Category: subsidy

Categories
crime and punishment subsidy

Newsom’s Terrifying “Antiterrorism”

Gavin Newsom, Islam, Mosque, funding, California,

Some of the worthiest allies in the fight against terrorism are the cheerleaders of terrorism. Make sense?

Makes sense to California Governor Gavin Newsom, apparently. This March he sent nearly $200,000 — on top of earlier grants — to the Islamic Center of San Diego. It’s part of a program to help religious institutions fight terrorism.

The Center is led by an imam who rationalized Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attacks on Israeli civilians; no atrocity gave him pause. The Washington Free Beacon also reports on links between this mosque and the 9/11 hijackers.

Newsom has awarded similar “antiterrorism” grants to other mosques demanding the demise of Jews and Israel.

Daily reports of Islam-rationalized outrages and atrocities are aggregated by Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch. They aren’t rare.

Some regard “Islamophobia” — which, defined reasonably, means something like irrational hostility to Islam or to peaceful Muslims — as a worse threat than use of Islam to rationalize intimidation, repression, kidnapping, rape, murder. We do have reason to oppose the latter . . . and it is not any kind of “phobic,” contrary to the assertions of those who seek to blur important distinctions, because it is not irrational.*

People are responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others who belong to the same ethnic or religious group. 

But people are responsible for their own actions. 

It should go without saying that applauding the most vicious treatment of other human beings is not the kind of thing an American government should be encouraging.

By words.

Or cash.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 * Remember that the modern use of “phobia” hails from abnormal psychology, which is especially focused on needless fears. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies subsidy

Trump vs. Big Bird

NPR, PBS, Big Bird, public television, public radio,

For decades, taxpayers have been forced to fund PBS and NPR, and with them any political tilts that we disagree with.

For decades, some lawmakers have nominally agreed that taxpayers should be liberated from this unchosen obligation.

But nothing has changed.

Now, however, President Trump has issued an executive order to simply end “Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media.”

“Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage. No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies. . . .”

I say we have a right that our tax dollars not be used at all to fund public broadcasting. And that, also contrary to the text of the order, the government is not “entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize.” 

It should have no authority to pay for any activities unrelated to the proper functions of government.

I will, however, accept the result of the executive order, defunding of public broadcasting. If we do get this result.

“The federal funding that supports Public Media,” PBS is alerting its viewers, “is at risk of being eliminated.” 

But this public media is also — and famously — supported by pledge drives and other non-governmental funding sources.

Zero public funding doesn’t mean a world without Big Bird; an absence of subsidy does not mean an absence of the MacNeil Lehrer NewsHour — or its successor show, PBS News Hour. These and many other much-loved shows might well thrive solely on voluntary funding.

“Now is a critical time to act,” urges PBS.

Yes. Tell Congress to ratify the elimination of federal funding of public media now.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
budgets & spending cuts subsidy

Don’t Blame DOGE

Rocky Mountain Institute

Sometime during the Trump administration’s fast and furious spending cuts and cancellations, the Rocky Mountain Institute lost millions in Biden-era federal climate-nonsense grants — cut not by DOGE but by the Department of Energy under Secretary Chris Wright.

Tears have been shed, garments rent: $5.3 million would have been used to retrofit a building to make it more green; $1.5 million would have funded research on the practicality of “electric vehicle carshare programs” and the “resilience” and “equity” of U.S. business models.

These initiatives are just the tip of the spear. RMI is also a good buddy of the Chinese government. RMI even has an office in Beijing.

As James Roth puts it over at our sister publication StoptheCCP.org, “Yes, RMI works with the communist government and proudly. It’s all over their website. It’s their specialty.”

Hold on, Roth. We must all try to understand that this is the kind of thing we must do if we wish to pretend to effectuate real global change in order to pretend to finetune world climate. If we let reality infect our thinking, what happens to mankind’s noble dream of instituting a globe-girdling weather-control machine while fatuously enabling the policies, conduct, and lies of tyrants? It would evaporate in the morning sun.

We’d be stuck with facts. 

We’d be stuck treating RMI as responsible for its actions, as U.S. Senator Ted Cruz did in a letter to the institute’s CEO in 2023, asking “whether RMI has ever received any funding from any entity or individual associated with the Chinese government. Please answer with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’. . . .”

There’s at least one such funder. RMI has gotten money from Energy Foundation China, which has CCP ties and is “run by former Chinese Communist Party officials.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
subsidy tax policy

Oh, SNAP!

junk food, SNAP, welfare, food stamps, RFK, health

It appears that recipients of “food stamps” (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) “often have lower diet quality and higher rates of diet-related health issues compared to non-participants,” according to an article in healthjournalism.org. 

“While it’s unclear whether SNAP directly causes these outcomes or if other factors are at play, some argue that the program, at minimum, sustains unhealthy eating habits by not restricting purchases of nutritionally poor foods.”

Among the “some” who argue for restrictions is Robert Kennedy, Jr., head of Health and Human Services. He promises to purge unhealthy foods from the subsidy list.

Currently, the taxpayer-funded “benefit” may “be used for ‘any food or food product intended for human consumption,’ except alcohol, tobacco and hot foods, including those prepared for immediate consumption. Critics argue that SNAP’s allowance for purchasing sugary snacks, soda and junk food promotes unhealthy eating habits, which can lead to obesity and other related health issues.”

The critics are undoubtedly correct; indeed, the proposed limitations will almost certainly be too tame. 

If the program must exist, it should do good without enabling demonstrable harm. So instead of a cumbersome and extensive list of prohibited food items, there should be a concise list of allowed categories:

  • uncooked meats and dairy products without added sugars
  • fresh, frozen, dried, and canned beans, fruits and vegetables
  • staple ingredients of traditional meals, such as flour, spices, and oils

Some rail against any idea of restricted benefits, but government handouts are not there to expand the “freedoms” of the poor; they are provided to help folks weather hard times. 

The freedoms of taxpayers have already been sacrificed for their sake. Forcing taxpayers to watch SNAP’s EBT card users in the grocery line buying candy and sodas adds insult to the benefactors while injuring the beneficiaries.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Fireflly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
regulation subsidy too much government

Flood and Fire

electric vehicle, electric car, hybrid, engineering, freedom

Tesla, the maker of some of the most popular, eye-catching, and prestige electric vehicles of our time, offers advice to folks who may experience “submersion events” with their automobiles. The company “recommends moving EVs to higher ground ahead of potential” unholy baptisms and warns owners to keep a safe distance as well as notify “first responders if one notices ‘fire, smoke, audible popping/hissing or heating coming from your vehicle,’” summarizes The Epoch Times.

This is sparked, I’m sorry to say (and pun) by hurricane victims in Florida, at least six of whom had their houses catch fire after their electric vehicles caught fire after their vehicles were submerged in water. Florida’s chief financial officer and fire marshal Jimmy Patronis put the number higher, at 16, of burning “EVs in the Tampa Bay area alone, including Pinellas County.”

“So far.”

When it floods, it burns.

“The governor had warned EV owners in Florida to get their vehicles to higher ground ahead of Helene’s arrival,” explains Jacob Burg, in the above-mentioned Epoch Times piece, “as contact with saltwater can short-circuit the batteries, causing a catastrophic chain reaction known as thermal runaway in which heat energy is released from the battery to cause a fire.”

I’ve been seeing quite a few reports that EVs don’t do well in extreme conditions. The cold, for one, where the batteries don’t work properly, and the heat, for another, when they can too easily catch fire. And now this “submersion” menace.

Electric vehicles sure do appear to demonstrate a technology still in its infancy. 

