Category: national politics & policies

Categories
Accountability national politics & policies too much government

Enough at Tea Time

On April 15, more than 2,000 Tea Parties were held across the country, many with thousands in attendance. These weren’t dainty luncheon ceremonies. They were protests, named after our revolutionary Boston Tea Party.

In Washington, D.C., it rained like the dickens, but people still came out to say “Enough.” Regular folks sounded off. They work hard, and they’ve had enough of paying the bills for politicians and favored political interests.

Some big media personalities and major political figures showed up. Governor Rick Perry of Texas spoke at the Austin, Texas event. He’s called the federal government “oppressive.” In South Carolina, Governor Mark Sanford told folks that “Real change begins in the hearts and minds of people who are willing to stand . . . against an ever-encroaching government.”

Meanwhile, much of television news media behaved badly, trying to marginalize or even demonize the protests as “anti-government.” CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen was particularly argumentative, suggesting to one guy that he should be grateful for the $50 billion President Obama was sending to his state.

When a woman protester accused Roesgen of slanted coverage, she asked the woman why she was there. “We’re here,” the woman responded, “because we are sick and tired of the government taking our money and spending it in ways that we have no say in. We have no say whatsoever.”

And that’s what has to change. The people must be heard. Not just on one day, but every day.

This is Common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies porkbarrel politics

Failure to Lead

Politicians in Washington constantly tell us we’re in a serious crisis. But if it’s as serious as our solons say, surely it’s affected their own behavior, right?

Many CEOs of bailed out companies have sacrificed their normal salaries, accepting pay of only $1 for this year.

Members of Congress? They gave themselves a pay raise.

CEOs have been attacked for using their corporate jets. Heads of Detroit automakers were so browbeaten that they actually drove to Washington to plead for bailouts. On the other hand, after obtaining and reviewing emails between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Air Force, Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton says that “Speaker Pelosi treats the Air Force like her personal airline.”

But what about substance? Faced with tough times ahead and with taxpayers on the hook to pick up trillions in new spending, Congress might stop larding on extra pork, right?

Well, how important to our nation’s survival is a million dollars to study swine odor; $800,000 for oyster rehab; $200,000 for tattoo removal; $4 million to improve a street in Hattiesburg, Mississippi?

Leaders are supposed to lead. But, even in times of crisis, our so-called leaders can only follow their oldest habit: spend.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption national politics & policies

A Suicide-Inducing Congress?

Say you are president. You thunder about how your predecessor’s bailouts let corporate execs keep big bonuses at taxpayer expense. That won’t happen on your watch!

And then it does. AIG bigwigs take $165 million.

So you are angry at yourself, for signing that stimulus bill with its specific language permitting TARP recipients to pay bonuses if bonuses were part of contracts made before February of ’09.

Maybe somebody should have read the legislation. So who has that job? Besides you . . . I mean the president himself. Why, Congress, of course!

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley said he would at least “feel better” were AIG executives to apologize and then either “resign or go commit suicide.”

Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer advocate passing a special tax to confiscate all the bonus money ex post facto.

Dodd didn’t mention that he had authored the provision specifically permitting the AIG bonuses. He has now said he’ll return the $280,000 in donations he’s received from AIG executives. Schumer was mum about his $112,000 from those same execs.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said, “We’ve got to do whatever it takes to make sure people that basically ripped off the American people weren’t able to profit from it.”

So is she talking about AIG . . . or Congress?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies porkbarrel politics too much government

Homeless Red Ink

I have a prediction.

Even though President Obama insists that all of the trillions in so-called “stimulus” spending will be expertly managed and masterfully allocated — of course, to only the most deserving and stimulating beneficiaries — lots of the hastily cobbled new spending will end up being wasted.

I’m afraid I cheated with this prediction. I already have an example in hand. The town of Union, New York, is slated to receive almost $600,000 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Why? To combat homelessness.

Problem? There isn’t one — that is, there isn’t a homeless problem in Union. Which is why the town does not have any programs for dealing with the homeless and it has no means of administering the money that’s been flung at it. Nor did the town request the funds. Town supervisor John Bernardo says, “We were surprised. We’ve never been a recipient before.”

A less honest man would have trucked in some homeless guys and warbled, “Thank goodness we’re finally getting these funds.” But what Union lacks, Washington provides: A HUD spokesman says the new grant recipients should employ “creative strategies” in figuring out how to spend the money.

So that more than half-million dollars will find a home somewhere — anywhere but the wallets it came from.

You see why I shake my head and say, “I could have predicted this.” This isn’t change. It’s more — way more — of the same.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Our Fairy-Tale Economy

Everybody seems to hanker to get something for nothing. Because of that universal desire, and our inability to satisfy it, we have all these fairy tales about the tragic costs of magic.

Yes, the cost of something-for-nothing can be shockingly high. In some savvy tales, audacious hopefuls wind up giving away first-born children to pay for their something-for-nothing.

For half a year, our leaders have gone on a something-for-nothing binge, throwing money at a downturned economy. Lots of money. Trillions.

Where does it come from?

Magic?

Not exactly. Politicians and financiers use complicated tricky maneuvers to gain money they don’t have.

With the help of the Federal Reserve, they can sorta create money. But that creation has costs. It makes the money less valuable. We don’t always see this right away. Right now people are switching away from spending, so a lot of new money goes into savings. When people start spending again, though, prices will rise and money’s value will plunge. Gold into lead.

Politicians also get money by borrowing. But that also comes at a cost: It must be paid back. Here, politicians play an old fairy tale game, not exactly giving up their first-born, but saddling our children and grandchildren with debt. It’s a mean, wicked stepmother kind of policy.

Maybe we should be reading more fairy tales these days. For the realism.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Bailing Out of the Bailout

Freedom lovers would like to bail out of Washington’s endless bailout . . . that is, the government takeover of the economy.

The big spenders often won’t even debate the matter. Radio talker Rush Limbaugh is catching flak for saying he doesn’t want President Obama’s scheme to “work,” which sounds goofy until you realize that many of Limbaugh’s critics, including the White House, carefully ignore Limbaugh’s point. Economic upturn, great. Permanent loss of our freedom and permanent expansion of government, not great.

GOP congressmen aren’t exactly the most credible messengers when it comes to opposing massive new spending and intervention in the economy. But I’d rather see them repent and fight than repent and slink away in embarrassment.

Some Republican congressman are indeed fighting the good fight. And some of the nation’s GOP governors are too. Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal just turned down $100 million in bailout funds that he argues would result in permanently higher taxes for Louisiana businesses.

In a message distributed by Townhall, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford notes that the trillion or more dollars “in so-called ‘stimulus’ money . . . is really little more than a social policy wish  list of the Left.”

We live in dangerous and interesting times. The only wish list worth pushing, now, is establishing the economic ground rules — and Constitutional principles — that should have been guiding us all along.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

A Dollar for Your Stimulus

Remember Robocop? The clobbering of the bad guys by the cyberonic cop was a tad too bloodthirsty for my taste. And the satire wasn’t exactly as subtle as Huxley’s or Orwell’s. Still, today’s economic news makes me remember that weird game-show line, horsily bellowed throughout the 1987 flick: “I’d buy that for a dollar!”

Fast forward to 2009 and dire economic times, and the question hangs there. What can you buy for a dollar?

Answer? Subsidy.

Washington state politicians have just sent hundreds of thousands of checks for . . . one dollar each — yes, just a buck — to the state’s poorest residents.

Lots of those residents have no bank account, and thus it will cost the recipients more to cash the check than the amount of the check. So what on earth are the Evergreen state politicians thinking?

Well, there’s method to their madness.

