Common Sense with Paul Jacob

Is Congress the “One Percent”?

Post author By Redactor
Post date November 17, 2011
5 Comments on Is Congress the “One Percent”?

Splitting the country between the “99 percent” and the “1 percent” scapegoats successful people. Being rich is a good thing . . . unless the wealth is obtained dishonestly.

Which brings me to Congress.

Last Sunday, 60 Minutes featured Peter Schweizer, author of Throw Them All Out, a new book detailing what he calls “soft corruption” — unethical behavior that may not quite qualify as illegal.

Schweizer points out that members of Congress are not covered by laws against insider trading, thus legally able to “leverage” the information they receive to “enrich themselves.” At the cusp of the 2008 financial meltdown, Rep. Spencer Bacchus (R-Ala.) was receiving special briefings from the Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and “buying option funds that would go up in value if the market went down.”

Bacchus is hardly alone. During the healthcare debate, numerous congressmen traded healthcare stocks.

Then there are IPOs — initial public offerings of stock — which are usually available only to major investors. Somehow Speaker Nancy Pelosi was cut in on a least eight IPOs, including a lucrative one from VISA . . . at a time major credit card legislation was pending in the House.

None of “our” representatives deigned to openly discuss their amazing financial acumen. But as 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Croft confirmed, “Most former congressmen and senators manage to leave Washington, if they ever leave Washington, with more money in their pockets than they had when they arrived.”

Funny, they haven’t done nearly so well handling the country’s finances.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Tags insider trading, Nancy Pelosi, Peter Schweizer, Spencer Bacchus

Today

Nov 17

On Nov. 17, 1939, following student demonstrations in Prague, Czechoslovakia, the Nazis executed nine students and professors, arrested and sent more than 1,000 students to concentration camps, and shut down universities. In 1989, on the 50^th anniversary, student protests broke out against Soviet occupiers, touching off national strikes that soon led to the end of Soviet rule.

Thought

Václav Havel

“I really do inhabit a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than ten military divisions.”

free trade & free markets too much government

CreepOut-o-Meter Hits Red

If you are like me, you are not a monetary economist. I’m familiar with the main positions, I guess, and — if I dug information buried deep in memory — might be able to sound coherent on monetary policy when asked. And if given enough time to collect my thoughts. But you wouldn’t come to me to gain specific advice on specific issues relating to the Federal Reserve and money management at the rarefied level of the central bank.

Perhaps, like me, you’ve accepted or rejected positions based on analogous realms where you know much more.

And sometimes it all depends on The CreepOut-o-Meter.

My CreepOut-o-Meter just hit red.

Britain’s Business Secretary Vince Cable was recently quoted as saying, “If a monetary deal’s going to work, the central bank has to have unlimited powers to intervene to support economies, and indeed banks, to prevent collapse.”

Did he really say, “unlimited powers”?

That’s a long way from Milton Friedman’s reserved talk about a “monetary rule.” One of the biggest of Britain’s bigwigs isn’t talking about tinkering or refining. He’s pushing for an unlimited bailiwick to bail out Europe’s banks, credit, and the euro itself.

So you can see why I tend to promote old-fashioned money, money that wasn’t intimately controlled and bolstered-by-bailouts. Money like gold. Or silver. Or a set of commodities.

With that kind of money, it’s governments that are bound, limited.

It fits better with my idea of a free society.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Tags Milton Friedman, the creeps, Vince Cable

Thought

Geoffrey Brennan and Loren Lomasky

Post author By Redactor
Post date November 16, 2011
No Comments on Geoffrey Brennan and Loren Lomasky

Although government for the people by a beneficent elite is a conceptual possibility, it is a highly improbable one. Elites cannot be relied on to pursue individuals’ interests with anything like the consistency and intensity that individuals themselves regularly do: Benevolent despots are considerably more likely to remain despotic than benevolent. (Democracy and Decision: The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference, p. 167)

Today

Nov 16

On Nov. 16, 1938, philosopher Robert Nozick was born. Nozick is best known for his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which won the National Book Award in 1975. In that book he argued that a minimal state was just, that the case for a bigger, more intrusive government (like that of the present day) is untenable, and that the minimal state, while seemingly puny by its limitations, is nevertheless morally praiseworthy and conducive to a good society. Nozick taught at Harvard, and wrote several other major works on other philosophical topics before his death in 2002.

media and media people political challengers

The Donkey in the Room

One hates to beat a dead horse. Or a living one. But by coming back to media bias in the coverage of the Republican presidential campaign I’m not so much whipping a recalcitrant equine as stabling a kicking, braying ass.

The most recent debate was hosted by CBS and the National Journal, and took place in South Carolina. The demonstrated bias? Ron Paul got only 90 seconds of coverage.

Yup: ninety seconds out of the hour. CBS summarized Rep. Paul’s short contribution by calling him a “serious longshot,” judging the congressman’s minute-and-a-half as “an unqualified success.”

Yes, CBS’s post-debate coverage was mostly spin — over its own criteria. Of Rick Santorum, the network calmly stated that the also-ran “didn’t get as many questions as the more popular candidates in the polls, but when he did get a chance to talk, his remarks sounded thoughtful and measured.”

Yeah. CBS was in control of the questions and time allotments, but its prose coverage neatly states it as reportage, covering up its own very active role.

A more honest account? “Barring a bomb in the Green Room taking out most if not all of the other candidates, Rick Santorum doesn’t have a chance at the nomination. Thankfully, it’s up to us to divvy up coverage. Tough luck, Rick.”

And: “Despite your amazing ten-percent-plus support, Dr. Paul, we don’t want you saying too much. If we allowed it, you might get more popular.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Tags CBS, presidential debate, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul

Today

Nov 15

On Nov. 15, 1777, the Continental Congress, meeting in York, Pennsylvania, approved the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. It wasn’t until March 1, 1781, that the last of the 13 new states, Maryland, ratified the agreement.

Thought

Napoleon

“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

Today

Walesa Released

On Nov. 14, 1982, Lech Walesa, leader of Poland’s outlawed Solidarity movement, was released by authorities after being imprisoned for 11 months. Returning to his home in Gdansk, a large crowd of jubilant supporters lifted Walesa onto their shoulders.