Category: national politics & policies

Trump’s Dangerous Idea

Donald Trump, trade, protectionism, Donald Trump, war, borders, Bastiat

A lot of people were impressed by the reasonableness of Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech yesterday . . . despite the usual hyperbolic promises of “best” and “great” and “beautifully.”

Its general tenor? Refreshing. Rejecting post-Cold War foreign policy for a return to “national interest” and “America first”? Long overdue. Like Trump, I think we should eschew nation building.

But still there is that one big problem: Trump is a mercantilist. He believes in protectionism. He thinks that trade has to be “fair” in order to benefit both participants. He thinks NAFTA and similar trade agreements (which generally promoted trade while still reserving a lot of room for government futzing about) are what hurt American industry. Trump is always blaming the “bad deals” made with Mexico and China, rather than placing the blame where it squarely belongs, on

America’s world-high corporate income tax, and
chaos of regulatory excess, and
impenetrable tax code.

But protectionism makes sense to a lot of people. They are incredulous when they hear the (well-established) idea that free trade — even unilateral free trade — is a benefit to the people who live under it.

Surely, they snort, when you target aid or protection to some industries, you are doing good, right?

Wrong. Oh, yeah, of course protectionism protects the chosen few, the advantaged. That’s what it obviously does. But it doesn’t protect the general interest – consumers pay more and producers allocate resources to less valued uses.

You have to look beyond the obvious (“the seen”) to get the full picture (“the unseen”).

Trump’s at his most dangerous right here — forget his loose talk — by continuing to pretend that protectionism helps America.

We cannot afford another Smoot-Hawley.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

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!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Bastiat, borders, Donald Trump, Presidential campaign 2016, protectionism, trade, war

ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

Austan Antic, Hey!

Austan Goolsbee , Bill O’Reilly, Bernie Sanders, free stuff

The other day, Fox News Network’s Bill O’Reilly asked University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee a question. The subject was the socialistic gimme-gimme attitude of youthful Bernie Sanders supporters. The previous segment, “Watters’ World,” had paraded interviews with a handful of college students, asking them to clarify just how much free stuff they wanted.

It was a funny segment, if you think young people talking foolishly about government is funny.

Calling Sanders “the Giveaway King,” O’Reilly asked Goolsbee his general impression of the gimme-gimme attitude. It was the softest of softball questions. “What do you think about that?”

Talk about open-ended. Any response given thus says a lot about the interviewee, seeing how broad he may answer.

“Well, look, I’ve told you I’ve never been a big fan of socialism,” spake President Obama’s famed advisor. “I’m an economics professor.” Chuckling, he went on. “I’ve got the sense you don’t want these people getting free air to breathe. You’d like them to mail in their checks to make sure they work for it.”

Goolsbee could have started off as sensibly as he ended: “I’m against free stuff. Socialism doesn’t work. . . .”

He didn’t. He immediately reduced O’Reilly’s position to that of a straw man, using the reductio ad absurdum.

Why? For levity’s sake? Well, both O’Reilly and Goolsbee were jovial. . . .

But his nasty quip fulfilled a purpose, making sure that ideologues on the left continued to have license to think the worst about their opponents.

Thus Austan Goolsbee, despite his protests, carried water for crazed socialism.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags Austan Goolsbee, Bernie Sanders, Bill O'Reilly, free stuff

Accountability folly free trade & free markets general freedom moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

Bailed — Before Bailout

health insurance, experts, obamacare, insurance, costs, illustration, meme

Last Wednesday, UnitedHealthcare Group Incorporated (UNH) announced that it will drop coverage of plans under Obamacare in all but a few states by 2017.

The market signaled a thumb’s up: UNH stock prices shot up over 2 percent.

The company, described in the news, somewhat vaguely, as the country’s largest insurer, is sending us a signal: the Affordable Health Care Act and its “Obamacare”?

Not affordable.

An insurance policy must make sense to both parties, the insured and the insurer. The insured gets peace of mind . . . and coverage when the rare events insured-for take place. The insurer has written enough insurance contracts out there, prices based on actuarial risk, to allow it to make a profit even with payouts.