One the government shouldn’t be pushing on us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies subsidy tax policy

Kamala Hood

Kamala Harris, crony corporations, green, taxes, spending, welfare

American politics is largely devoted to the grand task of taking from some and giving to others, a sort of Robin Hood mania that has nothing to do with giving back to taxpayers what was taken from taxpayers (as in the legend) — or doing much of anything for the poor — but, instead, to ostentatiously give to some and quietly take from as many people as possible.

Nevertheless, that giving is not always ostentatious. Sometimes it is surreptitious. 

Or at least not ballyhooed.

Kamala Harris has taken up an old Democratic Party stalking point: soak the rich! Though she tries not to mention just how much money she and her fellow Biden Administration insiders have been giving to a few big corporations.

“Despite Harris’ rhetoric of fighting for the middle class,” writes Jack Salmon at Reason, “her policies have disproportionately benefited the wealthy and large corporations while leaving middle- and lower-income Americans behind. Far from soaking the rich, Harris’ legacy has been one of feeding them.”

Corporate subsidies have “exploded,” explains Mr. Salmon, going from a ten-year budget allocation of $1.2 trillion in 2021 to now surpassing $2 trillion.

Nearly doubled!

“The beneficiaries of this largesse are extremely concentrated,” Salmon notes, most of it going to “just 15 large corporations, seven of which are foreign.” Of course, a lot of this is under cover of “saving the planet” and fighting “climate change”: “Wind turbine manufacturers like General Electric, Vestas, and Siemens/Gamesa — who collectively produce 79 percent of all turbines — are among the biggest winners.”

Robbing from the few and giving to the many makes neither for good mathematics or a winning political strategy. Robbing from the many and giving to the few is what usually works. But if your appeal is to “the left,” you have to pretend to grab most from the super-rich few.

Your pals.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies regulation subsidy too much government

Stay Puft America

FDA, regulations, food, rules, diet, fads

“It was perhaps just a matter of time before issues of health — not policies over health-care provision but actual human health — would enter into our politics,” surmises Jeffrey A. Tucker in The Epoch Times. “We look at pictures of people in cities or at the beach in the 1970s and compare them with today and the results are shocking. We have changed as people and for the worse.”

Jeff Tucker is trying to explain the background for a big policy-interest shift, as a result of the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., endorsement of Donald J. Trump. Kennedy’s big issue is health, and Trump’s gone along with it, willing to make it a part of his agenda.

In “How Did Health Become a Political Issue?” Tucker focuses first on the COVID debacle, moving on to the real culprit: government.

Or, technically, government and industry, combined into one huge Stay Puft Marshmallow of Destruction. For behind our changing eating patterns and food habits are government tariffs, subsidies, researchstrategies, diet crazes, and much, much more. 

Perhaps even bigger than Big Pharma is Big Agribiz, a conglomerate of companies pushing lab-created additives and worse on a trusting public, or, as Tucker puts it, “many decades of heavy government subsidies for the worst food, and so much in the way of corn, soy, and wheat are produced that we’ve invented new ways to use it.”

But it’s not really “we’ve.” The Standard American Diet (SAD) wouldn’t have existed were it not for the USDA and the FDA and a whole alphabet soup of bureaus captured by the industries they were assigned to regulate, working together in a Big Biz/Gov partnership to create a Big Problem in the general population.

Somehow, though, when asked about the government causes of SAD, RFKj said he wouldn’t abolish anything. He merely wants “better regulations.”

Someone needs a fast . . .from Big Government.

That someone? Kennedy. 

And America.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Common Sense national politics & policies regulation subsidy

Electric Class Warfare

Star Trek, electric car, gas car, regulations, climate

Star Trek may have adversely affected American politics. Its techno-communist utopian militarism was one thing, its attitude towards engineering? Perhaps worse.

In how many episodes did Captain Kirk demand that Scotty push the warp drives further, or decrease the time required for a task — arbitrarily according to his need, not actual possibility?

And, because television: presto, it was done; just in time for the finale!

We see that in the push for electric vehicles (EVs). 

