Category: national politics & policies

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

An Ideological Cure?

Sometimes doctors need a stiff belt of medicine too.

Scot Echols, a  reader of Glenn Reynolds’s “Instapundit” blog, wrote in to say that while he appreciated a recent piece by Reynolds hailing capitalism, he thought it had not sufficiently stressed how capitalism fosters the creation of value.

“Value is created when someone does something for [others] better, faster, or cheaper than they can do it themselves,” Echols wrote. Then he related an anecdote about his doctor, whom he had gone to see about a sore throat. His doctor ranted about how “we need communism or a benevolent dictator to solve all of society’s problems.”

Sore throat notwithstanding, Echols responded, saying that he could either treat a sore throat himself with a regimen of gargling and garlic or pay $80 for a consultation and quick-acting antibiotics, reducing a two-week treatment to twenty minutes. His doctor’s knowledge and ability thus create value for him, value worth paying for. Because of such value creation, physicians gain wealth that enables them to drive nicer cars and live in nicer places than many of their receptionists can.

His doctor had no reply, but perhaps did understand a little better just how the kind of value-killing society he’d been dreaming about might not allow him to enjoy the nice things he had now; also, that the freedom to give value and be rewarded for it is a good thing.

Let’s hope the cure sticks. Let’s hope it spreads.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights free trade & free markets ideological culture national politics & policies too much government

Forcing You to Pay for Bad News

Poor old-media dinosaurs! The “news profession,” so assailed by the fact checkers, bias detectors and distortion documenters hailing from the Internet and other new tech, suffers under the scourge of unexpected competition.

What to do . . . aside from apply troubling degrees of ingenuity, conscientiousness and hard work?

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Lee Bollinger, Columbia University president and free speech “expert,” says the answer is “more public funding for news-gathering. . . .”

It’s very exciting. Under Bollinger’s plan, even more of your tax dollars will be diverted to support media outfits whose lucubration you don’t support voluntarily! Joy!

For Bollinger, past unconstitutional interference with media provides ample warrant for more. In the ’60s, the Supreme Court sanctioned government-compelled coverage of “public issues” and provision of “equal time,” even though it could have “limited government involvement simply to auctioning off the airwaves and letting the market dictate [sic] the news.”

It’s unclear why advocates of pushing people around so often make this precedent-worshiping argument. It’s as if some tyrant were to say, “There’s already well-established precedent for my beating up and killing innocent people. So why not expand and codify the process?”

Hey, maybe something’s wrong with the media-bullying precedents? And something right with the First Amendment? Perhaps today’s overdue media ferment would have happened earlier absent government fostering of media behemoths.

How about dropping the shackles and subsidies and letting Americans make our own choices about which media to patronize?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Categories
crime and punishment national politics & policies

Ponzi in California

Keeping loans and investments distinct is important not merely for business people, but for governments.

Case in point? Mahmoud “Mike” Karkehabadi’s 89 felony counts of securities fraud and grand theft. The Laguna Niguel, California, movie maker is accused of turning his business into a Ponzi scheme.

When his film Hotel California flopped, bringing in just over half a million dollars, Mr. Karkehabadi convinced his investors to roll over their loans to him into future movie projects. When he did this, it is alleged, he fuzzed up the distinctions between different deals, and entered dark territory. Fraud.

According to California Attorney General Jerry Brown, Karkehabadi “ran a cold and calculated scam, making promises he never intended to keep and using the funds of new victims to pay off the earlier ones.”

I don’t know which this sounds like more, something out of Get Shorty or the Social Security Act of 1935.

It’s interesting that, at the same time it prosecutes Karkehabadi, the state of California is hastily and drastically re-arranging its finances. Politicians are forced to do so because they have promised the state’s retiring employees returns on investments never made in amounts state government could never, realistically, afford to come through on.

The whole story of the accused Mr. Karkehabadi looks bad. Criminal. But then, so does the whole story of how politicians in California (and elsewhere) behave.

Fraud isn’t as uncommon as it should be.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

With Precedents, Very Small

When you hear the word “unprecedented,” look for precedents.

It used to mean “lacking record of similar events in the past.” Now “unprecedented” seems to mean “very, very bad.”

A few months ago the President of the United States said of the Gulf Coast oil spill that “we’re dealing with a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster.”

