Category: national politics & policies

Categories
Accountability national politics & policies too much government

Dangerous, Incoherent

Hillary Clinton, incoherent, Donald Trump, foreign policy, presidential

Hillary Clinton came out swinging against Donald Trump yesterday. She said electing the man would be an “historic mistake.”

As opposed to her past career in politics, which I would call an historical mistake.

Mrs. Clinton focused in on Mr. Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements. “She ran through Mr Trump’s foreign policy points and rejected each one,” reported the BBC, “calling him thin-skinned, irrational and unprepared.”

Funny, though: I wouldn’t exactly call Mrs. Clinton the opposite: thick-skinned, rational, or prepared.

Take her main charges, then look at the obvious demerit of each:

“Mrs Clinton said a Trump presidency could start overseas wars and ruin the US economy.” Don’t vote Trump — starting wars and ruining the economy is Clinton’s job!

Trump’s “proposals were vague and often nonsensical.” Unlike Clinton’s, whose murky specifics speak of evasion from a to z — and whose policies in Libya and elsewhere made no sense whatsoever, breeding more conflict and opposition in place of the regimes she helped undermine and remove.

“Questioning his relationship with Russian president Vladmir Putin, she said: ‘I’ll leave it to a psychiatrist to explain his affection for tyrants.’” And speaking of perverse affection, her and her husband’s Clinton Foundation has been milking foreign tyrants for years. All very above-board, I’m sure.

“‘This isn’t reality television, this is actual reality,’ she said.” If you ask me, her reality is just as irreal as Trump’s.

We can do better, America.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Hillary Clinton, incoherent, Donald Trump, foreign policy, presidential

 

Categories
ideological culture media and media people nannyism national politics & policies Regulating Protest too much government U.S. Constitution

The Long Road to Citizens United

Krist Novoselic, Citizens United, free speech, fairvote.org

Everybody is familiar with the standard theory regarding the Citizens United decision. Former comedian and current earnest socialist Sarah Silverman puts it this way: “Every politician takes money from Big Money, ever since it was made legal with Citizens United.”

Like most folks who talk this way, she doesn’t give a squeak of context. She barely even indicates that it was a Supreme Court case, 2010’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. She does not mention at all that the ruling overturned the FEC’s act of suppressing a political movie.

But there is a much wider context than such bare facts — and if you want a good synopsis, you could hardly do better than read my friend Krist Novoselic’s calm, reasoned “look at the history of attempts to regulate independent campaign expenditures.”

This “modern history” started with what the New York Times called Richard Nixon’s “revolution in political financing.” The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 “required detailed disclosure of campaign contributions; set campaign contribution limits to candidates, parties and committees; set expenditure limits on campaigns, independent groups and individuals and created the first public financing of presidential campaigns and national conventions.”

And almost immediately the law began suppressing political speech and advertising. And led to a long series of court cases.

And decisions.

And revisions.

That define our times.

Krist (with whom I serve on the board of FairVote.org) provides the context you need to see through what he aptly calls “the hype” about “Citizens United,” as well as how the decision correctly removed the license given to the FEC’s role as “state censorship board.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Krist Novoselic, Citizens United, free speech, fairvote.org

 

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

#NeverTrump Red Herring

Bill Kristol, National Review, President

Neoconservative writer Bill Kristol doesn’t like the prospect of Donald Trump running as the Republican presidential candidate this year. And Kristol’s not just going to talk about it. He’s trying to get something done.

But instead of doing the rational thing and lobbying each and every delegate to the Republican convention, pleading with them to vote their consciences, not their fictional primary “commitments,” he’s trying to recruit an independent candidate to run against Hillary and Donald. (Donald isn’t worried.)

At first he mentioned, in fleeting, Mitt Romney as the type of candidate “coming soon.” But in discussing his mission, he kept the candidate’s identity secret. He was trying to create a stir of interest.

Yesterday it was leaked that Kristol’s Great White Hope is . . . David French.