The problem with the ACA is that it raised costs (in part by forcing insurers to take on patients with pre-existing conditions) while regulating terms of policies offered . . . and prices, too.

Plus, face it: the idea that one should insure for regular checkups is just one of the many absurdities built into the system.

It’s just too much meddling to work, in the long run. Bailouts and subsidies of those insurance companies that stick with the plan will then make the program unaffordable . . . for America’s taxpayers.

Over-regulated and over-subsidized, Obamacare suffers from the preposterous idea that a bird’s eye view of the economy from the politicians’ perch gives enough information to run complex systems servicing millions of people with diverse needs.

Expect more big stories with tags lines ballyhooing a “serious blow to Obamacare.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags Affordable Healthcare Act, experts, health insurance, ObamaCare

general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies too much government

The Drinking Gourd

$20, currency, twenty dollar, Jackson, Hamilton, Tubman, illustration

By now, most people are probably OK with Treasury’s plan to oust Andrew Jackson off the face of the $20 Federal Reserve Note and replace him with Harriet Tubman.

I certainly am. Ms. Tubman was a great hero of freedom. President Jackson has a more . . . mixed legacy.

The original plan to rotate Alexander Hamilton off the ten spot met with pushback as a result of his rising popularity from the Broadway play, Hamilton. Besides, Hamilton deserves blame—er, placement on the nation’s official paper money. Hamilton devised the first national banking system. Andrew Jackson, decades after Hamilton’s death, nixed that insider-mercantile scheme by refusing to re-authorize the central bank of the day, setting up a very different system for the Treasury and America’s banks.

Less than a century later, Hamilton’s idea was revived in the form of the Federal Reserve. Which we benefit/suffer from to this very day.

But in a bizarre twist, Jackson was not simply replaced. He was demoted. Tubman is to be placed on the note’s obverse, and Jackson moved to the back of the bus, er, note. The reverse.

I would have preferred to revive Old Hickory years from now, after the Federal Reserve dissolved, to be featured on a private bank’s note. After all, private banks did that for years between Jackson’s time and the modern period.

Bank notes don’t need the imprimatur of government.

That would allow us to place, on the flip side of the sawbuck, a more suitable image — of the Big Dipper, which served escaped slaves as a direction, to go north: “follow the Drinking Gourd.”

Additionally, the Big Dipper suggests bailouts, doesn’t it?

We’ll have plenty more before the system is changed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags $20, Andrew Jackson, bank note, currency, fiat money, Hamilton, money, treasury, Tubman

Accountability crime and punishment folly ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Story, Story, Story

David Brooks, dichotomy, dualism, false, minimum wage, crime, illustration

David Brooks has a story to tell you.

His New York Times op-ed, yesterday, “The Danger of Single Story,” builds on a good premise: “each individual life contains a heterogeneous compilation of stories. If you reduce people to one, you’re taking away their humanity.”

Brooks puts a political edge on what otherwise might sound like a lesson in manners with his next sentence: “American politics has always been prone to single storyism — candidates reducing complex issues to simple fables. This year the problem is acute because Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are the giants of Single Storyism.”

Brooks then asserts that Trump and Sanders share a similar story that they beat to death, “the alien invader story.”

You can see how it applies to Trump, a staunch opponent of illegal immigration. Aliens invade!

But Brooks recognizes that Sanders’s story is about “the evil entity called ‘the banks.’” Not exactly alien. This menace is home-grown.

Then our pundit moves on to issues not in the single-story vein of Trump and Sanders, and how what seem to be opposite stories (incarceration prevents crime; too much incarceration is a moral horror) can both be true.

Crime is low right now, but Brooks devotes most of this putative paean to multiple crime stories. The third Bernie story he takes a bite of, the $15 minimum wage, belies the Single Storyism charge. That is, the point of his essay.

Way to go, sophisticate.