Apparently, the Exxon Valdez fiasco wasn’t precedent enough.

But hey: When looking for precedents, look to nature. Oil exists in the Earth’s crust. It occasionally seeps out. Naturally.

How do we know this? I mean, besides the fact that oil seepages were historically recorded, and considered a bane until oil’s industrial utility was discovered, and then considered a boon?

Well, biologists have discovered microbes in the deep sea oil spills, vigilantly eating up oil. And it’s a new species. That is, new to us.

The AP reports how the microbe “thrives in cold water, with temperatures in the deep recorded at 41 degrees Fahrenheit,” and goes on to say that one researcher speculates “that the bacteria may have adapted over time due to periodic leaks and natural seeps of oil in the Gulf.”

Happily, the bacteria does not appear to cause inordinate oxygen depletion (radically reduced oxygen in the seas could lead to massive death, including vast species extinctions).

Yes, folks: Evidence of a natural order. And something to adapt for our own efforts to clean up from this summer’s biggest government/business partnership mess.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom national politics & policies

Oppressors Triumphant

Richard Falkenrath is tired of all this civil rights nonsense.

Falkenrath is a former official with the Department of Homeland Security and now works for a consulting firm run by former Homeland Security honcho Michael Chertoff. In an op-ed for the New York Times, Falkenrath explains why a recent ban of the Blackberry by the United Arab Emirates was greeted “with approval, admiration and perhaps even a touch of envy” by “law enforcement investigators and intelligence officers” here in America.

The UAE banned the gizmo because its officials could not easily snoop on BlackBerry users. Falkenrath says the ban was justified because the BlackBerry maker, Research in Motion, had “refused to modify its information architecture in a way that would enable authorities to intercept the communications of select subscribers.” Which “select subscribers”? Any subscribers the UAE government selected, of course. (RIM later cut a deal with UAE officials to restore service.)

Alas, because of legal obstacles in the U.S., “there remain a number of telecommunication methods that federal agencies cannot readily penetrate.” Falkenrath disparages the “liberal sensibilities” of those who wish to keep private communications private until a proper warrant is issued.

There’s a word for a government that can easily sidestep the rights of everyone in the name of national security: Dictatorship. Would Americans really be more “secure” if, like the United Arab Emirates, we lacked freedom of speech, freedom of association, democracy, and so forth?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

He Lies!

A congressman yells “You lie!” during a State of the Union address and everybody blasts him for lapse of manners, failure to respect the office of the presidency. Less objectionable, presumably, is the statement itself. For President Obama and members of Congress do fib, misrepresent, lie: About this, about that, about the other. About a great many things.

We can safely say, I hope, that it is wrong to deliberately misrepresent any proposed policy for the sake of fooling people into supporting that policy.

Yet there are politically interested persons out there, men of good will in their own view, who not only endorse lying to advance “just” political causes but who even publicly defend such lying. Political writer Matt Yglesias doesn’t lie himself, he stresses. It’s the politicians, the activists who should lie. Yglesias has declared, for example, that it’s swell for proponents of government-funded rail to supply “unrealistically optimistic” estimates of ridership in order to secure government funding.

If you habitually support policies that rob people of their wealth and freedom, I guess you might not hesitate to lie about what you’re doing. You might be quite eager to deceive as many people as possible as much as possible. To insist, for example, that Obamacare will “save money” and “reduce the deficit” and “enhance competition.”

Yglesias says it’s okay to fight “dishonesty with dishonesty.”

But if you have truth on your side, you really don’t need to lie.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies tax policy too much government

Social Security Beyond Retirement Age

Social Security turned 75 last week, and yet I saw few demands to retire the program.

Instead, pundits like Paul Krugman took the occasion to praise the septuagenarian boondoggle.

Krugman started boldly, saying that the program “brought dignity and decency to the lives of older Americans.” Huh? Social Security has indeed brought a steady income to retired Americans, many of whom would have had to rely on their children’s help to live out their last years. But Krugman doesn’t say that. Instead he implies that, before Social Security, old folks led indecent and base lives.

But think about this: Saving for yourself and living on a limited means is indecent? It lacks dignity?

Krugman also talks about the economics of the program, defending, for instance, its dual accounting method in a bizarre way. But mostly he steps carefully around Social Security’s biggest failings, which include the intergenerational swindle, providing bigger rewards-over-contributions to earlier retirees than to current recipients, and, by its nature, will take more from, and give less to, future retirees.

Most shockingly, though, he says this: “Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund.”

Krugman does all but state that the special account has money in it.

It doesn’t. The “trust fund” consists of IOUs from Congress. That’s it.

I guess Social Security is a program too important to Krugman to tell the truth about.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

The Bill With No Name

It’s not legislation out of a Clint Eastwood western. It’s a congressional bill with the somewhat sketchy cognomen of the “________ Act of ________.”

This non-name may also front the law as eventually foisted. The Senate is in recess until September, so there might not be a chance to correct the title in both houses. To be signed into law, a bill must pass both chambers in identical form.

WashingtonWatch.com reports that HR1586 would “impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients” — referring to the controversial Troubled Asset Relief Program, the $700 billion bailout program of October 2008. But the nameless bill has morphed somewhat. As Jim Harper of the Cato Institute observes, it was “introduced as one thing (TARP taxes), became another thing (an aviation bill), and is now a batch of spending policies.”

Maybe it should be called the Still More of Your Money Down the Drain Act.

Merits of this $26 billion bill aside, there’s the hardly incidental question of why. The title of the Bill with No Name is the exception that symbolizes the rule, i.e. that bill-passage is typically a rush job even when bills are thousands of pages long.

We know that many politicians want to run every aspect of our lives. Apparently it scarcely matters to them how they go about it, just slap together greater restrictions on our liberty combined with grand authorizations to spend additional billions and call it a law.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies too much government

Move On to the Poverty Line

According to a recent email bulletin from Daniel Mintz of MoveOn.org, Republicans and running-dog Democrats are gearing up to “slash” Social Security benefits.

The tone of the bulletin? Strident hysteria. How can anyone even think of such a thing in hard times like these, when “no jobs bill can pass congress”?

Well, we’ve had stimulus bills up to our nostrils, but hope of “recovery” remains just that, mere hope. Mintz, who denies that Social Security is in anything like a crisis, ignores the devastation to the system caused by its Ponzi nature, Congress’s longtime plundering of the program, and the current depression.

He wants you to sign a pledge for no cuts and no raise in the retirement age. He says it would easy to “strengthen” the program by “making the rich pay their fair share.”

Of course, the effect of raising the maximum FICA payment (their “fair share”) without correspondingly increasing benefits to those who pay extra (no one’s proposing that!) would turn Social Security into a blatant welfare redistribution program. All ties to investment? Severed.

Further, it would signal politicians that their sins can always be covered over with a tax.

Worse yet, it would soak up huge hunks of wealth from those who do the most investing and turn a pension system — ideally a huge source of capital — into one humungous capital drain.

Making us all poorer. MoveOn-to-the-poverty-line.org.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Freeze Federal Salaries

Procrastination feeds deficits. Deficits feed debt. Debt feeds catastrophe.

Politicians avoid balancing budgets by saying they will do so not this year, but “sometime in the future.” Hence our looming debt crisis. This debt either must be paid, defaulted, or . . . “monetized.”

That last term is code for inflation.

Why not bring the need for cuts and inflation together? After all, the Federal Reserve still exists, so some inflation is inevitable. Inflation is what central banks like the Fed do.

So, barring a complete monetary reform, simply freeze all federal salaries, at least until the average level of compensation for federal jobs matches the average level of compensation for comparable private-sector jobs.

Currently, as James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation has uncovered, federal workers earn 22 percent more than private sector workers . . . and that’s just in terms of nominal pay. If our politicians turned heroic and cut these down to where they should be, immediately, we’d save $47 billion in taxpayer funds per year.

But it gets worse, as Chris Prandoni writes: “The average federal civilian employee earns on average $32,115 a year in non-cash compensation compared to a private sector employee who earns three times less, $9,882 annually.”

So freeze benefits, too. Defrost only when they match private sector levels.

Politicians could start the freeze right now, just to show a smidgen of discipline. More likely? They’ll go with what they know: Procrastination.

Responsibility? Wait for another freeze. Of hell’s shiny surface.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.