Category: national politics & policies

Perry Mason for the Court

Neil Gorsuch, Perry Mason, Supreme Court, Judge, nomination, Trump

Legend has it that a juror once ran up to attorney Neil Gorsuch, after Gorsuch won a case proving a gravel pit owner had been cheated, declaring, “You’re Perry Mason.”

These days, Gorsuch sits on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and is President Donald Trump’s nominee for the late Justice Scalia’s seat on the nation’s highest court.

And now Gorsuch is receiving testimonials worthy of the indefatigable TV lawyer.

Brad Smith, the chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, expressed his pleasure “that President Trump has nominated someone who will defend a robust First Amendment.”

Ballot access expert Richard Winger noted that Gorsuch has a “good record in cases involving independent candidates and minor parties.”

“I am hard-pressed to think of one thing President Trump has done right in the last 11 days since his inauguration,” wrote Neal Katyal in the New York Times. “Until Tuesday,” continued the Georgetown law professor, “when he nominated an extraordinary judge and man, Neil Gorsuch, to be a justice on the Supreme Court.”

Katyal, who had served as an acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, added that Gorsuch’s record of holding government officials accountable “should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him.”*

Even I have pertinent testimony: back in 1992, Gorsuch argued (in a co-authored Cato Institute paper) that term limits were “constitutionally permissible” as “institutional constraints on the power of government” that “the Framers,” if alive today, would likely see as “necessary preconditions for liberty.”

No, Gorsuch is not actually Perry Mason — I never knew where Perry stood on term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* On Reason’s Hit & Run blog, Damon Root strongly agreed.

Printable PDF

Tags judge, Neil Gorsuch, nomination, Perry Mason, Supreme Court, Trump

ideological culture media and media people nannyism national politics & policies privacy responsibility too much government

Women and Men for Life

March for Life, Women's March, abortion, choice, pro-life

At Townhall on Sunday, I applauded the Women’s March on Washington for being peaceful, despite Madonna’s F-bomb laden speech, culminating with her daydream of “blowing up the White House.”

We’ll never know how many more folks marched in that much-heralded event than attended last weekend’s pro-life march, because the mainstream media did not pay enough attention to the later, inconvenient-to-their-narrative event, and crowd-counters didn’t count.

The two marches did “intersect” (figuratively) when a pro-life group was kicked out as a “partner” to the women’s march.

“If you want to come to the march you are coming with the understanding that you respect a woman’s right to choose [abortion],” declared Linda Sarsour, one of four chairwomen for the women’s march, who was described by the New York Times as “a Brooklyn-born Palestinian-American Muslim racial justice and civil-rights activist.”

In its favor, the pro-life march, anti-celebrating the 44th year since the Roe v. Wade decision, had far more tasteful placards — despite the fact that pro-life protesters are often remembered for grisly signs picturing aborted fetuses. I particularly liked a sign held by a young women, reading:

“We are having a clump of cells.” — [said] No One Ever

Speaking of young people, Slate magazine reported that “the demographic outlook for the pro-life movement looks anything but bleak,” citing a 2015 poll wherein “52 percent of millennials said the label ‘pro-life’ describes them somewhat or very well.”

Remember, the pro-life movement has been marching all these years not to secure government benefits for themselves, but to protect others.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags abortion, choice, March for Life, pro-life, Women's March

folly general freedom moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility U.S. Constitution

Deplorable Distrust?

democracy, freedom, ranking, The Economist, pure democracy, republic

The United States is no longer a “full-fledged democracy.”

According to a New York Post story, our union is, instead, a “flawed democracy.”

Hmmm. Where to begin?

Despite the article’s featured photo of President Trump, the downgrading of America’s democratic status occurred prior to the billionaire’s swearing-in.

Technically, of course, the United States is not now nor has ever been a full-fledged (much less a flawed) democracy. We live in a republic . . . if we can keep it.

As is often the case, folks use the term “democracy” not to indicate it as a form of government — a pure democracy — but as a shorthand for a country with democratic elections, where “basic political freedoms and civil liberties are respected,” and with “an independent judiciary.”

An organization associated with The Economist, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), has for a decade been rating the world’s countries based on numerous political factors. For the first time, this year, the United States has dropped out of the top tier and into the second, joining the likes of Botswana, Ghana and India.

“The U.S. is the second-highest ranking flawed democracy,” the Post noted, “coming in right behind Japan and tying with Italy.” Norway garnered first place among the 19 “full-fledged democracies,” including most Western European countries.

Why was the U.S. downgraded? The EIU report explained the lower score “was caused by the same factors that led Mr. Trump to the White House: a continued erosion of trust in government and elected officials.”

So, if the American people simply placed their heads in the sand, blindly trusting politicians, we’d be “full-fledged,” eh?

Full-fledged fools fiddling away our freedom, that is.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags democracy, freedom, pure democracy, ranking, republic, The Economist

ballot access folly general freedom government transparency national politics & policies political challengers

Trumping Popular Vote?

Donald Trump, president, landslide, election, votes, popular, electoral college

A friend, who loves to talk football, sometimes boasts that his team “crushed” the other team, gaining more yards and rolling up more first downs, before dejectedly acknowledging that his team didn’t score as many points as its opponent. They lost.

When a Democrat gloats that Donald Trump lost the popular vote, I am reminded of my friend’s funny football foible.

It helps to gain yards in football, sure, just as it helps to gain votes in a presidential contest. But you win a game by putting the most points on the scoreboard, just as you’re elected president by winning a majority in the Electoral College.

Going forward, we can discuss whether a state’s votes should be awarded proportionally or winner-take-all and whether national popular vote should instead be the metric for victory. But the 2016 rules were the rules.

“I would’ve won the popular vote if I was campaigning for the popular vote,” President Trump told ABC News anchor David Muir this week. “I would’ve gone to California, where I didn’t go at all.”

Still, Mr. Trump should appreciate that not only didn’t he garner a majority, he lost by 3 million votes to Hillary Clinton, who was well short of a majority, herself.

Trump continues to claim “a massive landslide” in the Electoral College. He may have “shocked the world,” but in 58 presidential elections thus far, 45 winners gained a greater percentage in the Electoral College.

Again this week, Pres. Trump repeated his belief that “millions of illegal votes” prevented him from winning the popular vote. Specific evidence? None. But he wants an investigation.

This could be a long four years.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Donald Trump, election, Electoral College, landslide, popular, president, votes

ideological culture meme moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies Popular too much government U.S. Constitution

How Socialism Kills

3 Ways That Socialism Kills:

state enforced redistribution requires violence (even if some participate willingly, it’s guns and gulags for everybody else)
central planning produces starvation
a state powerful enough to enforce socialism is an irresistible temptation to those who would abuse power

All the good intentions in the world can’t change this…

but hold on… what about “democratic socialism?”

Tags central planning, death, Democratic Socialism, kills, planned economy, progressivism, socialism, starvation

Accountability folly general freedom ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies too much government

Bring Back the Eunuchs?

Washington, corruption, big government, too much government, book

“Everybody knows that ordinary Americans are a bunch of idiots,” a Health and Human Services official told Benjamin Ginsberg. “Why do you need to do a survey to find that out?”

Actually, he was not surveying Americans for their IQs and knowledge levels. He was surveying Washington insiders. Like her.

She hadn’t been listening.

Ginsberg and co-author Jennifer Bachner have a new book out, What Washington Gets Wrong (2016). “We found that public officials,” Ginsberg told C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb last month, “the people who really govern this country . . . don’t think much of ordinary Americans.”

Surprise, surprise. This has been an “open secret” for some time. Washington insiders “are wealthier,” “better educated,” and “think ordinary Americans don’t really know very much.” More alarmingly, they think that the government should “not pay too much attention to what ordinary folks think.”

