Category: national politics & policies

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

A Plan for Republicans?

Three. Count ’em. Three special elections where congressional Democrats have defeated Republicans in seats previously held by Republicans, the latest in Mississippi.

GOP Minority Leader John Boehner offered reporters, “[T]his is a change election, and if we want Americans to vote for us, we have to convince them that we can fix Washington.”

Republicans are in big trouble. Because no one much believes they even want to fix Washington, much less that they could accomplish the task. Unless Boehner means “fix” in a different sense, as in “the fix is in.”

Years of pork-​barrel pig-​outs have taken a toll on the public. After losing the majority in ’06, congressional Republicans are poised to lose a lot more seats in ’08.

Not because folks are inspired by congressional Democrats. Not at all. No, the problem is the negatives associated with Republicans, who have discredited themselves.

In Mississippi, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent $1.8 million on ads blasting the Republican candidate for raising taxes.

To win elections you have to connect with voters. Pledge to do what voters want.

I remember back in 1994, when Republicans took the Congress. They had a Contract with America. They had ideas, actual plans. What were they? Hmmm … Balanced Budget Amendment … Term limits … Spending restraint … political reforms.

Hey! Should we remind the Republicans about this?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense free trade & free markets insider corruption nannyism national politics & policies too much government

Welfare Kings

Bear Stearns. You gotta like an investment company with the word “bear” in it. If you are the kind of investor to go bullish over anything big, Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., was BIG. For years its subprime mortgage biz made investors go all squirmy with bullishness.

They could pretend that the word “bear” was there for irony.

Call it prophecy, instead: The Bear Stearns bull lies on the ground, gored. Time to sell off the carcass.

The Federal Reserve has forced through a takeover deal, with J.P. Morgan buying out the dead bull. At a low, low price — though not nearly as low had the Federal Reserve stayed out. It’s another so-​called capitalist bailout, an attempt to make a failure not seem so big.

This is not free-​market capitalism, folks. This is big business welfare-statism.

In their normal run of operation, businesses negotiate the uncertainties of markets using tools like the profit-​and-​loss statement, aiming for profit. When they don’t manage this, they fail. Remember that term, loss?

Well, in today’s truly bipartisan political economy, the bigger you are the more scared our rulers get when you fail. So they prop up, as best they can, the biggest failures.

Forget welfare queens. The welfare kings are businessmen on the take from government. The losers are everybody else, as idiotic risks and bad business practices get propped up by government.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Ptolemaic Obama

I’m all for democracy, but I’m sure glad science isn’t put up for a vote. If geocentrism were up for political grabs, would governments be forced to go against Galileo again? After all, a plurality could say: See, the sun rises and sets — all the proof you need that the sun revolves around the Earth!

Just so with trade policy. There are few truths so firmly established as comparative advantage and the notion that with free trade we all gain.

But some see only the negatives, fearing competition. Who? Some businessmen, some workers.

Which is why Barack Obama has been making noises to renege on NAFTA.

Now, NAFTA is no free trade utopia. It’s a real-​world political document that freed up a lot of trade, far from perfectly. Still, most of the complaints against it are nonsense.

Which is also why major Obama campaign consultants have whispered to Canadians that, no, Obama does not mean what he says. The candidate’s only saying nasty things about NAFTA to pick up extra votes.

I don’t know what Obama really believes. Right now he’s pandering to the protectionist Democrats. I am glad, however, not to feel such a need to lie.

And I am happy to affirm, once again, that the Earth revolves around the sun.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Nifty Doesn’t Cut It

Just because something can be done doesn’t make it economical to do. There is a big difference between physics and economics.

Take ethanol. It might seem nifty to grow the fuel for our cars and trucks like we do our food, in fields. But niftiness alone is not enough. Nifty notions, like un-nifty ones, must prove out in terms of all the costs involved.

A growing amount of research shows that ethanol doesn’t cut costs at all.

The most recent ethanol debunker I’ve come across is Robert Bryce, author of a forthcoming book with a provocative title, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of “Energy Independence.” Interviewed on ReasonOnline by Brian Doherty, Bryce offers some fascinating perspectives on energy economics and policies.

  • Did you know that for every gallon of ethanol, there’s at least 51 cents of subsidy?
  • Had you heard that corn-​based ethanol produces more greenhouse gases than does our use of fossil fuels?
  • Have you stopped to think about all the water that raising more corn would require, and the increasing expense of getting gargantuan more amounts to farms in the midwest?

These and other considerations lead Robert Bryce to call current ethanol policy a “scam”and “the longest running robbery of taxpayers in American history.”

Some forms of bio-​product may be more economically feasible than ethanol, like the biodiesel made from the unused parts of slaughtered animals. But we should wait to see how they cost out, too, without subsidy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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

Powell Power

Should we be getting ulcers over the “digital divide” — the tragedy that not every single American already has a computer and Internet access?

Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell and the new chairman of the FCC, doesn’t think so. Shortly after he started his new job, the press asked him what he thought of the so-​called digital divide. Powell said, “I think there’s a Mercedes divide. I’d like one, but I can’t afford it.” 

Powell also said that he thought the very concept of a digital divide is a bit misleading. That’s because it “suggests that the minute a new and innovative technology is introduced in the market, there is a divide unless it is equitably distributed among every part of the society, and that is just an unreal understanding of the American capitalist system.” Powell noted that the end-​of-​the-​line of that way of thinking is pure socialism.

Every time something new comes along you’d have to make sure everybody has it or nobody has it, which would kill innovation and economic improvement. Just so the politicians can have something to do. After all, every big new thing on the market is expensive at first and only the few can afford it. Then it gets cheaper and cheaper and more and more widely available.

That’s been the pattern with cars, plane travel and TV sets, and certainly with desktop computers and the Internet. It’s not a terrible thing; it’s a great thing. More power to Powell. Instead of pandering, he made it clear that in America you aren’t supposed to get everything you want, just what you earn.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

More Politicians?

Even in good economic times, Americans are unhappy with our government. So when someone suggests that what we really need in Washington are five times as many politicians as we have today, well, my first thought is, “Are you crazy?”

But that’s exactly what Bob Novak advocates in his new book. Novak says let’s increase the U.S. House from 435 members to 2,000. But cut the salary of each representative to one fifth what we now pay. It would mean that instead of representing 500,000 people, a congressman would represent about 100,000 people. More personal campaigning and fewer TV ads.

A candidate without much money would have a better chance to speak directly to voters. Instead of spending over a million dollars on their office and paying congressmen more than $140,000 a year, they’d get only $200,000 on their office and $28,000 for salary. Are career congressmen likely to chop their own personal power to do what’s best for the country and the institution of Congress? Nope. But they do talk a lot about taking the big money out of politics.

Well, if they’re serious, this is one way to do it without destroying the First Amendment and handing incumbents the power to regulate their opponents. Increasing the number of congressmen would strengthen the connection between the representative and the individual citizen. I never thought I’d say it, but we could use more congressmen. They would represent us better.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.