Writer for National Review.

And the American people say, together, Who?

No matter Mr. French’s many virtues, the truth is that he’s the darkest of dark horses.

I’m sure his principles align somehow with Kristol’s. But be realistic: the Libertarian Party ticket sports far more plausibility — two former two-term governors, former Republicans of blue states.

It’s still possible that this newest story is just a leak to get us to a false sense of . . . well, whatever this is.

After all, Kristol is a neoconservative. He has secrets and strategies above us mere mortals. Conspiracy buffs might contend that throwing another “right-wing” candidate into the mix is his way of splitting “the right,” allowing his real (if secret) favorite, Hillary Clinton, to squeak by. She is the one candidate he could count on to keep throwing money at the Pentagon — and dropping bombs overseas.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Bill Kristol, National Review, President

 

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore on Flickr

 

Categories
Accountability national politics & policies

Lack of Care

government waste, VA, Veterans, V.A., congress, health, insurance

Yesterday I asked the question, “Who comes first: the vets or the politicians?”

We all know who should come first. And we all know who actually does come first.

The Is/Ought Dichotomy in full view — the fact/value distinction.

America’s politicians have legislated themselves wonderful healthcare coverage. Meanwhile, they’ve legislated something very different for veterans: a huge, unaccountable bureaucracy.

The federal archipelago of substandard VA clinics and hospitals is so ineffective that vets have died waiting for any medical care at all.

The problem isn’t a lack of public support. Americans obviously want to help take care of veterans. The many charities are just one indicator of this.

Instead, it’s an unmistakable sign of how completely beyond citizen control Washington has wandered.

Heads haven’t rolled in the Veterans Administration bureaucracy. Fact. But why not? Because of insider values. Why should congressmen even worry their pretty, little re-electable heads about it? None of their heads have rolled for their incompetence or indifference.

In a Congress loathed by the people, only one incumbent congressman has been defeated for re-election this year — and he was facing a 29-count felony indictment for racketeering, etc.

One might wonder if anything ever happens in Washington other than waste, fraud and abuse.

For decades, the lack of care for vets has been an ongoing scandal. But it’s merely a symptom of a much bigger scandal: our government is out of our control.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

government waste, VA, Veterans, V.A., congress, health, insurance

 

Categories
Accountability government transparency nannyism national politics & policies responsibility

Disneyland vs. Politicians

V.A., VA, Veterans Administration, Disneyland

Last week, when asked by reporters about the arguably deadly wait times that vets have endured (or not), Veterans Affairs Secretary Bob McDonald replied, “What really counts is how does the veteran feel about their encounter with the VA. When you go to Disney, do they measure the number of hours you wait in line? . . . What’s important is: What’s your satisfaction with the experience?”

The national commander of the American Legion, Dale Barnett, calls the remark “an unfortunate comparison”:

“People,” after all, “don’t die while waiting to go on Space Mountain.”

The secretary also errs about Disney, as Fox News’s Neil Cavuto noted. Disney does measure the time people must wait in line. The for-profit company goes out of its way to entertain folks while they wait.

But the clowns running the Veterans Administration shouldn’t take up entertainment.

Fix the problem.

Democrats Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders both seek to throw more money at the VA. They seem most concerned in protecting the Veterans Administration, not veterans. And Sanders’s real beef turns out  to be with Disney.

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, tweeted: “Obama’s VA Secretary just said we shouldn’t measure wait times. Hillary says VA problems are not ‘widespread.’ I will take care of our vets!”

But will he? Through the VA system?

A zillion reform efforts have failed.

Let’s demand more than a simple promise sans details.

Do congressmen wait months to get a medical appointment? No. Then why not close the VA and give veterans the same healthcare coverage as our (pardon the term) representatives?

On this Memorial Day, who comes first: the vets or the politicians?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

V.A., VA, Veterans Administration, Disneyland

 

Photo credit: Xiaojun Deng on Flickr

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom national politics & policies political challengers

The Primary Lie

Unbound, Curly Haugland, Sean Parnell, Republican, convention, Trump, book, pdf, Paul Jacob

Are we being lied to?

Donald J. Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for president. So presumes the news media and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, because all those delegates are bound to vote for Trump on the first ballot.

But what if Republican delegates convening this July aren’t bound. That’s the compelling case made by a new book, Unbound: The Conscience of a Republican Delegate,* written by Curly Haugland and Sean Parnell.

How does modern America get something so wrong, when it’s written down in black-and-white? Politicians don’t read the bills they enact and, apparently, politicos don’t read their party rules.

Except crazy ol’ Curly Haugland. The Republican National Committeeman from North Dakota reads and understands: convention delegates choose the nominee. In so doing, they are free to vote their conscience, unbound by primary or caucus votes, state party rules or even state law.

This information should anger voters. Political parties have a right to their own process, certainly, but not to pretend primary voters determine the winner, when they don’t.

Why the deception?

Well, the insiders and big-time consultants, with sway at RNC headquarters, make millions on TV ad buys. Not so for a nomination determined by core activists at a state convention, who aren’t susceptible to the expensive tricks of the modern political trade.

The media has a financial interest, too — in more readers, listeners and viewers. If primaries are known as merely “beauty contests,” they fear folks will tune out, along with paying advertisers.

Instead, tune in, turn on and download Unbound. Find out what the media and the RNC won’t tell you.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

=========================

* Published by Citizens in Charge Foundation, the book can be downloaded for free here.

 

Printable PDF

Unbound, Curly Haugland, Sean Parnell, Republican, convention, Trump, book, pdf, Paul Jacob

 

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets ideological culture moral hazard national politics & policies

Puerto Rico’s Debt, Our Problem

“We have an important choice to make,” presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders recently wrote to Congress. “[D]o we stand with the working people of Puerto Rico or do we stand with Wall Street and the Tea Party?”

The bill in question has been dubbed Paul Ryan’s “first big victory as Speaker,” but was written in tandem with the White House. The plan attempts to rescue Puerto Rico, a United States territory, from financial collapse with both bailouts and austerity — the latter including a lowered minimum wage.

I hadn’t heard any Tea Party squawk about this, so that reference must be just signaling on Bernie’s part.

Puerto Rico is $72 billion in the hole. Basically, Sanders wants to partially repudiate that debt: “The billionaire hedge fund managers on Wall Street cannot get a 100 percent return on their bonds while workers, senior citizens and children are punished.”

Of course our sympathies are almost entirely with the people of Puerto Rico. But it was their government that racked up the debt, and repudiating sovereign debt is a tricky and parlous thing.

What happens when the United States itself faces similar (or worse) straits? Would Bernie then, again, plan to stick it to the government’s creditors — even after he, himself, had voted to increase spending above revenues and periodically raise the debt ceiling — and think that this wouldn’t have consequences?

Meanwhile, the possible minimum wage reduction is one of the stickiest of the issues. Bernie sees it as “sticking it” to the poor.

In truth, it would help increase employment, thus help the poor get out of poverty.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Puerto Rico, debt, loan, Bernie Sanders

 

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies political challengers

President Johnson?

Gary Johnson, Williamn Weld, libertarian, party, president, election

An unusual year, far from over.

This week, the Libertarian Party holds its presidential nominating convention in Orlando, Florida. Next November, after all the votes are counted, the party’s likely nominee, former two-term New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and his likely vice-presidential running mate, former two-term Massachusetts Governor William Weld, may finally be going to Disney World.

To celebrate . . . before moving into the White House.

Crazy? Sure. But this is the year for crazy.

Polls show Gov. Johnson garnering 10 percent support. With both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton drowning in their own negatives, plenty more votes are winnable to the right, left and everywhere in between Crooked Hillary and the Trumpster Fire.

Okay, sure, but . . . win the presidency?

One needs 270 electoral votes to be elected president and to win states to nab those electoral votes. In 1992, Ross Perot received 19 percent of the vote nationwide, without winning a single state.

But what if Johnson won his home state of New Mexico? In 2012, he got only 3.6 percent in the Land of Enchantment. If that grew ten-fold to 36 percent in a three-way race, he could prevail.

And, as explained at A Libertarian Future, if Trump carried enough swing states (say, Colorado, Florida, and Ohio) to keep Clinton from reaching 270 electors, the whole shebang . . . would be thrown into the House of Representatives.

Who trusts Congress to choose responsibly?

Yet, with the Libertarian ticket sporting this much horse-race relevance, more Americans might contemplate greater freedom and less Big Brother government.

Think liberty, America.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Gary Johnson, Williamn Weld, libertarian, party, president, election

 

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies property rights responsibility too much government

Fatherland, Socialism and Death!

Venezuela, store, socialism, column

The fall of Venezuela is an atrocity.

The comic elements are clear enough — the further you remove yourself from the poverty, chaos, and collapse. We can wallow in a bit of Schadenfreude, taking glee as some American leftists squirm to explain why the socialist paradise they ballyhooed a mere three years ago now tail-spins to the grave.

The collapse of this socialist experiment offers an enormous level of tragedy. It’s not pretty.

The country’s leader, President Nicolas Maduro, makes his predictable desperation play. Rather than confront his own errors, and the futility of making socialism work in anything like a rigorous form, he boasts. “Venezuela Leader Says US ‘Dreams’ Of Dividing Loyal Military,” reads yesterday’s Reuters report. While no doubt true, this is one of those cases where whatever we dream to the north, our dreams are better than their current reality.

Of course the Venezuelan military should turn on Maduro, Hugo Chavez’s inheritor, protecting the right of recall, which Maduro is denying. By painting the U. S. as the bad guy, Maduro hopes to unite his people — especially his armed forces — around him. That’s what a desperate demagogic dynast does. Citizens and subjects traditionally abandon skepticism about their leaders when they feel threatened from the outside.

Which is one reason it would be a mistake for the U. S. to intervene.

Reuters poetically reports that the military is still united behind the socialist government, and resists the recall referendum, singing “Fatherland, Socialism, or Death!”

Wrong conjunction. Not “or” but “and” . . . if you insist on socialism.

The government, military pressure or no, should allow the recall vote, and soon.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Venezuela, store, socialism, column

 

Categories
folly free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies

Guilt and Association?

Christianity, socialism, capitalism, Christ, poll, illustration

A few days ago, the Barna Group released the results of its latest poll, asking “Americans whether capitalism or socialism align better with the teachings of Jesus,” explains The Hollywood Reporter. The results are that “socialism won 24 percent compared to 14 percent, with the rest answering ‘neither’ or ‘not sure.’”

And what about the year’s big race?

“When asked which presidential candidate’s policies aligned closest to the teachings of Jesus, Sanders was on top with 21 percent, compared to 9 percent for Hillary Clinton and 6 percent for Donald Trump.” Ted Cruz, no longer in the race, fared better than Hillary, but below Bernie, at 11 percent.

Now, it is worth mentioning that more significant polling on issues relating religion to politics has been done by Barna. Still, the commentary over at Fox on this poll was . . . interesting.

On Bill O’Reilly’s show, Monica Crowley made the crucial distinction between Jesus’ command to give to the poor and modern socialists’ demands to take from some, through taxation and by force, to give to others.

O’Reilly himself, however, went on a bizarre and joking riff about “buying his way to heaven” by leaving his wealth to charity . . . after he dies.

Looking over these poll numbers, I can only conclude that advocates of a free society have much work to do convincing Americans of the justice and benevolence of free markets, of “capitalism.”

And Christians have their work cut out for them, too . . . at the very least to disencumber themselves from the stench of socialist states and the brutal force those states inevitably rest upon.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Christianity, socialism, capitalism, Christ, poll, illustration