According to Ginsberg and Bachner, this has been a long time coming. Progressive Era reformers transformed government in an effort to make it less partisan.

They succeeded — only to make it less accountable and less . . . American.

In ancient times, great administrative states were run by eunuchs, men gelded to curb their appetites the better to serve their sovereigns (pharaohs; emperors; kings). Not their own interests.

Is it time to bring back the practice?

Just joking. Instead, Congress can tame the bureaucratic leviathan it has created by trimming its ranks and pulling back on pay and benefits until they’re more in line with the private sector.

Let’s hope the House’s recent passage* of the REINS Act, requiring congressional approval of major regulations, is a sign that Congress’s lackadaisical attitude about the bureaucracy is changing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Let’s hope the Senate follows suit.

Printable PDF

Tags big government, book, corruption, regulations, too much government, Washington

Accountability ideological culture moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

We Demand Inefficiency

Price, Warren, hearings, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Elizabeth Warren, Tom Price

It’s all about the money.

Well, that is what Senator Elizabeth Warren believes.

Grilling Republican Congressman Tom Price, the physician turned congressman Donald Trump picked to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, Warren demanded that Price answer a simple question: would he swear on a stack of medical books that he would never, ever “carry out a single dollar of cuts to Medicare or Medicaid eligibility or benefits.”

Trump had said he would not cut either program. But Price, who is known for his skepticism about the efficiency of government programs and has proposed cuts to the programs before, worries Warren.

So she demanded an answer, using words like “guarantee” and “safeguard.”

Price said neither “yes” nor “no.” Instead, he evaded the question.

Thoughtfully.

“What the question presumes is that money is the metric,” Dr. Price replied. “In my belief . . . from a scientific standpoint, if patients aren’t receiving care, even though we’re providing the resources, then it doesn’t work for patients.”

Elizabeth Warren, the doyen of progressive politicians for several years now, was mighty upset about Price’s attempt to switch the standard (“metric” is the buzzword for this) for judging a program to the practical from the simple, easy-to-demagogue-with disbursement tally.

She could have said, “We demand inefficiency; all we care about is the money. Actually helping people? Too complicated. But we sure can score points in debate when you try to cut something.”

What she said* was, “The metric is money.”

Same thing, actually.

Thus it is that government grows while real human welfare is ignored.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Peter Suderman, over at Reason, sums it up like this: “What Warren seems to want from Price is a commitment to spend more regardless of a program’s results.” Suderman calls Warren’s reaction “a surprisingly blunt expression” of a view “that undermines the programs it is designed to defend.”

Printable PDF

Accountability general freedom ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies

Don’t Trump the Gun

Trump, president, inauguration, democracy, election, protest

The 2016 presidential election will go down in history as a doozy. The Trump win was a surprise, even shocking many of his supporters. But the most obvious lesson we learned pertains to the modal Obama-Hillary voter.

Well, make that lessons. Plural.

Today’s most vocal Democrats don’t seem to understand democracy. The “deal” of our democratic republic, as I learned in Civics and “on the streets,” is that you do your best for your party, candidate, or policy, and accept the results . . . until the next election. Whiners, rioters and Hollywood actors (to place them in descending order of tolerability) would serve their cause better by remembering this.
It has become commonplace, now, to make sweeping judgments about one’s opponents based on little or no information. Or erroneous info. On no basis whatsoever, nearly every lefty YouTuber and street shouter I have seen yammers on about how anti-gay Trump is. Truth is? No president has ever entered the White House more pro-gay than Donald J. Trump.
Actual policy issues mean too little to too many. What does matter? Style. Obama has “good style.” Bush had “dumb style.” Trump has “evil style.” Substance? Results?

Blankout.

Tomorrow the President-elect becomes President. And Resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue*. As skeptical as some of us may be (myself included), we owe it to ourselves, our neighbors, and the country — perhaps the world — to give the president a chance. At least, take a deep breath and let him make a mistake before pouncing.

Meanwhile, let’s also stop denigrating half the country — that is, those who voted for Trump. Consider their alternative.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Part-time? Will he really spend a lot of time in Trump Tower?

Printable PDF

Tags democracy, election, inauguration, president, protest, Trump

free trade & free markets general freedom meme moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies Popular too much government

Is Denmark Socialist?

Democratic Socialism, meme, problems, solve

First… some definitions:

Socialism advocates the public ownership (or control) of business and industry in service of a more equal distribution of wealth.

Bernie Sanders and his version of “democratic socialism” places emphasis on redistribution and downplays the public ownership and control part of the system.

However… Bernie seems never to have met a government monopoly he didn’t love, or a free market enterprise he didn’t distrust or despise.

What are the problems (dangers) of socialism?

It idealizes envy.

It rationalizes theft.

It idealizes state power.

It penalizes accomplishment.

It rewards indolence.

It promotes obedience to the state.

It encourages dependence on the state by treating citizens as children.

It dismisses the protection of individual rights with a vague appeal to the “collective good” or “public good.”

It has repeatedly led to economic collapse, oppression, poverty and starvation. So how have Scandinavian democratic socialists managed to overcome these problems?

Quote from the current Prime Minister of Denmark:

“I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
—Speech, Harvard Institute of Politics

From “Scandinavian Unexceptionalism” (from the Institute of Economic Affairs):

Today the Nordic economies are again growing, following a return to broadly free-market policies that served them well before policies changed during the 1960s and 1970s.

The countries are changing in the face of serious long-term problems that have developed over the last 30 years.

Finland, Sweden and Denmark have…introduced far-reaching market reforms. These changes include greater openness to trade, clear reductions in the tax burden, private provision of welfare services, the introduction of personal retirement accounts and, in Denmark, even a shift towards a liberal labour market.

—Scandinavian Unexceptionalism (highly recommended!)

And the moral hazards?

The development of Scandinavian welfare states has led to a deterioration in social capital.

Nordic societies have for hundreds of years benefited from a strong Lutheran work ethic, a strong sense of individual responsibility and high levels of trust and civic participation.

In the early stages of their transition to “democratic socialism”, safety nets DID exist, but few used them. Over time, an increasing share of the population became dependent on government transfers. The welfare states moved from offering services to the broad public to transferring benefits to those who did not work.

The situation that exists in Nordic societies today is one in which ethics relating to work and responsibility are not strongly encouraged by the economic systems. Individuals with low skills and education have limited gains from working. This is particularly true of parents of large families, which gain extra support if on welfare.

It is true that welfare systems have reduced poverty. However, especially in the second generation, they have also created a form of social poverty of the same type that is apparent in the countries from which many of the admirers of the Scandinavian systems come. Detailed research clearly shows that welfare systems have formed a culture of dependency which is passed on from parents to children.

MUCH MORE HERE on the moral and economic capital that preceded the welfare state, and its gradual disintegration over time…

Do you believe that socialism is a good idea that has simply been corrupted by ruthless dictators? Consider the story of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. . . a mass movement of Chinese youth dedicated to eradicating capitalism and advancing socialism. Its bloody history tells us quite a lot about the logic of this flawed political philosophy. . . “Socialism’s Idealistic Youth”

Useful References

Scandinavian Unexceptionalism (Institute of Economic Affairs)
This paper is especially valuable because it was written by someone who actually favors a large welfare state. His willingness to concede the problems inherent in such a state are refreshingly honest… and useful for anyone interested in the issues.

What Can the United States Learn from the Nordic Model? (CATO Institute)

Myth: The Scandinavian countries are proof socialism works (Being Classically Liberal)

The Myth of the Scandinavian Model

Economic Freedom of the World: 2013 Annual Report

International government spending (Wikipedia)

Index of Economic Freedom (Heritage Foundation)

A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful, please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!