Category: national politics & policies

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

A “Progressive” Reform

The money’s running out; the government is on a timeline. Something must be done before going into default.

Of course, the Executive Branch could prioritize spending, fiddle with accounts and still pay the interest on the federal debt as well as pay Social Security recipients — to year’s end. But it looks like the Obama Administration is just as committed to brinksmanship as the (heroic!) Tea Party folks who refuse to raise the debt ceiling.

And now the infamous “Gang of Six” re-emerge with a cockamamie proposal to “solve” the problem, mostly by saying they’ll “cut in the future” but keep mum, for now, what those cuts would be. It’s the typical lily-livered politician’s move.

The worst of the Gang of Six proposal, as fed-spending watchdog Dan Mitchell noticed, is that the alleged spending cuts don’t actually cut spending overall, just (get ready for it…) cut spending over planned increases.

We’ve been hearing this since the Carter era.

Something I haven’t heard from anyone (except my colleagues, of course — nothing from politicians, naturally) is a real cut that could substantially help.

Since the government is running out of money, cut federal wages across the board.

And make the cuts “progressive.”

How? Take any current federal government salary. Exempt the first (say) $60,000. And then cut the remaining salary level above that by (say) 20 percent. The exemption makes the rate cut in effect progressive. The “rich” would face greater income reductions.

Progressives should like that, no?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies

A Surplus of Slant

The Washington Post Metro section headline seems to tell a story: “Virginia taxes yield $311 million surplus.”

Odd, though: Virginia’s legislators didn’t raise taxes; they cut spending. The article, thankfully, reveals this, reporting that there was “no general tax increase” and “hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts.”

But if you just read the headline and moved on, you might have been misled.

Later that day, CNN charges Congresswoman Michele Bachmann with “again” characterizing “a settlement to black farmers as fraud.” No explanation as to why. Then CNN presents John Boyd (or Dr. John Boyd?), president of the National Black Farmers Association.

Boyd denies all talk of fraud. “I just don’t understand why people like Ms. Bachmann . . . have continued to criticize this settlement,” he explains, before figuring it might be to “divide and conquer America.”

Rep. Bachmann is shown saying 94,000 people were given settlement money even though the census showed only 18,000 black farmers. But CNN avoids that obvious math problem. CNN also neglects the testimony of Jimmy Dismuke, a black farmer who claims the lawyers told potential plaintiffs that “if you had a potted plant, you can be a farmer.”

Then CNN anchor Kyra Phillips asks, “Do you feel that she’s racist?”

Boyd responds, “She’s going to have a hard time proving to America that she’s not racist if she continues to make these kinds of comments.”

Media folks are going to have trouble proving to America that they don’t slant the news.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Who Wins With Faith-based Money?

A fascinating Wall Street Journal profile of one of this age’s pre-eminent investment advisors, Jim Grant, provides more than the usual “business interest.” Mr. Grant proves to be a very thoughtful man, not given following the Yes Men crowd.

He notes, for example, how deflation fears have unhinged the minds in charge of the financial sector. “The Fed, in assaulting a phantom deflation, precipitated an actual one.”

And this “inflation/deflation” problem is only the tip of a very large and scary monetary iceberg. He calls our fiat money system a marvel — “astounding,” in his exact wording — but that’s not necessarily a good thing:

That a currency of no intrinsic value is accepted as money the world over is an achievement that no monetary economist up until not so many decades ago could have imagined. It’ll be 40 years next month that the dollar has been purely faith-based. I don’t believe for a moment it’s destined to go on much longer. I think the existing monetary arrangements are so precarious, so ill-founded and so destructive of the economic activity they are supposed to support and nurture, that they will be replaced by something better.

Let’s hope so.

But why has the system survived so long?

Mr. Grant has an answer: It serves Wall Street and “its supporting ‘interest group’” of “nimble, market-savvy, plugged-in folks.”

Exactly: Many of our biggest institutions don’t serve “the people” so much as the select few.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
education and schooling insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies

Cheaters Never Prosper?

The cheating scandal in the Atlanta Public Schools is ugly — 178 administrators, principals and teachers were caught changing answers on standardized tests. Nearly 80 percent of the schools investigated were found to be guilty.

