Category: national politics & policies

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Neutrality or Tragedy?

Everybody likes freebies. New York renters often seek apartments advertised with “utilities included.” Why? So they can run their air conditioners 24/7.

Similarly, a lot of people are pushing for something called “Net neutrality.” We must guarantee a “free and open Internet,” they say.

Sounds good. After all, “free” is a good deal, if you can get it. But “free” comes at a cost. “Not having to pay for it” can become “paying through the nose” pretty quickly.

Here’s the problem: The rise of VoIP, streaming video and audio, and similar broadband luxuries has strained the Internet. Regulating the Net for “neutrality” prevents price and quality-of-service discrimination by owners of the Net’s infrastructure.

Might as well require all landlords to provide all utilities “free” . . . distributing the costs of extra usage via basic rent charges. That would be “Apartment neutrality.”

It would also be a big waste, and not just of electricity.

When suppliers of goods aren’t allowed to price and move product to their advantage, we get something  like the “tragedy of the commons.” The term comes from the medieval commons, a field that all villagers could use. They were, historically, overgrazed. Devastated. Hence the need to divvy up the fields into private plots, allowing trade to increase wealth, to the benefit of all.

U.S. regulators, tackling Net neutrality this month, should be wary of laying waste to the Net in the name of “openness.” Never confuse “free” of price with freedom itself.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Gore’s Gas-Based Admission

Al Gore gives the impression of someone never willing to acknowledge error if said error happens to be self-serving.

This impression is wrong.

If I have ever suggested that Gore never admits self-serving mistakes, I hereby rescind and repudiate that suggestion. He appears more than willing to retire a dishonest assertion . . . so long as he has another dishonest assertion to replace it with.

Ed Morrissey tells the tale at Hot Air, opining that Al Gore’s revised opinion about the virtue of government subsidies for corn-based ethanol seems just a little too convenient.

Gore now acknowledges that the energy-conversion ratios of first-generation ethanol “are at best very small,” and that corn subsidies probably bid up food prices. He even admits that he pushed for the funding to help farmers in states like Tennessee and Iowa. So it came to pass that taxpayers paid billions, in part to help Gore run for president.

Wait, there’s more.

Having recanted his support for “first-generation” ethanol, Gore now wants to use wood and grass to make ethanol. A new and better way, n’est-ce pas? No. There’s this small detail: Grass etc.-based ethanol is even more inefficient than corn-based ethanol.

Why top a bad blunder at taxpayer expense with an even worse blunder at taxpayer expense? Could this have anything to do with Al Gore’s investment in Abengoa Bioenergy, a firm begging for government subsidies for second-generation ethanol?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

The Murky, Muddled Middle

We’ve seen a lot of insightful reflection about what the recent elections say about the prospects for liberty and the efforts of many Americans to fight for endangered liberties.

One lesson I hope we’re on the way to unlearning is how allegedly “praiseworthy” it is to evade any clear-cut defense of fundamental political principle. How allegedly “critical” it is to compromise not only on the details of a program that does advance one principles, but also on the basic principles themselves.

In a recent communiqué, Representative Ed Emery rejects the notion that “moderates” lost, sometimes spectacularly, because voters “weren’t thinking.” No, “Moderates lost because voters woke up to the truth that lukewarm does not protect personal liberties; it compromises them [and] protects the status quo. . . .”

But not even the status quo is protected by huddling in the middle of the road. The premier beneficiaries of the worship of the muddled middle are those who do advocate certain fundamental (and poisonous) ideological principles but who succeed in posing as practitioners of “moderation.” Today, the radical left calls itself “the center” and screams bloody murder about “extremism” when anybody offers cogent objections to their socialist agenda. “Compromise,” to them, means only tweaking the speed at which we hurtle ever closer to full government control over our lives.

Let’s not submit to this intimidation, this fraudulent debate-framing.

Let’s demand a fair and open clash of basic political principles.

That’s a battle we’ll win.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies too much government U.S. Constitution

Perfect Safety?

Maybe the most interesting thing to come out, so far, from the “porno-scanner”/TSA-gropings controversy is this statement by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas: “You can’t provide perfect safety.”

Going on, Rep. Paul denied that it is “the government’s role . . . to provide safety.”

It isn’t; it’s to protect our rights. But here we’re being told that we go to the gate, we buy a ticket, and you’ve lost your right, you’ve sacrificed your right. Where did that come from? It’s about the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard.

Rep. Paul has introduced legislation that would prohibit physical contact between TSA screeners and would-be airline passengers, and would prohibit taking images of people’s bodies using X-Rays, millimeter rays, etc..

Ron Paul sees all these new, invasive screening techniques as based on the idea that it is the government’s job to ensure airline invulnerability to terrorism, not the airlines’. He suggests putting the onus back on the airlines, who would likely be more respectful of their customers than the TSA is.

9/11/01 caught the airlines and the government with their pants down. Maybe the best solution to this security lapse isn’t to institute intrusions into our pants, or the kind of X-Ray vision scanners that boys used to be enticed with in the back of comic books.

There must be better ways.

Alas, government probably won’t find them. Which is why Ron Paul is on to something: It should be up to private enterprise.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Video of the Week: Quantitative Easing Explained

Earlier this week I did a short Q&A about the latest in monetary policy: quantitative easing. This video goes into much more detail. And is pretty funny:

For an extended, non-animated explanation of QE, try a helpful article by monetary economist Leland Yeager: “The Fed’s Easy Money.”

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Dare to Cut

If the Tea Party’s newly elected spokespeople really want to prove they are serious, they must dare to gore a familiar ox.

The best place to start? Pentagon budgets.

It’s not just me saying that. Just as Congress overspends domestically, it overspends militarily, primarily by what Cato Institute’s Downsizing the Federal Government website defines as “overreach”:

We would improve the nation’s security by adopting a more restrained and defensive strategy. We should cut the number of military personnel and reduce overseas deployments to save money and relieve burdens on military families.

But Cato’s a think tank. What say actual, elected Tea Party politicians?

Well, Sen. Tom Coburn recently wrote that “Taking defense spending off the table is indefensible.” Further, Senator Elect Rand Paul has called for a debate in the Senate and House over the war in Afghanistan. He started off by saying that Congress had proved lax in its duty to declare war, and then argued that the debate ten years ago on the Afghanistan intervention was not enough for the war’s continuation. He brought up a list of sensible concerns that require careful discussion.

Tea Party politicians should also see the political value of strategic disengagement from any number of worldwide hotspots. Or funding sinkholes, like Europe. Being the world’s policeman costs us dearly, in more ways than one. Were Republicans to rethink their traditional No Pentagon Budget Left Behind approach, Democrats might have less standing to oppose the domestic cuts that must be made.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom national politics & policies too much government U.S. Constitution

The Costs of Airport Security

John Tyner, a 31-year-old man hailing from Oceanside, California, not only declined San Diego International Airport’s kind offer of a full-body scan via privacy-invading machine, he also declined a full-body groping via privacy-invading human.

Unfortunately for TSA (who would like to make it unfortunate for Tyner as well) he happened to record his interactions with security personnel on a cell phone. Now TSA honchos are growling that they may well follow through with a threat to fine him $10,000 for not submitting to either procedure — inasmuch as it’s now a crime to care about one’s personal dignity.

The penalty has gone up, though, since TSA threatened Tyner at the airport. It’s now $11,000.

Five or ten dollars for refusing an obnoxious groping, I understand. Or a nickel. Better? A penny. But thousands of dollars?

I’m sure other aspiring passengers who initially cooperated with such intrusions also decided mid-procedure that things were getting too invasive for comfort and that retreat was the better part of valor. I doubt that TSA has sought to extract $10,000+ from each recalcitrant.

But it seems Tyner’s conduct is especially heinous. First, he balked at unreasonable search of his person; second, he blatantly exercised his First Amendment rights by shockingly sharing evidence and testimony about what happened.

If the TSA doesn’t do something, fast, more and more people might act as if their constitutional rights still apply.

Do they?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

QE Q&A

It’s one of those terms seemingly designed to conceal something ugly, dangerous, or unnerving; this example of contemporary policy jargon just looks like a euphemism. It’s “quantitative easing” (QE) and it’s Federal Reserve policy.

What does the “quantitative” part refer to?

The quantity of money in bank reserves.

Is this all about increasing that quantity?

Yes.

Isn’t that synonymous with inflation?

According to the old definition — where inflation is the increase in the supply of money — yes. But since economists became obsessed with the price level, and “correcting” the price level, today inflation usually designates a general rise in prices. Of course, more money will tend to raise prices. But because demand for money can offset supply moves, price levels are not affected on a simple input-output, one-to-one manner.

Is this what we call “printing money”?

Yes, but in the digital ledgers of banks, not in terms of paper dollars.

So this “easing” is just “easy money”?

Yes, but not “just.” Because the new money hits bank reserves, it eases banks’ pressure vis-a-vis risk. So banks can lend more.

Will banks, helped out by QE, actually follow through and make loans?

Big question. They didn’t, much, after the bailouts. Banks loan funds only when they can expect a return. Monetary manipulation doesn’t, presto chango, solve the problem of the future. If the future looks especially unstable, or uncertain, no loan.

Will this necessarily jump-start the economy?

No. Our elite experts’ desperation is showing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Divided We Stand

Politicians like to talk about “unity” and “co-operation” and “getting things done.”

This would be all well and good if, when they manage to co-operate, they could restrain themselves from going whole hog and radically increasing government spending.

But the evidence is: They can’t.

Politicians in Washington are most co-operative and least “obstructionist” when the legislative and executive branches are united by party — that is, the majority’s in Congress is the same as the president’s. But look what happens when there’s united government under one party: Government growth.

A graph compiled by Mercatus Center research fellow Matthew Mitchell makes this easy to see:

Since Eisenhower, the federal government has grown every administration, every year. But the rate of growth is highest when government is united by party. It tends to grow less when there’s divided government. The rate of growth? 2.55 percent with divided government, and nearly double that — 4.67 percent — with united government.

If you look at the graph carefully, you can see there are anomalous developments and periods. And you can see that some famous (Reagan, Clinton-era) attempts at pruning spending hasn’t amounted to a reduction in total spending, yet. But still, the graph is a bit comforting, when you realize that we have divided government now, after a period of united government and massive spending increases.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers term limits

Congressional Stagnation at an End?

With this last election, 87 percent of House incumbents who chose to run for re-election got re-elected.

That’s low by modern standards. In fact, it’s the lowest since 1970, which garnered 85 percent rates for incumbents.

But it’s high by older standards. Eric O’Keefe, of the Sam Adams Alliance, says that the re-election rate may be low today but remains higher “than every election of the 19th century.”

Something changed. Individual career politicians gained the upper hand.

On the brighter side, it’s worth noting that if you include “voluntary retirement” in current figures, the turnover rate was much higher. Forty-five open House seats saw 16 flips of party affiliation, all but one going from Democrat to Republican. This leads Doug Mataconis to figure the retention rate at 64 percent. (Still, in the 19th century, that same rate averaged to under 60 percent.)

Of course, many of our recent “voluntary retirees” may have seen the writing on the wall, preferring to bow out with more dignity than an electoral trouncing would allow.

Credit this to an exceptional frisson amongst the voting public, born of anger and disgust at the political class’s habitual over-spending and general foolishness.

It remains to be seen whether this acuity of citizen focus can alone spur continued turnover and real change. It seems unlikely, which is why I’ve long supported term limits.

But, whatever the source, real change is necessary. And the current turnover, welcome.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.