He also draws a complete non sequitur: “Raising the minimum wage to $15 may make sense in rich areas.” Nothing he wrote gives any credibility to that. At best the hike would do nothing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags Bernie Sanders, David Brooks, dichotomy, Donald Trump, dualism, story

Accountability moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

Obscene Amounts

George Clooney, Campaign finance, money, big money, election, Hillary Clinton

Actor George Clooney, star of the current Coen brothers picture, Hail Caesar!, is a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. When asked on NBC’s Meet the Press if the $353,000 per couple dinner he organized last Friday constituted an “obscene amount of money,” he answered, simply, “yes.”

Clooney went on to explain, “It’s ridiculous that we should have this amount of money in politics.”

He’s an advocate for campaign finance reform. He is, specifically, “against” Citizens United, though he doesn’t know that it isn’t a law but a Supreme Court case that overturned previously passed legislation that regulated what people and corporations could do to support or oppose (or mention) candidates in elections. The government, authorized by the campaign finance legislation, had suppressed a movie.

Interestingly, that movie was a polemical documentary against . . . Hillary Clinton.

Campaign finance regulation has been shown to help incumbents. Not unexpectedly, since the regulations are written by sitting legislators against their competitors.

But “getting money out of politics” would advantage other groups, too. For example, one consequence of limiting political donations would be to nudge challengers to (a) be rich and mostly self-funding (like Trump is said to be), and (b) be more demagogic, leveraging the “free” publicity from major media.

More demagogues aren’t needed.

But then, the whole issue is demagogic, appealing to the knee-jerk reaction of everyday people who are, indeed, often nonplused by how others spend their money.

As for Clooney, he’d like not to have to spend money for his candidate.

We’d all like the important things in life to just happen. But it turns out we have to work for what we want.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags campaign finance reform, campaign finance regulation, George Clooney, Hillary Clinton

Accountability general freedom government transparency moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

Big-Dollar Impact

campaign finance reform, contributions, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, corruption

Last Saturday, The Washington Post’s top-of-the-front-page headline blared, “50 donors with outside impact.”

If that doesn’t curdle your blood, readers were further warned of a new “Gilded Age.” Yes, in concentrated fundraising the Post heard “echoes of the end of the 19th century, when wealthy interests spent millions to help put former Ohio governor William McKinley in the White House.”

McKinley. The horror. The echoes.

Hopefully, self-immolations can be kept to a bare minimum as Americans discover the report’s main (only) thrust: 41 percent of $607 million contributed to 2,300 super PACs this election cycle has come from just 50 donors . . . at least, if you also aggregate gifts from the relatives of these 50 folks and their business interests as well.

Isn’t that terrifying? Destructive of democracy? Are our elections simply being bought by the billionaires?

No. No. And no.

Any common sense analysis of this year’s presidential contests, both Republican and Democrat, must acknowledge that big money did not trump. Pun intended. Sen. Bernie Sanders is now outraising Hillary Clinton with millions of small donations — not “millionaires and billionaires.” Jeb Bush’s massive financial warchest made no discernible difference. Even the Post concedes “the mixed impact that big-money groups have had on the presidential contest so far.”

Mixed? Name a single state where “big spending” determined the outcome.

Ideas matter. And securing the resources to advance and advertise ideas obviously matters, too. Same goes for candidates — and their ideas.

More money, more campaign spending, means more ideas and candidacies can reach the political marketplace. That’s where voters, not big donors, do the deciding.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, campaign finance reform, democracy, Presidential campaign 2016, SuperPACs

Accountability folly government transparency ideological culture moral hazard national politics & policies

Money Means Nothing to Her

Post author By CS Admin
Post date April 18, 2016
2 Comments on Money Means Nothing to Her

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, campaign finance reform, big money, illustration, angel, Saint Hillary

Campaign finance reform is surely dead . . . if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

Which would be good.

Not Clinton being elected, mind you. What would be good is the death of so-called campaign finance reform — the kind supported by Democrats, including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. They insist on a constitutional amendment to partially repeal the First Amendment’s freedom of speech protection and give Congress awesome new powers to regulate their own and their opponents’ campaigns.

But wait — if Mrs. Clinton supports campaign finance reform, why would her election kill this seriously bad proposal?

