Individuals have rights and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do. How much room do individual rights leave for the state?
To each as they choose, from each as they are chosen.
The U.S. President wants to up the national minimum wage to $9 per hour.
Republicans tend to lose at such policy debates, sometimes by daring to tell the truth: That minimum wage laws tend to raise unemployment. But that doesn’t impress politicians, who can’t be bothered to look beyond the surface of such issues.
They present the minimum wage hike as a guarantee that higher wages get paid all around, that wages only go up, rather than what actually happens: some wages go up to meet the law, and others evaporate, as people are let go, jobs downsized, and new jobs go uncreated.
So why would congressional Republicans use the same old rhetoric to balk at the president’s plan?
Sometimes irony works. Republicans should take all the Democrats’ premises — we want higher wages, more wealth, etc., etc. — and up the ante:
“Yes, raising wages would be great! But why are you all such tightwads? Raise the minimum to $49 an hour! Or make the lowest rate comparable with congressional pay: $85 per hour!”
Then compromise and say they will only vote for the raise if the rate hike is a serious amount, not the president’s paltry $1.75 increase.
At that point, a more honest conversation will start up.
For the ugly truth is that the harmful effects of the current and rather low minimum wage laws rest mainly on folks who aren’t very likely to vote, or to notice why it is they are unemployed. But raise the rate to $49 per hour, or even $19, and the scam becomes obvious to all but the most dense.
Even Democrats would insist on a lower rate.
And then Republicans should demand that Democrats explain why. And reveal the perverse logic behind minimum wages for all to see.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
On February 15, 1879, American President Rutherford B. Hayes signed a bill allowing female attorneys to argue cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.
One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent.
On February 14, 1859, Oregon was admitted into the American union as the 33rd of the United States.
There are some things that can be endured only with irony, or a lot of drink (and I don’t drink).
Last night, as I listened to Barack Hussein Obama’s fifth “State of the Union” Address, I chose irony:
Obama just said he wants a smarter government, not a bigger one. So, surely, the new slogan will be: FREEZE GOVERNMENT SPENDING! Washington Will Simply Work Smarter for the Same Money! Now we’re united. Go Obama!
Live-blogging on Facebook in this manner allowed me to breeze through the rest of the tedium pretty well: my blood pressure didn’t rise one bit.
But this “smarter government” theme is actually a serious issue.
The problem with current government is not the IQs of the folks in our bureaucracies or running for office. The problem is the systemic effects of the incentives and disincentives that modern, barely limited government present to us all. We don’t need smarter government to improve conditions, we need wiser governance. And the wise person knows when to leave well enough alone.
Actually, there’s a lot of intelligence out there. And knowledge. But these are dispersed amongst “We, the People.” Government concentrates power, but it cannot concentrate knowledge or IQ in any multiplicative way. When people live under the right incentives — as provided by liberty and the rule of law — they become more responsible, they learn from their mistakes, and they even achieve some great things.
Government must learn to back off to allow this — or at least freeze spending!
I wonder if President Obama is smart enough, wise enough, to learn that.
Probably not as long as enough people laud him for saying inane things about “smart government.”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Lincoln would now see government not of, by, and for all the people but of, by, and for some kinds of people. He would see it not as of all the people but as of the political activists. He would see government not as by the people but as managed by the politicians and their officials. And he would see government not as for the ordinary people but as for the organized in well-run, well-financed, and influential business organizations, professional associations, and trade unions. It is government “of the Busy (political activists), by the Bossy (government managers), for the Bully (lobbying activists).”
February 13 birthdays include those of economists Gordon Tullock (1922) and Israel Kirzner (1930).
You’ve probably seen Hillary Clinton in a bikini.
She didn’t pose for that famous photo. No paparazzo snapped it. It was constructed in Photoshop, with her head placed on a somewhat more buxom model’s body. It was a joke.
I’m not sure I “get” the joke completely. Sure, take the Pompous Pol and turn her into a pinup. But, still.
Also not very funny was the recent Photoshopping of Georgia State Rep. Earnest Smith’s head onto the body of a porn star. Andre Walker did the work, as he confessed on Monday. “Rep. Earnest Smith Shows His Thin Skin, Says I Have No Right to Make Fun of Him,” Walker amusingly titled his Georgia Politics Unfiltered piece. The picture? Less amusing.
But de gustibus non est disputandum and all that.
It’s not as if the political mockery that the Founding Fathers engaged in was nice, or even decent.
Well, sooner than you can say “Alien and Sedition Act,” Rep. Smith co-sponsored a bill, HB 39, to make Photoshopping politicians onto nude or indecently photographed bodies a misdemeanor, subject to a $1000 fine.
Earnest Smith summed up his case with PC sanctimony:
No one has a right to make fun of anyone. You have a right to speak, but no one has a right to disparage another person. It’s not a First Amendment right.
He couldn’t be more wrong. The Supreme Court has famously come down on the side of making fun of politicians.
Legislators’ biggest problem is that they want to legislate, even where inappropriate. Maybe they should mandate tests in constitutional law before they are allowed to represent us.
Or perhaps “Earnest” should take a lesson in Irony. Or in “lightening up.”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob