Category: national politics & policies

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Voter Intimidation You Can Believe In

Big labor is tired of the private balloting that workers currently enjoy when deciding whether to unionize. The unions want to get rid of such balloting. By law. There’s a bill floating around in Congress that would do this.

Is a President Obama going to sign it?

The unionized share of the work force has shrunk in recent decades. Many employees don’t see the benefit of joining a union. Because voting on whether to certify a union is done by private ballot, one can’t claim that they are scared of retaliation from the boss.

So what would unions gain from a law that bans private balloting?

Well, if union organizers know how people are voting, and people voting know that the organizers know how they are voting, there would be much more opportunity to pressure and even intimidate employees into voting the “right” way.

Unions hope this would help turbo-charge recruitment efforts. As columnist Donald Lambro puts it, passage of the bill would make it “easier to unionize workplaces without the bother of the private ballot to protect workers in a free and democratic election.”

This anti-democratic bill has been around for a while. But now the chances of passage have increased dramatically. Candidate Barack Obama, at least when addressing union crowds, often promised he would push to make it happen. Will he do so?

You can bet the unions are watching. So should we.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Obaminableonomics

There’s a new school of economic thought: Obaminableonomics.

Come to think of it, though, maybe there’s nothing so very new about this Obaminable economic school — after all, it just combines typical big-government redistribution with a few nominal nods in the direction of fiscal self-discipline.

You can get a concise idea of the Obaminable approach to economics from a headline that floated into my In Box the other day. I quote: “Obama Promotes Fiscal Restraint, Big Spending.” According to the reporter, the president-elect “wants to project fiscal restraint even as his economic team assembles a massive recovery package that could cost several hundred billion dollars.”

Huh?

Well, President-Elect Barack Obama thinks he erases the contradiction by contrasting his short-term plans with his long-term plans. Short-term, government must spend like there’s no tomorrow, because this is what we allegedly need to see happening if we are to regain confidence in our future. Yes, we absolutely must see an endless parade of babbling bureaucrats going hog-wild with taxpayer dollars on a wide array of ludicrous, unworkable schemes. Absolutely.

After that, though, will come the line-by-line budget review, the ruthless cutting out of bloat.

Well, any alcoholic will tell you that he can stop whenever he likes. Just so, our rulers keep putting off the restraint of fiscal restraint.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Would-Be Messiahs Need Not Apply

This is a tough season for me.

I’m not speaking of autumn. I like autumn. A gradual cooling is nice; the swirl of falling leaves, brightly colored, wondrous. It’s good to have a gentle transition to winter’s cold.

It’s the presidential electoral season that’s tough, both the before part and the after part.

As I have argued many times, the best hope for our republic lies in the action of local activists and leaders, not only demanding limited government but also showing how it’s done. If there’s no political market for freedom at the local level, it won’t flourish at the federal level, let me tell you.

And yet politicians and media emphasize the doings and sayings of folks at the top of the heap.

Worse yet, there seems a budding epidemic of president worship.

Oh, Obama is a smart guy, a good orator. He might end up being a great president. But he hasn’t even begun that job.

I’m just not very good at adoring politicians, of putting them on a pedestal, of pretending they’re superhuman. So, let’s cool it. Hero worship is more than nonsense, it’s idolatrous nonsense.

And yet too many politicians encourage the wrong kind of support. And receive it.

We need a version of hope that’s bigger than one man, a version that rests some responsibility on our actions as something other than voters and sycophants.

I am hoping this is possible. Say it with me: Yes, we can.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Celebrating Obama

A clear majority of American voters — of all races — voted for Barack Obama. They now celebrate his victory.

Me? Not so much.

Oh, I like Obama’s talk about there not being red states and blue states, urging that we get past partisanship. I just don’t recall him ever bucking his own party.

I like that he talks about reviewing all government programs and ending those that don’t work, expanding those that do. But, after several years in Washington, he’s yet to name the first program he’d scrap. Don’t hold your breath now.

I like his bashing of the corrupt insider games in Washington. And then I see that those around him are insiders who have been running government for decades.

So, I’m still counting on you to save our country. Not Obama.

Yet, the election of a black man to the presidency does seem a fitting time to celebrate just how far we have come, and, moreover, to say thanks to those who risked so much to obtain equal rights and justice.

Let’s hear it for equal rights and justice!

Even in my short 48 years in this great country, I can recall a different day and time. Then, Americans lived in fear over the issue of race; then, black Americans could hardly be said to live in freedom.

We can rejoice in leaving that past far behind — whether we voted for the candidate who to some symbolizes it, or not.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies Tenth Amendment federalism too much government

Unbefreakinlievable

Now what?

Well, now the governors are going to Washington to beg for bailouts. New York Governor Paterson and New Jersey Governor Corzine have schlepped their way up to the Hill to explain that they are “cutting all [they] can” from their bloated budgets, and to demand some “relief.”

I don’t believe that the notoriously corrupt governments of New York and New Jersey have pared their budgets to the bone. Or that the only way to cut another dollar is to throw some little old lady out onto the street.

I also don’t believe that the federal government has some magical way of getting money that state governments don’t have. It all comes from the same group of us taxpayers. Unless these governors are talking about taking cash from other states, where else would the money come from? Where but out of thin air — borrowing plus the trusty old printing press?

The feds are wearing the same blinkers as these gubernatorial guys. For example, the wizards at the Federal Reserve are struggling to bring interest rates to zero — as if cheap credit in the past had nothing to do with all the misbegotten easy mortgage loans spawning the present crisis.

Now, I put it to you: If fiscal irresponsibility can be increased from mammoth to infinity, will that, at last, solve the problem? If the Fed were to drop-ship crates of cash and credit cards onto every neighborhood in America, will that, at last, solve the problem?

Unbefreakinlievable.

We need some Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Don’t Bank On It

It’s not a chorus.

If you’ve been watching the “debate” over how best to con American voters into giving troubled banks $700 billion for bad loans, you might think it’s a chorus in the financial industry, especially from bank presidents.

You might assume they’re all shouting: GIVE US THE BAILOUT MONEY! NOW!

Not so. At least one banker dissents. John Allison, president of BB&T — with $136 billion in assets and 1500 branches — sent an open letter to Congress protesting the bad economics behind the bailout. He notes that his own company, though affected by the downturn, is in a much stronger position than many of BB&T’s competitors.

Why? Well, his bank did not join the orgy of bad lending, despite the enticement of the Federal Reserve’s easy credit policies and government pressure to give loans to bad-risk borrowers.

So why should the government reward the bad economic conduct of institutions that played along with the bad government policies? Why make it harder for the economy to recover by punishing sound and productive economic conduct with burdensome new government taxes?

Allison thinks the debate has suffered from domination, as he says, by those “financial institutions [that] made very poor decisions.”

Perhaps it’s because politicians have a whole lot more in common with foolish decision-makers than wise ones. . . .

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

$700 Billion Bad Bet

The administration’s proposed $700 billion bank bailout has finally passed the Congress — in large part because of fear that the economy would crumble if “something” wasn’t done.

But the magic men in Washington don’t have any guaranteed fixes in their bag of tricks. Certainly robbing the taxpayers of $700 billion — that’s a billion, 700 times — won’t cure the economy.

It will, long run, hurt the economy. How? By hampering realistic adjustment to current market conditions. It means taking $700 billion from productive economic activities to buy up debt at prices nobody in the private market is willing to pay. As economist Arnold Kling points out, “If [Bernanke and Paulson] were taking their plan to a venture capital firm to seek funding, they would be laughed out of the office.”

How did we get here? In previous years, the federal government compelled banks to give mortgages to persons who really couldn’t afford them. Meanwhile, the easy credit policies of the Federal Reserve made it easy for banks to obey these irresponsible demands.

Hence the housing bubble. Which popped.

The only long-term solution is to get the government out of the market. Stop trying to paper over the horrendous consequences of past government interventions with even worse government interventions. The free market ought to be free. Otherwise, we’ll one day end up with no market at all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Must It Be Racism?

One of the two major-party candidates for president is black, the other white.

Obviously, there is much more to say about them. We can talk about their ideas, character, experience, communication skills. Presumably, conscientious voters will choose the person they think can best do the job — regardless of race.

Not so, says Jacob Weisberg of Slate.com. According to Weisberg, given the collapse of the Republicans and the weak economy, everything is stacked in favor of Barack Obama. Therefore, if Obama loses the election, only racism could explain it.

Weisberg offers no coherent argument. He simply asserts that Obama has vastly more advantages than liabilities, while with McCain it’s vice versa. So the right choice is transparently obvious.

And hey, even if you disagree with Obama’s policy prescriptions, at least they’re “serious attempts” to deal with big problems. It doesn’t seem to occur to Weisberg that the “seriousness” of a proposed policy is not what makes it right or wrong. Or that a voter might reasonably consider the actual content of a proposal.

Of course, some voters might reject Obama out of racism. But it’s not self-evident that “racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.”

And would it not be racist, condescending, unjust, and downright stupid for us voters to treat a black man’s qualifications for the job of president as irrelevant, just to prove we’re not racist?

To his credit, Mr. Obama would expect more of us than that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

A Question Worth Asking?

The presidential candidates talk about leadership and change. What’s the one question that combines both, but is not asked? Simple: What happens if it all comes crashing down?

After the worst stock market drop since 9/11, the question doesn’t seem so out of place. Our federal government’s debt is rising fast. Even if we balanced the budget tomorrow, the government would have a deep, multi-trillion dollar debt. Trillions and trillions, you might say.

So, Mr. Obama; so, Mr. McCain — what do you do when the Treasury can’t find anyone to invest in all the debt we have created, and must maintain? What do we do when the compounding of interest and increased deficits make monthly maintenance impossible?

Neither of you have even suggested a balanced budget early in your first term. So what do you do when our credit goes crunch?

Add to this the federal government’s obligations to the citizenry, in the form of Social Security retirements and Medicare and pensions and such, and what can you do?

How do you stave off — or, if not, survive — a worldwide depression?

The scenario is not fantastic. Just look at current figures and crunch the numbers.

So, what would Senators Obama and McCain say? I’d be curious what Bob Barr and Ralph Nader would say, too. Have they thought of the possibility?

This is one question that sure would make the upcoming debates interesting.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
local leaders national politics & policies

True Outsider Experience

John McCain’s choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate shocked a lot of people.

Even people in the media didn’t know very much about her. She hasn’t spent any time on Meet the Press, for example.

But I knew who she was long before her selection as Republican nominee for Vice President. That’s because Sarah Palin has real street cred as a reformer.

For starters, as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, she followed through on her campaign promise to cut property taxes — by 40 percent.

Though a Republican, she has not hesitated to challenge Party bigwigs. She went after the state’s Republican Party chairman for ethics violations — violations he later admitted. She joined a Democrat in filing an ethics complaint against the Republican attorney general. He later resigned.

Then, in 2006, she ran against the incumbent governor of her own party, and by connection the whole corrupt GOP cabal in Alaska. And she won.

Today, Sarah Palin is the most popular governor in the country.

Of course, questions remain. Though she has taken on GOP leaders in her state, she has been friendlier to their pork projects than I like.

But while some belittle her experience, her readiness to be president, I say, think again: Twenty or 30 years of Washington experience disqualifies a candidate for the job.

Now, I don’t mean to speak ill of politicians . . . well, yes I do.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.