit the agricultural sector. Hard. The one fifth of Americans who are unemployed have, apparently, little interest in picking crops. Perhaps Tom Lehrer’s 1965 song about Sen. George Murphy explains the popular rationale most memorably:

Should Americans pick crops?
George says, “No,
“’Cause no one but a Mexican
“Would stoop so low.
“After all, even in Egypt, the Pharaohs
“Had to import Hebrew braceros.”

Apparently, native workers aren’t exactly desperate. Credit this to extended unemployment benefits?

Doug French, of the Mises Institute, notes that as supplies of produce come up short, food prices have risen. Without recent immigrants to pick crops, some farms have had to contract with prisons.

Things sure have changed since the days of the Great Depression. Back then, those looking for work took all sorts of jobs: menial labor, farm work, you-name-it.

Today? Apparently not.

Trust me, I don’t blame folks for avoiding back-breaking labor. About 30 years ago, I chopped tobacco. Soaking my sore muscles in the tub after the first day, I decided that surely I could find other work — and I did.

Still, someone has to pick the crops. Food prices are soaring. American citizens might rather be deported than have to labor in the fields.

Where on Earth would we find laborers who would feel differently?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Renegade Regulatory Agencies

Americans often express astonishment when they learn that many of the nation’s laws — the bulk of its “regulations” — have not been written by Congress. Though the Constitution grants to Congress alone the power to legislate, Congress cedes most of that power to Executive Branch bureaucracies.

Last Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul hosted a panel on government regulatory abuse. Covering this “round table” discussion, Lou Dobbs, the Fox anchorman, interviewed Sen. Paul, and the two highlighted a number of regulatory horror stories:

  • A man from Hungary was put in jail for three years for cleaning up an illegal dump that had been put onto land that he had purchased.
  • A family was harassed for raising rabbits without a license — fined $3,000,000 but given the out of a mere $90,000 fine if they paid within 30 days by credit card.
  • Members of another family found themselves face to face with EPA bureaucrats, who halted their housing project, demanded costly site restoration, and charged them with criminal liability for not immediately complying.

The law that’s directed against this latter family, by the way, “is about wetlands,” which, Rand Paul informs us, Congress has never enacted laws about: “‘Wetlands’ is something defined into existence by regulatory agencies.”

In The Road to Serfdom F. A. Hayek showed how undemocratic and abusive “central planning” becomes. Apparently, even without a grand, overarching plan, regulation of the micro-managing kind navigates the same path.

Demand more “regulation”? Expect arbitrary judgment and unreasonable requirements — tyranny — as the result.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies too much government

The Obama Betrayals

In one way, President Obama has had it hard: He inherited a mess.

In another, he has had it easy: His predecessor blew it big time.

As James Bovard put it in his 2004 book, The Bush Betrayal, “George W. Bush came to the presidency promising prosperity, peace, and humility. Instead, Bush . . . spawned record federal budget deficits, launched an unnecessary war, and made America the most hated nation in the world.”

The election of Obama turned foreign opinion around, but his actual policies have proved no advance over his predecessor’s.

Bush started the bailouts; Obama bailed out more.

Bush pushed through an under-funded entitlement, Medicare Part D. Obama leveraged his political capital to take an even bigger step towards socialized medicine.

Bush understandably undertook the Afghanistan venture — but the Iraq conquest and reconstruction betrayed his promise to forswear “nation-building.” Then Obama lingered in Iraq, upped the forces in Afghanistan — long after the rationale became murky — and also attacked a number of other countries, including Libya. So much for the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

But when it comes to America’s misguided War on Drugs, Obama has been especially disappointing. No-one really expected much of Bush. But Obama? He said he’d reverse policy at least vis-à-vis the states that voted in medical marijuana. Yet federal agents continue targeting medical marijuana growers.

We aren’t being served well by the presidents we spend so much time thinking about.

Could it be because they don’t really think much about us?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

The End of an Era?

More than one person forecast the bursting of the Dot Com Bubble, twelve years ago. The Pets.com sock puppet wasn’t the only clue — the general enthusiasm for companies that had never, ever shown a profit proved signal enough. And then there was all the talk about how the stock market “could only go up.”

Soon after, it went down.

Then stocks rose again, in a Fed-induced bubble. And then collapsed again, along with the financial system.

Brace yourself for another rerun.

The Economist informs us that “European bankers have been saying things are fine for weeks now, even as their exposure to indebted euro-zone countries strangles their access to funding. . . . Fears of contagion from Europe have now infected America.”

The gloom and doom just rises from there.

The article is depressing for another reason, though — the assumption that governments must not let banks fail, making The Economist read like council for never-ending tax-funded bailouts. Which was the kind of thing actual economists used to warn governments against. (A long time ago . . . perhaps back when the science was called “political economy.”)

Times sure have changed, as The Economist admits. The three years since 2008 have made a difference: Now it is the governments that prove insolvent.

It’s time for The Economist to rethink its policy advice, time to call for a general overhaul of the international monetary system.

We must end the age of inflation-and-bailouts, before it ends us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Obscene Green

I don’t know about you, but when I want to invest my money, I don’t go the Department of Energy for advice.

There’s a reason for this. At their best, bureaucracies “lumber on,” to quote one sociologist’s analysis. They are, “by their nature . . . fitted only for average requirements.” Picking long shots? Not their strong suit.

And a long shot is what the government’s investment in Solyndra surely was. The more emails that are released, the more obvious this becomes. Even savvy folks within the administration knew was that Solyndra was a bad deal.

Yet President Obama says it seemed like a “good bet” at the time.

Why?

Politics. He needed to look good, and the easiest garb to grab was the garb of “green.”