The EV mandates, explains The Epoch Times, “will likely cause a sizable wealth transfer from rural red regions of the United States to urban blue sections, and to wealthy Democrats who reside in them. . . .”

For while Democrats say they’re trying to “save the planet” from an increase in atmospheric carbon, really, analyst Robert Bryce counters, “it’s a type of class warfare that will prevent low- and middle-income consumers from being able to afford new cars.”

How? The EPA’s new “rules are the strictest in history and will effectively force carmakers to have one-third of new car sales be plug-in EVs by 2027 and more than two-thirds by 2032.” But according to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, “as much as $48,000 of the cost of the average EV sold in the United States is paid not by the owner but in the form of ‘socialized costs’ that are spread out among taxpayers and electricity consumers over a 10-year period.”

So the new rules will reduce the supply of gas-powered vehicles, driving up costs. And the increased number of already-subsidized vehicles will also be paid by taxpayers at large, while the benefits go to . . . mostly Democrats in the bluest counties of the bluest states, as statistics show.

In recent years, Democrats have prided themselves that their “blue states” subsidize “red states,” mocking the “rugged individualist” pretensions of the hapless bubbas in flyover country. But now such boasts ring hollow. 

This is the far-flung future? 

Subsidy and regulation spoil the Star Trek promise.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
regulation subsidy

The Hail of It

Joe Biden, energy, green energy, spending

Early yesterday, an out-of-control container ship ran into the Francis Scott Key Bridge over the Patapsco River in Baltimore. Early reports claimed that a dozen vehicles and 20 people went into the cold water, with only two survivors, so far, being rescued; last I heard, however, the total went down to six missing after the initial rescues.

It looks like an accident, and accidents happen, sometimes horrific ones. There’s a reason “thoughts and prayers” are mentioned at such times, all other talk seeming vastly inappropriate.

Nevertheless, President Joe Biden immediately promised that the federal government would pay to replace the bridge.

Eleven days earlier a more humdrum disaster gave us greater license to speculate. “Thousands of panels on a solar farm southwest of Houston, Texas, were damaged by a powerful hailstorm on March 15,” a Newsweek report informs us. “Aerial footage showed rows of cracked photovoltaic cells at the Fighting Jays Solar Farm near Needville in Fort Bend County. . . .” A vast array of solar panels, ruined by something not unheard-of in Texas: “baseball-sized hail stones” falling from the sky.

And seeping out of the panels? Toxic chemicals.

This is something that we, the voting public, must confront: the fact that most “green energy” replacements are fragile and often environmentally hazardous. Compared to natural gas they are ecological disasters.

While Joe Biden yammers about funding a new bridge, we need to force a more important conversation, about removing subsidies for pseudo-green alternative energy sources. 

To save us from the poorhouse as well as from environmental disaster.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture subsidy

Race-Based Handouts?

collectivism, individualism, race, racism, regulations, welfare

The decision won’t be the end of the matter, but it’s a good sign.

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman has ruled that a federal agency established to give subsidies to businesses, in its current form called the Minority Business Development Agency, may no longer use race or ethnicity as a criterion for distributing benefits.

The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty on behalf of three business owners who weren’t allowed to apply for help from the MBDA because they’re white. The plaintiffs argue that the Agency violates the constitutional requirement of equal treatment under the law.

According to Judge Pittman, although “the Agency may intend to serve listed groups, not punish unlisted groups, the very design of its presumption punishes those who are not presumptively entitled to MBDA benefits.”

Supporting rights-based governance, I’m no fan of any welfare programs. As long as we have them, though, why should the handouts or the ability to apply for them be determined by race?

Government-imposed racial discrimination is unjust on its face. It should be extirpated wherever it exists. The Minority Business Development Agency is one of those places.

If Pittman’s ruling is allowed to stand, it may have a salutary effect on many other agencies and programs. 

The MBDA’s name presents a problem, however. 

I guess it won’t be too hard to remove the word “Minority” and call the agency the Business Development Agency. 

Or just shut it down.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts