Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets too much government

Who Creates Jobs?

There’s way too much pressure on politicians to “do something.” Most of the things they can do are bad. “Do something” too easily translates to “do anything,” and odds are that “anything” will end up as catastrophe.

There’s a division of labor in doing things: Investors, capitalists, and entrepreneurs create businesses which employ people; legislators and government executives have the more humble task of setting up and refining the groundrules, allowing others to do the great works.

Politicians don’t create jobs as such.

Few politicians understands this. But Gary Johnson, former two-term governor of New Mexico, does — and he’s running for the Republican presidential nomination.

“The fact is,” he said in the recent debate, “I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor.” He went on to say how proud he was of this fact. New Mexico underwent an “11.6 percent job growth” rate during his two terms. All he did was get government out of the way of businesses.

Now, I understand: The “politician as jobs creator” talk is sometimes just a way to focus attention on getting policy right. National Review Online called Johnson “the best job creator” of all the candidates. The august journal didn’t mean much by it, other than note the statistic.

But too often politicians decide they can create jobs by taking money from all of us in taxes and investing it in private companies or new government programs. Those politicians aren’t creating jobs for us, but doing a job on us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture initiative, referendum, and recall

The Public Square

Californians’ initiative, referendum and recall process is as hot a topic for debate as ever. That’s apt, for this year marks the process’s 100th anniversary.

On October 10, 1911, Californians went to the polls to enact these democratic checks on government after Governor Hiram Johnson persuaded legislators to put them on the ballot. On October 10, 2011, I’ll be in Sacramento at an event sponsored by Citizens in Charge Foundation to celebrate the centennial.

And a few days ago, I served on a panel of interesting people in front of a great audience of Californians at a Zócalo Public Square event in San Francisco, entitled, “How Do We Put the People Back in the Initiative Process?”

My answer: Make it easier, instead of harder, to put issues on the ballot. Presently, California requires 800,000 voters to sign petitions to put an amendment on the ballot and 400,000 voters for a statutory measure; sponsors have only five months to get all those signatures.

Why not give citizens a year to collect signatures? Why not lower the requirement?

Unless “reform” of the initiative is really code for not putting the people back in the process, of course. Some folks don’t think voters are up to the task of democratic decision-making — at least, whenever voters don’t decide their way.

Let’s agree that the people aren’t perfect. I still prefer citizen control over government to the alternative of rule by politicians and self-appointed elites.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall political challengers

Buccaneer Blitz

No one expected much of the “Pirate Party” in the recent Berlin election. It’s an upstart, and the program of the young men leading the renegade political group — which focuses on “Internet freedom” as well as (alas) “free public transit” — might not seem to be ideally suited for widespread advance in the target environment, electoral politics. The party only offered up 15 representatives for Sunday’s vote.

But it won every seat it attempted, gaining 8.9 percent of the vote.

Meanwhile, the Free Democrats went down to ignominious defeat, garnering less than 2 percent. The establishment must be shuddering. If an allegedly pro-business party like the Free Dems get booted out of office by young men wearing Captain America t-shirts, and if the Green Party now becomes the dominate coalition party in the nation’s capital, what then?

Well, the Pirate Party does not appear to be a joke. The candidates are serious, even if they aren’t wearing the traditional suit-and-tie uniforms. They parlayed popular Internet activism into votes, and what they do might make a difference.

So, what are they up to?

They seek to defend Internet privacy of individuals while enforcing complete transparency in government. Proposing an online participatory system they call “liquid democracy,” they balk at the status quo in legislative method. There are alternatives, as one spokesman explained: “You can stand up, stand tall and write the laws yourself.”

If this be piracy, make the most of it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Apologies to Ms. Kelo

The sad story of Kelo v. The City of New London keeps dragging on, adding coda to epilogue, epilogue to coda.

Recently, Jeff Benedict, the author of Little Pink House, gave a talk attended by both Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Richard N. Palmer and Suzette Kelo. Afterwards, chatting with Ms. Kelo, Benedict was approached by Justice Palmer, who shocked the journalist with an admission: “Had I known all of what you just told us, I would have voted differently.”

The judge then turned to Ms. Kelo to say how sorry he was.

The judge, who had voted in the majority against the New London homeowner, was not recanting the decision, as such, but instead merely admitting that the facts as they developed in the case put the New London redevelopment project in a different light. And his apology? Not for the decision, but simply for Ms. Kelo’s suffering.

It’s something.

The real something in the case is what happened to New London’s Fort Trumbull site after Pfizer pulled out of the development. Most recently it has been turned into a dumping ground for branches, hedge clippings, broken limbs from storms, and the like. As one property rights watchdog put it:

Connecticut taxpayers have thus been soaked tens of millions of dollars, not just for nothing, but for making things worse. . . .

Much worse. Property rights were undermined. Judges felt compelled by practice and precedent to defend whimsical, frivolous takings powers against the just property rights of citizens.

We’re all sorry, now. But protecting property rights against abuse by government would mean never having to say we’re sorry, later.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
tax policy too much government

Excise Excitement Exorcizes E-Biz

Retail sales taxation became vogue among the states of the union during the Great Depression. When other revenue sources dried up, many states decided to nab potential taxpayers at each transaction.

We’re in a depression again, and numerous legislatures are looking to expand their retail sales tax base by targeting out-of-state Internet purchases.

California has made the biggest stink about this, and its fight with Amazon.com has been in the headlines for some time. Though the issue has been put “on hold” for a year, the Assembly’s rapacity has produced at least one effect. It has driven many online businesses out of the state, and severely curtailed the online sales of many California brick-and-mortar concerns.

Take Shopobot, a new online business. One of this San Francisco company’s biggest revenue streams was Amazon. And Amazon dropped it like a hot rock.

So what did Shopobot do? It fled California for the cooler Seattle, Washington.

Why skip Oregon — which lacks a retail sales tax? My guess is that Oregon’s political environment struck the Shopobot folks as nearly as crazy as California’s, so heading further north made more sense, to sit beside Amazon itself, and across Lake Union from Adobe’s compound, er, “campus.”

The online sales tax question is widely perceived as a problem. The only solution, I guess, is to let Congress do its constitutional duty and “regulate interstate commerce.”

Amazon sure wants that.

But why am I not optimistic about a good solution?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies Tenth Amendment federalism too much government

A Compact Solution

“We shouldn’t have to leave our country to have a reasonable health care system,” says Eric O’Keefe, chair of the Health Care Compact Alliance.

I agree, but what to do with Obamacare, at present secure from repeal?

O’Keefe points out that Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution permits states to enter into compacts with one another provided they get congressional approval. States have done so since colonial times; there are currently 200 state compacts in force dealing with issues from driver’s licensing to wildlife.

The Health Care Compact would allow states to “get rid of all of Obamacare,” and to tell the federal government, as O’Keefe puts it, “You keep your regulations; send us back our money.”

“It’s not just a way to block Obamacare,” O’Keefe explains. “It includes Medicare and Medicaid, creates a block grant of all the money and it goes into the compacting states for them to manage as they see fit. So the citizens and the legislature will work it out in their state.”

States that join the compact could set up their own health care system with the money they currently receive from the federal government, sans regulations and mandates. While some states might experiment with single-payer systems, others could expand medical savings accounts and other market-oriented reforms.

Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas have already passed the Health Care Compact, and will likely apply for congressional approval once a dozen or more states join.

Who’s next?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies too much government

Decline and Fall?

Widespread unemployment, fear, and consternation: Why now?

Three answers:

  1. Imperial over-reach. No nation can police the world forever. Empires once existed for loot. But on net the U.S. doesn’t take wealth from others. Instead, we spend our own wealth “protecting” others, often confusing our “national interest” for the interests of well-connected businesses. Hardly sustainable. Flag-waving about how good the U.S. is won’t stop the decline.
  2. Churning. We pretend to live in a “welfare state,” but wealth does not consistently go from rich to poor, to compensate for disadvantages. Wealth churns from one group to another, with each power shift. Trying to live at the expense of everyone else is not just a game for the poor. Government, without constitutional limits, inevitably shifts wealth haphazardly from the politically powerless (the least organized) to the politically powerful (the best organized) — with always a cut for the bureaucracy and political insiders. Of course such a system must decline, at some point.
  3. Sub-standard standards. In too many domains of life, we’ve almost given up. Certainly folks in high places act quite low. And the people who control our money, for example, don’t even pretend to keep a stable supply, a “standard”; instead, they pride themselves on “keeping bubbles going” . . . making unsustainability our standard policy.

But Americans do have an advantage over our Old World friends and foes. We have a history of dedication to better principles. Our best bet for recovery? Return to them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies porkbarrel politics

Hating Cathedrals

According to Adam Gopnik, at the New Yorker, many of my readers and I hate cathedrals.

Well, he alleges that we oppose “beautiful new airports and efficient bullet trains” (not cathedrals, exactly) for the same reason that “seventeenth-century Protestants hated the beautiful Baroque churches of Rome” — as “luxurious symbols of an earthly power they despised.”

Hmmm. Disagreeing with Gopnik is a hate crime?

Americans have more than enough cause to oppose big, intrusive government. We know how it works (often not very well), we know how unfair it is (often quite unjust), and we have a traditional alternative ready at hand (Constitutional liberty).

Cluelessly, Gopnik just sees a pig-headed hatred of government that leads to a hatred of some really nifty things.

He should reconsider. Perhaps what we have is a love of liberty and justice. And that precludes some nifty things from being conjured up in certain ways.

I bet Gopnik agrees. Go back to something like a cathedral. Take Teotihuacan. The Aztecs sure made some impressive buildings. Big public works projects. But for the purposes of blood sacrifice? At the cost of constant imperial warfare and imperial rule?

No.

Same with some dream projects. No doubt taking a billion-dollar train to a trillion-dollar airport would be cool. But I’d rather spend my money in other ways. And is it really right to tax somebody else for my luxuriant transports?

No more than robbing Peter to pay Paul . . . even to build a cathedral.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Saab Stories

Saab Automobile appears to be going down. The Swedish automaker was abandoned by its beleaguered parent company, General Motors, prompting the Swedish managers to petition the Swedish government for a bailout. In 2009, the Scandinavian government said “No.” GM then sold Saab to a Dutch manufacturer, which hit a cash crunch in this year’s first quarter.

Lots of people with fond memories of the pre-GM Saab thought that the Dutch outfit had a great idea: Revive Saab by reintroducing a 1940s look, the famous Saab 92.

But the financing fell through, sending Saab begging, again, to the Swedish government, with promises of radical restructuring.

A western Swedish district court again ruled, “No.”

This is not good for the people of Trollhattan, where Saab’s main plants reside. They will be hard hit, as in any disaster.

What is interesting is that, though many folks of Trollhattan have repeated the old social democrat line about how they are “people” who somehow deserve their incomes and such, the government refused to go along with the old bailout model.

One could argue that the oft-idolized Swedish nationalization/capitalization/marketing solution was the model for America’s 2008 and 2009 bailouts. The method looks less popular, these days, in its home country.

We’re living in tough times, getting tougher. Still, at some point we’ve got to bite the bullet and resist trying to “fix” failed businesses by government.

Governments fail often enough, themselves, without moonlighting this extra job.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Golden State Standards

In their just completed session, California legislators expressed deep concern about transparency, democracy and good government.

Sen. Mark DeSaulnier authored Senate Bill 448 to mandate “a little transparency” in the initiative petition process. The legislation would have forced citizens paid to circulate petitions to wear a sign on their chests reading: “Paid Signature Gatherer.”

But Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill, stating, “I choose not to go down this slippery slope where the state decides what citizens must wear when petitioning their government.”

On the very last day of the session, Sen. Loni Hancock became concerned about democracy. “Low turnout elections do not represent the needs, priorities and desires of the larger electorate,” she decried.

So she stuffed new wording into one of her languishing bills, SB 202, to force all citizen initiatives to the November ballot. (Measures referred by legislators would, under SB 202, continue to go onto any ballot legislators desire.) In less than 24 hours, the bill was introduced, hearings were announced and held only minutes later, and the bill was rammed through both chambers.

Sen. Hancock pronounced this “good government.”

Legislators shouldn’t “gerrymander” which election citizen-initiated measures are voted upon for their own political purposes and those of their preferred special interests — in this case, public employee unions. Nor should new legislation be introduced and passed in a single day, without the public having time to communicate with their representatives.

That’s not transparency. It’s not democracy. And it’s not good government.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.