Remember the nearly trillion-dollar so-called stimulus package Congress just passed? Apparently, there’s some rule that says if you’re a food-stamp recipient and you get at least one dollar in energy bill assistance, this qualifies you for even more federal assistance.

So, Washington legislators mail out completely ridiculous, wasteful, dollar-each checks to “prime the pump” of the federal money machine — proving that the bailouts are not only lunatic themselves, but the cause of lunacy in others.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Ears Burning

At the recent World Economic Forum, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned of our government’s flirtations with socialism, that is, a state-run economy.

Trying not to “gloat,” Putin told the U.S. that “Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence” is a “mistake.” He reminded listeners that state control of the old Soviet economy made the nation “totally uncompetitive.”

Putin then lectured us not to “turn a blind eye to the spirit of free enterprise.”

But why isn’t Putin lecturing Venezuela? That Latin American state’s president, Hugo Chavez, is a classic strong-arm socialist, marshaling the power of the state, as well as gangs of supporters, to threaten and intimidate his political opponents.

As with any wannabe dictator, Chavez has sought to dismantle term limits. Just 14 months ago, voters rejected his first attempt. But Chavez, having consolidated his hold on the media and other institutions, came right back with another vote to end the limits. This time he won. He can now serve for life.

Only in South America? No. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently voided his own term limits. And he didn’t even bother to allow a public vote on the issue. So, who’s the more anti-democratic, Chavez or Bloomberg?

When foreign tin-horn dictators start making as much or more sense than our own politicians, well . . . it’s long past time for us citizens to make serious changes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies

Santelli’s Stimulus Referendum & Tea Party

CNBC’s Rick Santelli struck one awfully big nerve last week. Reporting from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Santelli said things you don’t hear much on TV, from politicians or from talking heads.

Santelli said that “the government is promoting bad behavior” with all the bailouts.

He railed against Obama’s new mortgage bailout plan, asking workers at the Exchange, “How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage, that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?” None answered in the affirmative.

Santelli mocked the recently passed stimulus plan for providing people with “a whopping $8 or $10” and then banking on the notion that citizens won’t save the money, but rush out to spend it.

And he ridiculed “the multiplier that all of these Washington economists are selling us.” Using their logic, Santelli sarcastically concluded, “We never have to worry about the economy again. The government should spend a trillion dollars an hour because we’ll get $1.5 trillion back.”

Most working people understand that “you can’t buy your way into prosperity.”

That’s what I liked best about Rick’s rant. He knows the American people are smarter than the politicians.

I like it that he called for a national, online referendum over the bailouts. The government won’t provide it, but I will. Go to CitizensinCharge.org to cast your ballot.

Santelli also called for a Chicago Tea Party. See you there.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Is More Regulation the Answer?

Regulation. We’re told that it would have saved us from this and that event associated with the current economic downturn.

Well, probably not.

First off, remember that we have had regulation during this period. Clinton upped regulatory oversight of businesses; so did Bush.

Next, the mere fact that there are regulations doesn’t make them effective. Take Bernard Madoff. What Madoff engaged in was a swindle — not a hard-to-control best-intentions-turned-wrong investment fiasco but an actual, intentional fraud.

But as columnist Steve Chapman recently observed, the federal bureaucrats whose job it was to regulate investment businesses investigated Madoff “at least eight times in 16 years,” never, ever “coming close” to the fraud.

”So what,” Chapman asks, “makes you think that future bureaucrats, no matter how vast their authority, will be able to do better?”

Another thing about regulation is that there are several kinds.

When the founding fathers talked about regulating trade, they didn’t mean micromanaging trade to get specific outcomes. The founders meant “to make regular,” as in establishing standards . . . like what is the difference between sound investments and elaborate frauds.

That’s hard enough. Micromanaging a million businesses, to prevent certain unfortunate outcomes, is pretty much impossible.

Past performance is a good indicator of future performance. Just adding a bunch of regulators? That’s no help, since we haven’t discovered any new magic since the last batch failed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.