That is, alternative energy — which is said to be our future. Undoubtedly some alternatives will dominate . . . that is, ones found on the market. The great gales of destructive creation that is the market process will eventually solve our “energy problem” . . . if only to create a new problem, requiring yet another solution. (In real life, there are rarely “solutions,” only trade-offs.)

There is something obscene in Obama’s “good bet,” for he was betting with other people’s money. Confiscated money.

At the very least, such funds must be treated carefully, not gambled.

To spend otherwise is to sully, for temporary gain, a sacred trust.

Of course, Americans are so used to such trust being desecrated that, sadly, the Solyndra scandal doesn’t quite seem like the enormity it truly is.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Blame China

The Great Depression was made “great” by government mismanagement.

Political action, first under Hoover and then under FDR, made things a whole lot worse. And it wasn’t just the Democrats’ misguided New Deal barrage of regulation, cartelization, and general anti-business central planning. The Hoover Era Smoot-Hawley Tariff, a huge Republican reassertion of high-barrier protectionism, crippled international markets and devastated the one industry it was meant, especially, to help: agriculture.

Protectionism is the idea that government should outrageously harm domestic consumers to “protect” domestic producers. And politicians, often thinking they must “do something” (i.e., “anything”) often feel the push to “save us all” by erecting barriers to trade. Since the crash of 2008, I’ve kept an eye on our Washington insiders, to see if they’d try to revive Thirties-style self-destructive nostrums.

Well, we’ve got a sighting.

Congress is gearing up for some anti-Chinese protectionism. An unfortunately bipartisan movement is festering there, saying China’s yuan is too valuable, making trade “unfair” for American producers. The Senate seems bent on passing the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act.

But, according to Daniel Ikenson, what’s really going on is politics: Faced with “public approval ratings hovering in the low-to-mid teens, an embattled Congress is looking for plausible scapegoats for the dismal state of U.S. economic affairs.”

This is not sophisticated economic theory. It’s not conscientiously developed public policy.

It’s grasp-at-anything grandstanding.

And it could do a whole lot of harm.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies Tenth Amendment federalism too much government

A Compact Solution

“We shouldn’t have to leave our country to have a reasonable health care system,” says Eric O’Keefe, chair of the Health Care Compact Alliance.

I agree, but what to do with Obamacare, at present secure from repeal?

O’Keefe points out that Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution permits states to enter into compacts with one another provided they get congressional approval. States have done so since colonial times; there are currently 200 state compacts in force dealing with issues from driver’s licensing to wildlife.

The Health Care Compact would allow states to “get rid of all of Obamacare,” and to tell the federal government, as O’Keefe puts it, “You keep your regulations; send us back our money.”

“It’s not just a way to block Obamacare,” O’Keefe explains. “It includes Medicare and Medicaid, creates a block grant of all the money and it goes into the compacting states for them to manage as they see fit. So the citizens and the legislature will work it out in their state.”

States that join the compact could set up their own health care system with the money they currently receive from the federal government, sans regulations and mandates. While some states might experiment with single-payer systems, others could expand medical savings accounts and other market-oriented reforms.

Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas have already passed the Health Care Compact, and will likely apply for congressional approval once a dozen or more states join.

Who’s next?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies too much government

Decline and Fall?

Widespread unemployment, fear, and consternation: Why now?

Three answers:

  1. Imperial over-reach. No nation can police the world forever. Empires once existed for loot. But on net the U.S. doesn’t take wealth from others. Instead, we spend our own wealth “protecting” others, often confusing our “national interest” for the interests of well-connected businesses. Hardly sustainable. Flag-waving about how good the U.S. is won’t stop the decline.
  2. Churning. We pretend to live in a “welfare state,” but wealth does not consistently go from rich to poor, to compensate for disadvantages. Wealth churns from one group to another, with each power shift. Trying to live at the expense of everyone else is not just a game for the poor. Government, without constitutional limits, inevitably shifts wealth haphazardly from the politically powerless (the least organized) to the politically powerful (the best organized) — with always a cut for the bureaucracy and political insiders. Of course such a system must decline, at some point.
  3. Sub-standard standards. In too many domains of life, we’ve almost given up. Certainly folks in high places act quite low. And the people who control our money, for example, don’t even pretend to keep a stable supply, a “standard”; instead, they pride themselves on “keeping bubbles going” . . . making unsustainability our standard policy.

But Americans do have an advantage over our Old World friends and foes. We have a history of dedication to better principles. Our best bet for recovery? Return to them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies porkbarrel politics

Hating Cathedrals

According to Adam Gopnik, at the New Yorker, many of my readers and I hate cathedrals.

Well, he alleges that we oppose “beautiful new airports and efficient bullet trains” (not cathedrals, exactly) for the same reason that “seventeenth-century Protestants hated the beautiful Baroque churches of Rome” — as “luxurious symbols of an earthly power they despised.”

Hmmm. Disagreeing with Gopnik is a hate crime?

Americans have more than enough cause to oppose big, intrusive government. We know how it works (often not very well), we know how unfair it is (often quite unjust), and we have a traditional alternative ready at hand (Constitutional liberty).

Cluelessly, Gopnik just sees a pig-headed hatred of government that leads to a hatred of some really nifty things.

He should reconsider. Perhaps what we have is a love of liberty and justice. And that precludes some nifty things from being conjured up in certain ways.

I bet Gopnik agrees. Go back to something like a cathedral. Take Teotihuacan. The Aztecs sure made some impressive buildings. Big public works projects. But for the purposes of blood sacrifice? At the cost of constant imperial warfare and imperial rule?

No.

Same with some dream projects. No doubt taking a billion-dollar train to a trillion-dollar airport would be cool. But I’d rather spend my money in other ways. And is it really right to tax somebody else for my luxuriant transports?

No more than robbing Peter to pay Paul . . . even to build a cathedral.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.