Category: national politics & policies

Dr. Biden, B.S.

“I promise you, if I’m elected president,” Democratic Party frontrunner Joe Biden told an Iowa audience, “you’re going to see the single most important thing that changes America, we’re gonna cure cancer.”

It’s the sort of claim that makes snake-oil salesmen blush.

“That is a very, very bold campaign promise to be making,” offered CNN’s Kate Bolduan incredulously.

“Bold” wasn’t the term that came to my mind, but another word beginning with the letter-B.

“We have to remember he is a subject matter expert in that area,” responded Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), a co-chairman of Biden’s presidential campaign.

This is the expertise for which Washington is so famous. Surprising that more hospitals don’t have a career politician on call, eh?

Nobody questions the former Vice-President’s support for the cause of eradicating cancer, of course; Biden lost his son to the disease in 2015. We must, however, question the veracity of what comes out of his mouth.

Biden’s fib or fantasy — or whatever you call it — reminds me of former Congressman George Nethercutt (R-Wash.). In 1994, he defeated then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley by pledging to serve no more than the three terms that Evergreen State voters enacted via a term limits ballot initiative.

“Thousands of people have urged me to run again,” explained Nethercutt, seeking a fourth term years later. “They believe in the work I’m doing to cut taxes, to open foreign markets for our farmers, and to help find cures for diseases like diabetes and cancer.”

Today, defending candidate Biden, Rep. Richmond defines credulity. “If he believes we can do it, I believe him.”

There may be a sucker born every minute . . . but it ain’t me.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags cancer, healthcare, Joe Biden

national politics & policies too much government

Wand Wavers Aren’t Us

Why do some Washington wizards refuse to wave their magic wands? Why, they could make our world . . . wonderful!

On CNN’s State of the Union program over the weekend, guest host Dana Bash spoke with Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) about her legislation to “give parents paid leave to be with their child in exchange for delaying retirement up to six months.”

“So, the question is,” Bash queried the senator, “if paid leave is so important, why would it require somebody to . . . lengthen their time working, to give up six months of retirement, in order to pay to have a child and work?”

In other words, why should employees not be awarded paid leave from their jobs whenever they want it? Without having to make any trade-off with their employer. Is Sen. Ernst some kind of cheapskate?

“[T]he plan that I have put forward . . . is a voluntary program,” she noted. “It is not a mandatory program.”

Not mandatory? She must be relatively new to Washington.

“And that way, a parent can decide what is right for them,” explained Ernst.

Time off taken now would be traded for equal time working later; it would not be simply forced upon employers to provide a freebie for employees.

“But what we don’t want to do is impose an additional tax,” the rookie senator continued. “And I have heard from small business owners all across Iowa that say, if there was an additional tax, I wouldn’t be able to have as many workers or so forth.”

Voluntary federal programs . . . next thing we know freedom may break out.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo credit: New America

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Dana Bash, mandatory, paid leave, parental leave, Sen. Joni Ernst, voluntary

free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Why Lie?

Post author By Redactor
Post date May 22, 2019
1 Comment on Why Lie?

Kamala Harris, statistics, pay gap, sexism,

Democratic presidential contender and U.S. Senator from California Kamala Harris leaned in to the big lie.

Debuting a new proposal to “close the gender pay gap,” she declared that, “In America today, women for the same work, for the equal work, on average make 80 cents on the dollar, black women make 61 cents on the dollar, Latinas make 53 cents on the dollar — and this has got to end.”

In fact, Harris emphasized the untruthy part of her statement; her numbers do not represent the “on average” difference in remuneration between the sexes (or races) for the “same” or “equal” work at all. Such a gap has been illegal since the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Harris’s figures are, instead, an average of salaries and wages for all the millions of diverse jobs held by women compared to that same average for all the millions of diverse jobs held by men.

Men and women tend to make different choices. More women spend time outside the labor market, often laboring in family households without salaries as such. And they tend to choose less remunerative careers: different work.

Why pretend otherwise? Well, such grievance against perceived injustice can sure serve as a motivator . . . for voters that presidential candidate Harris desperately needs to attract.

And what about her new policy?

“Harris’s plan puts the responsibility on companies,” MSNBC talking head Stephanie Ruhle explained. “Any company who cannot prove that they pay women at the same rate as men is going to have to pay a fine.”

Is that how the system should work: if you cannot prove your innocence, you are guilty?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Kamala Harris, pay gap, sexism, statistics

free trade & free markets ideological culture national politics & policies

Pick a Number

Bernie Sanders, 15, minimum wage, magic,

Is the number 15 “magical”?