One school held weekend pizza parties to organize the fraud. Former Superintendent Beverly Hall — named the National Superintendent of Year in 2009 — “is accused of encouraging the cheating.” Hall made hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses for the fraudulent test scores.

Meanwhile, one teacher fearing retaliation if she blew the whistle, declared, “APS is run like the mob.”

Yet much of the media spin is excuse-making:

  • On NBC’s Nightly News, Brian Williams called it “the risk of high-stakes testing.”
  • CBS Evening News informed us that, “Educator Diane Ravitch blames it on a federal law that links funding with test performance.”
  • ABC News reported that, “Many in the community are pointing the finger at No Child Left Behind, the federal policy that made test scores king.”
  • One expert said, “[S]ome educators feel pressured to get the scores they need by hook or by crook.”

I’ve been a consistent critic of No Child Left Behind and deplore the federal micro-managing of schools. But cheating is wrong. And the fault lies with the cheaters — not with those demanding better performance.

Paul Landerman, a former Atlanta teacher fired for reporting the cheating, told NBC, “The greatest value inside that system is loyalty to the system.”

System first. Your kids? Somewhere after that.

That’s the opposite of Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies too much government

What a Deal!

David Brooks, writing in the New York Times on Independence Day, cajoles Republicans to accept the deal that allegedly now faces them: Raise a few taxes (just a few!) in exchange for the Democrats going along with “a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion.” After all, he writes,

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.

And then Brooks goes off on how unreasonable the Republicans have become, how abnormal.

Well, we can only hope.

There’s good reason for recalcitrance in the Republican party. Our beloved congressfolk do not have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. They keep increasing spending, year by year, no matter what the revenue actually is.

Increasing revenue — which is still not certain even if marginal tax rates get upped or “loopholes” get closed — does not solve the base problem, which is spendaholic politicians.

Besides, the “trillions” in cuts are in the future, while the taxes would be immediate. We’ve been burned on such deals before, like Lucy and Charlie Brown’s football.

There was a reason the New York Times chose Brooks for its “conservative.” He can always be counted to chatter “kick the ball.”

Don’t fall for it, Charlie Brown.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Cold, Hard Reality

Yesterday President Obama declared that no one is arguing for government default. But isn’t it amazing to see so many politicians work so hard to ensure that un-argued-for goal?

There are two parts to a default. The first is running up debt; the second is not paying it back. Like it or not, advocate it or not, sovereign debt repudiation comes closer as American politicians lumber on with the first part.

Of course, there are folks who think the American people should simply repudiate their government’s debt. Over at the Mises Institute, Justin Ptak provides citations from more than one economist advocating just that.

Gary North states that the day is fast approaching when the phrase “full faith and credit of the United States government” will “provoke universal laughter. . . .” He insists that “the credit rating of the United States government will be marked down from AAA to AA. It will then be marked down to A.” What’s more, he says this is a good thing: “For every notch down that it falls, the national day of deliverance draws closer.”

Paranoid? Fringe? Hopeful? No matter how you categorize such talk, it’s not crazy to think about, since the probability of default grows as the debt increases.

A default could have a beneficial effect on America’s politicians: They would be unable to finance further deficits. Reality’s cold, hard fist — that is, un-amused investors — would rein them in.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Desperate Times

“War is the health of the state.”

A generation after Randolph Bourne coined this maxim, followers of John Maynard Keynes — the architect of peacetime over-spending by governments — pushed their master’s notions to their illogical conclusion, saying that “war gets a country out an economic slump.” Why? How? You see, only in wartime does government spend so much money, command so many resources.

But War Keynesianism makes little sense. Wars are actually quite bad for the economy — if economy is understood as “people in general.” And though we often hear that “World War II got us out of the Great Depression,” it’s worth noting that times were tight during the war, and that after VE and VJ Days, when the U.S. government pulled back on spending, Keynesian economists feared the country would spiral back into depression. To their surprise, after a short period of adjustment, the economy took off.

Indeed, not only does War Keynesianism make no sense “in theory,” the facts disprove it, as economic historian Robert Higgs has ably and repeatedly demonstrated. And yet, he recently lamented that the truth is just not getting out there: Intellectuals keep pushing the silly doctrine. Sad.