Well, Hillary Clinton made it abundantly clear at last week’s Democratic presidential debate, as I explained this weekend at Townhall: large campaign contributions do not influence her in any way. Even a fat $15 million from Wall Street interests to her super PAC — or $225,000 a pop speeches paid by Goldman Sachs and their ilk — registers no corrupting effect whatsoever.

And those millions deposited in Clinton Foundation accounts from foreign governments?

They couldn’t possibly sway the steady former Secretary of State. Not even the smallest smidgen.

Just like there has never been corruption at the IRS.

Don’t believe Hillary? Then trust President Obama, who also gobbled up major Wall Street funding when he ran in 2008 and 2012. But again, according to her, “President Obama was not at all influenced when he made the decision to pass and sign Dodd-Frank, the toughest regulations on Wall Street in many a year.”

Not. At. All.

So the solution to government corruption is simply to elect trustworthy, incorruptible candidates . . . like Hillary Clinton.

Well, call her half right.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Bernie Sanders, campaign finance reform, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016

folly general freedom national politics & policies tax policy too much government

Procrastinators’ Weekend

Usually, April 15 is the deadline date, in these United States, to file taxes or apply for an extension. This year it is April 18.

Why? Many of us think of the Fifteenth of April as Tax Day. It seems strange and arbitrary when it is jiggered with. And kind of annoying.

But a postponement of taxes could be a postponement we might all appreciate as a tiny (ever so slight) reprieve.

So, again, why this year’s three-day extra leeway?

First off, it is regularly postponed when the day falls on a Saturday or Sunday.

Could it be that the “Nothing Gets Done on Friday” Rule has been acknowledged by the fine folks at the Internal Revenue Service?

No.

People in Maine and Massachusetts celebrate Patriots Day on April 18, so their tax day is set another day later, April 19.

Which begs the question. Why the 18th in the first place?

Well, because of Emancipation Day, usually celebrated in Washington, DC, on April 16.

Because the 16th settles on a Saturday this year, and because the day is a traditional day off for federal workers, the holiday shifts a day in advance, to this Friday, the 15th. So, Emancipation Day — commemorating the signing of the Emancipation Act by President Abraham Lincoln — trumps Tax Filing Day.

Apt, since it might seem cruel to Americans to have Tax Day, marking the subservience of a whole population to its government, fall on something called Emancipation Day.

After all, consider: holding them on the same day? Hmmm. Might get people thinking.

Bigwigs in DC don’t want that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags Fed Up With Taxes, slavery, tax, Tax Day

folly general freedom ideological culture nannyism national politics & policies too much government

The Hypocrisy Gap

wage gap, pay gap, sexism, Equal Pay Day, illustration

You may have missed it. I wasn’t so lucky. This past Tuesday was “Equal Pay Day.”

“[T]he typical woman who works full-time earns 79-cents for every dollar that a typical man makes,” President Barack Obama said, repeating what we have already been told ad nauseum about the “wage gap” between men and women.

The “detailed calculation” used to determine this “gender wage gap”?

“Experts” simply added up all the money earned by all the men and all the women (subcategoried) and then divided by the number of men and women, respectively. No accounting for

the actual jobs performed,
hours worked,
education,
risk,
work history

. . . or any other factor.

Using this statistic make sense if all people — brain surgeons and taxi drivers alike, having worked every day for the last 40 years or re-entering the workforce after decades away — should earn the exact same amount.

Communism.

It is already illegal to pay a woman less than a man for the same work. Yet, on the WhiteHouse.gov page entitled, “This Is Why Today is Equal Pay Day,” the prez says “we must rid our society of the injustice that is pay discrimination.” The website insists that, Obama “has made equal pay a top priority.”

Then, why does a pay gap exist between the men and women working for Mr. Obama? According to the Washington Post, “The White House has not narrowed the gap between the average pay of male and female employees since President Obama’s first year in office . . .”

The good news? Equal Pay Day is over.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags Equal Pay Day, equal protection, gender pay gap, sex equality, wages