The “democratic socialists” now dominating the Democratic Party first went for the $15 national minimum wage notion. Now it’s a cap on consumer credit interest rates, at 15 percent.

What’s next, 15 mph speed limits? Age 15 allowed to vote?

Fifteen men on a dead man’s chest?

At Reason, Peter Suderman explains why “Bernie Sanders’ New Plan Will Make It Tougher for Poor People to Get Credit Cards.” The arguments proffered by Senator Sanders and his House co-sponsor, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, more than “suggest that people who choose to use payday loans don’t, and perhaps can’t, understand the choices they are making. . . . It is a form of benevolent condescension built on the belief that poor people can’t count.”

Now, it may be that, generally, poor people do not figure their finances as well as better-off people. In fact, that’s demonstrated in the literature. But is that really the point?

The problem is, the methods they choose to help the poor make the poor less well-off. Because they take away options: “What Sanders is actually bragging about is eliminating choices,” Suderman explains. “In essence, Sanders is proud of having eliminated useful financial tools for the poor.”

What’s really going on here is the magic of persuasion. Fifteen is a “sticky number.” It will be used again and again as self-described socialists push for more and more unworkable government.

A bit of enchantment that just so happens to make one persuader a three-house millionaire . . . and a bartender from the Bronx the talk of the nation.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags 15, Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialism, minimum wage

general freedom national politics & policies The Draft

Hypothetical Cowardice?

Congressman Joe Heck, draft, selective service, volunteers, national service

We must treat real threats realistically.

But what to do with bizarrely hypothetical ones?

Last week, former Congressman Joe Heck (R-Nev.), chairman of the National Commission on Military, National and Public Service, addressed witnesses at a hearing in Washington: “So I want to pose a hypothetical scenario and ask your response.”

“We are in the Red Dawn scenario being attacked from both Canada and Mexico,” he related. “There is no Selective Service System. The All Volunteer Force is insufficient. There’s been a presidential and congressional call for volunteers, for people to step up. However, the response has not been enough to meet the threat, the actual threat to our homeland.”

“How would you propose to meet the demand?” inquired the chairman.

Seriously? We must prepare for military conscription because of the likelihood that Canada and Mexico will launch a joint invasion?

Leaving one ridiculous supposition, during the public comment period, I confronted the other: hypothetical American cowardice.

“This is really all about trust,” I told the commission.

“Do you trust the American people to step up in times of crisis — from Pearl Harbor to 9/11 — or do you not? I submit that all evidence points to the fact that they will, because they have.

“Or should we trust Congress with the awesome power to take our sons and daughters away because they choose to, because there’s a ‘big emergency’ or maybe just because we figure it will help with ‘social cohesion’? I submit that all evidence points to the fact that we cannot trust Congress.”

I urged commissioners “to tell Congress: trust the American people — end draft registration, don’t extend it to women, and do not force any sort of national service.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Congressman Joe Heck, draft, National Commission on Military, selective service, volunteers

ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Vasily Goloborodko for President?

Post author By Redactor
Post date April 26, 2019
No Comments on Vasily Goloborodko for President?

Vladimir Putin may not be as powerful as feared.

Not only does he apparently not pull the strings of the much-accused-of/now-cleared-of-collusion “Trump Puppet,” Putin also does not write comic lines for the “acting” president of Ukraine.

You see, a few days ago Ukrainians held a run-off election to choose a new leader, and the man who won — Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelensky — is, like the U.S. president, a celebrated entertainer.

In 2015, he began playing the role of Vasily Goloborodko in the TV show, Servant of the People. His character is a high-school history teacher who rants in class against government corruption. Soon a video of his extemporaneous tirade goes viral, and, voila, Goloborodko ascends to the presidency!

Zelensky’s actual transit to the real presidency may be less funny but is just as remarkable.

A Kiev teacher quoted by the Los Angeles Times admitted the election was rather crazy. “But at least we have a choice. They don’t have that in Russia.” In the Times’ lede, Putin is identified as “by far the biggest loser of the night.” The anti-Russia trajectory of Ukrainian politics is reported to be steadfast.

The anti-corruption movement, however, may be a bit iffier.

Meanwhile, the eighth season of HBO’s political satire Veep is underway, and I am told it is as chillingly accurate as ever. Last week the anti-heroine Selina Meyer, played by Julia-Luis Dreyfuss, again stumbled her way into political success, this time by “accidentally” “colluding” with the Chinese Government.

Is this meant as a nod to Russiagate or a pointed Hillary Clinton commentary?*

Seems a lot like Ukrainian politics.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Two decades ago the “Chinagate” scandal roiled the second term of the Bill & Hillary Clinton Administration.