It’s easy to see why, though. Big governments are spinning out of control, and the intellectual case for them is as bankrupt as their own financials. Insider intellectuals are desperate.

War is the ultimate desperate measure.

Today the U.S. is at war in five different countries.*

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan (drone attacks), Yemen (drone attacks)

Categories
crime and punishment national politics & policies too much government

Disarm Power-Trippy Bureau-Thugs

“This is the sort of thing that should never, ever happen in a free society,” says Quin Hillyer at the Center for Individual Freedom site.

By “this . . . sort of thing” Hillyer means pre-dawn raids in which “thuggish bureaucrats . . . burst into a man’s home and handcuff him in front of his children because his estranged wife is late on student loan payments.”

I’ve already commented on this vicious and stupid Department-of-Education-sponsored raid. I return to the story to echo Hillyer’s suggestions for reform.

He observes that such baseless assaults on innocent citizens are “an increasing problem. . . . [A] horrific number of similar stories [show] that we are all subject, at the whim of idiots without any good reason to carry arms, to tactics reminiscent of a terrible police state.” More and more commonly, agencies like the Small Business Administration and the Railroad Retirement Board, which have no business having armed agents, nevertheless do.

Hillyer suggests that the SWAT-like raid teams and the people who order them should both be subject to imprisonment for these flagrant abuses of power. He also wants Congress to stop criminalizing mere clerical errors and to “de-arm federal agents.” The Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, concurs, saying he’d “like to see some Tea Party members of Congress pass bills to disarm all non-law-enforcement agencies.”

Yes. Let the congressmen openly debate and vote whether rampant, arbitrary, armed raids of innocent citizens should or should not continue.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

World Policeman on the Take?

The United States of America is at war in Afghanistan and Libya and has nearly 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq. We have 702 military bases in 63 countries around the world.

We’ve become the world’s policeman.

This mission comes with a hefty price tag — most importantly, in the lives of our soldiers. Secondarily, but not inconsequentially, in dollars. Last year, we spent $685 billion for our worldwide presence, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now we’re adding Libya to the bill.

So, how do we pay for all this policing?

Over the weekend, in a visit to Iraq, U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher suggested, “We would hope that some consideration be given to repaying the United States some of the megadollars we have spent here in the last eight years.”

We can hope, but Sean Hannity went a misplaced step further: “We have every right to go in there [into Iraq and Kuwait] and, frankly, take all their oil and make them pay for the liberation.”

Heavens! Rescuing someone doesn’t give us the right to take others’ money or oil or anything else.

Now, were a liberated nation to choose to repay us, that’d be nice. Kuwait did actually pay more of the financial cost of the Gulf War than we did.

But face it: Policing the world is just not cost-effective. Making it pay by turning a liberation crusade into an excuse for looting? That’s not police activity.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies too much government

Lawlessness, American-Style

When President Obama granted to himself the power to execute American citizens without due process, it wasn’t just Judge Napolitano who became alarmed. Now, citizen activists are honestly nervous, some now thinking that the government is targeting them with assassination.

Sounds paranoid. But, as is often said, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you. Any one instance of paranoia may or may not be warranted, but the fact remains that the government is out to get some people without due process.

We can’t shrug that off with a “Ho, hum.”

Let’s also not ho-hum the FDA raiding a business, guns drawn, for selling raw milk, or a defendant facing “jail time of up to 65 years for helping people play cards over the Internet.”

That last quotation comes from Gene Healy, who chalks up our government’s over-lawed lawlessness to the subject of his recent book, The Cult of the Presidency, explaining that “[y]ou’re not a real president until you fight a metaphorical ‘war’ on a social problem. So, to LBJ’s ‘War on Poverty’ and Reagan’s ‘War on Drugs,’ add Obama’s ‘War on Fun.’”

But the problem, it seems to me, is not merely a “war on fun.” It’s a revamped war on citizens by disregarding limits on government required by the rule of law.

For example, to keep government going without a raised debt ceiling, Timothy Geithner took funds from federal employee pensions.

Crime, if you and I do it.

“Clever statesmanship” if Geithner does it.

Lawlessness, American-style.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.