Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Give Me Fever

Today, the U.S. Conference of Mayors premiers its new video, “Recall Fever: Stop the Madness,” at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The video is part of a “public awareness initiative” to convince folks that recalling their mayor is “destructive” and “costly.”

“This archaic rule,” said U.S. Conference of Mayors chief executive Tom Cochran recently, “is being put to sinister use.”

But just how sinister was it when 69 percent of Ogden, Kansas, voters recalled their mayor last year? What would you do were you to discover, after the election, that your mayor had served more than a decade in neighboring state prisons for burglary, aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter?

The 88 percent of Miami/Dade, Florida, voters who unseated their mayor last month don’t seem sinister, either — his self-dealing and cronyism, on the other hand, surely qualify.

Though the anti-recall event doesn’t feature any mayor who has actually been removed from office through recall, more sensible testimony can be found from the ranks of the ousted: Carmen Kontur-Gronquist of Arlington, Oregon. After online pictures of her posing scantily clad on a city fire truck created a firestorm, voters recalled her by a mere three-vote margin. Still, her reaction was philosophic: “[T]he democratic process took place, and that is a good process that we have in the United States, and it’s fair.”

Maybe Cochran and his cabal of mayors should keep their shirts on . . . so to speak.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture media and media people

How the Worm Turns

Some folks wait till the last moment to decide how to vote. And when indifference was the mental state right before the decision, we can’t help but wonder what moved the person from indecision to selection. A coin toss?

Or something more insidious?

This kind of worry lies behind a mini-controversy over a CNN News feature. For the 2008 presidential campaign CNN gathered 32 undecided voters and gave them knobs to turn as they listened to candidates’ speeches. Turn the knob one way for approval, the opposite for disapproval. A computer averaged out the responses, and graphed them in real time underneath the TV image of the candidate speaking.

Such graphic elements of newscasts have been called “worms.”

Psychologists have studied this sort of thing, and suspect that the mere presentation of this average approval rating amounts to “spin.”

And, as such, constitutes undue influence of a small group, perhaps easily manipulable, over a large group of voters.

British psychologists studying CNN-like worms say they accumulated data of measurable signs of influence. “The responses of a small group of individuals could, via the worm, influence millions of voters,” the scientists write. They also declare this effect “not conducive to a healthy democracy.”

Yes, yes, but “peer pressure” has been a known element of democracy for some time.

Only the worms are new.

And, in their context, they provide more information. As with speech we may not like, more and different worm varieties (on different networks, perhaps) is undoubtedly the best response.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

Blame for the Shutdown

A fascinating short account of what a “government shutdown” means, courtesy of the BBC, wraps up in an odd way: “If the U.S. government shuts down after 8 April, it will mostly be because Republicans believe that the government is too costly and inefficient.”

Really?

It’s not because Congress can’t balance budgets? It’s not because last year’s Democratic-controlled Congress couldn’t even cook up an unbalanced budget, instead relying on a series of makeshift “continuing resolutions”?

Why blame Republicans’ general view of government services, and not the political process described at the beginning of the report?

Well, the BBC’s Katie Connolly was stretching the truth so to get to a series of “ironies.” Government shutdowns are expensive, she writes. Inefficient.

Sure, sure. But if the government does indeed shut down because of a budget impasse, I don’t see that the “irony” of a shutdown accrues as blame only to Republicans.

Indeed, it seems a bit like flailing around, looking for usual suspects — not real culprits.

But if you want a reach. . . .

Politicians often pay homage to John Maynard Keynes to excuse their spending far over revenue. Stimulus and all that. Keynesianism: Politicians love it, because they love to over-spend.

But Keynes also said that governments should run at surplus during good times. Somehow the Rs and Ds in Washington never bring that up.

So blame the Ks.

The Keynesians allowed the misuse of their master’s nostrums, which put us where we are today.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies responsibility too much government

The Trademark of Irresponsible Politicians

Who doesn’t agree with President Obama? “We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don’t have consequences,” he said when introducing his budget in February.

But who believes he’s serious? He went on to say that we must not treat “the hard-earned tax money of the American people . . . like Monopoly money.” Yet, by spending at hyper-deficit levels and offering no reasonable plan to balance the budget, he demonstrates a preference to play Monopoly™, not Responsibility®.

Now, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has a plan. He spelled it out Tuesday, giving it a hopeful moniker, “The Path to Prosperity.”

“Prosperity’s Around the Corner” was already taken in the noösphere.

The most salient feature of the plan, though, is that it designed to take its own sweet time. The budget wouldn’t balance next year. Or the year after. Or even in five, like Sen. Rand Paul’s much better plan.

Besides, today’s Congress can’t control itself must less control future Congresses. That’s the trouble with all these procrastinating plans.

Remember, even Rand Paul thinks his plan takes too long and doesn’t go far enough.

Of course, Obama dislikes Ryan’s plan. The new White House press secretary offers, “The President believes there is a more balanced way to put America on a path to prosperity.”

But he won’t share it with us. Obama and congressional Democrats are playing the oldest game in the book: All talk but no responsibility.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary property rights

Pest Control for Pesky Evidence

Should courts be outlawed from thwarting outlaws?

The Environmental Protection Agency has acted to unilaterally ban a pesticide in use for decades. Writing for the Cato Institute’s blog, Ilya Shapiro notes that the agency’s move exemplifies “a growing trend among federal agencies and courts to incrementally expand the government’s enforcement power by adopting statutory interpretations that go beyond their plain meaning and intent.”

The pesticide is carbofuran, used to protect crops since 1969. What is the evidence that carbofuran poses a hitherto un-comprehended threat to human well-being? Federal law requires EPA to provide for a “notice and comment” period before altering an established legal threshold for pesticide residues on food. If “material issues of fact” are then raised, the agency must conduct a public evidentiary hearing. National Corn Growers indeed raised “material issues of fact” regarding the alleged hazards of carbofuran. So an evidentiary hearing is mandatory.

The DC Circuit ruled, however, that scientific disagreements are insufficient to trigger judicial review and that decisions about new residue tolerances should be left entirely to the EPA. If upheld, the decision means the agency could determine all by itself whether its regulatory actions are consistent with law. Even when they obviously aren’t.

Along with the National Corn Growers and other industry groups, the Cato Institute and Pacific Legal Foundation are challenging this latest assault on property rights and the rule of law — an assault you might even call a pestilence.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture individual achievement local leaders

Your Just Rewards

Political systems work best when good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior punished.

Unfortunately, the level of punishment demanded by today’s politicians too often outpaces our ability to deliver sound thwackings. But thanks to the Sam Adams Alliance, at least good behavior gets its rewards.

Since 2007, the Chicago-based group has promoted grassroots citizen action through their annual awards program, the Sammies, which include an impressive $60,000 in cash prizes.

John Stossel will be a special guest at the awards dinner this Friday, April 8th, in The Great Hall of Chicago’s Union Station. Stossel, who hosted 20/20 on ABC and now hosts “Stossel” on Fox Business, has captured 19 Emmys. Yet, he’s never won a Sammie, “an award,” he says, “that matters”

The Sammies go to people doing the most important political work of all, and not often recognized for it. As Stossel puts it, “The Sammies celebrates citizen leaders, who take extraordinary steps to advance our freedom.”

Awards are given for Rookie of the Year ($10,000), Messenger, ($10,000), Reformer ($10,000), Watchdog ($10,000), Public’s Servant (no cash prize because it goes to a public official), and Modern Day Sam Adams ($20,000).

I’ve been honored to present an award and also to receive one. I’m excited to attend this year’s ceremony. If you attend, find time to introduce yourself — and, more important, think of projects in your town or region that might earn you an award next year. While saving America.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom

T-shirt Freedom

Electioneering laws that prohibit campaigning at or near polling sites are a bit peculiar. Generally, you’ve got a right to peacefully campaign for your candidate, or party, or reform, so long as you don’t obstruct lawful traffic. But, on the other hand, one doesn’t want to have to run through a gauntlet of mad campaigning activity on the way to vote, even if one technically can navigate a path.

Electioneering law prohibits free speech and association in the cause of assuring access to the ballot box.

But what constitutes “electioneering”?

In the January issue of Reason, Brian Doherty told the story of Tea Party activist Diane Wickberg. She had gone to the polls wearing a “We The People” t-shirt, emblazoning the words “Flagstaff Tea Party — Reclaiming Our Constitution Now.” She got to vote, the poll workers said, only because she was the only voter on the premises. “Coconino County Recorder Candace Owens later warned her that she would not be allowed to vote at a polling station in the county again if she wore the shirt,” Doherty reported.

Wickberg donned the shirt, again, for her next trip to the polls, and was told to cover up, and was scolded never to wear it to any future poll trip. She sued.

And won.

The county has agreed to implement objective standards, re-train their poll workers, and prohibit t-shirts only if they pitch for a particular candidate, party, or specific issue on the ballot.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ballot access initiative, referendum, and recall

Pols Pack It In

At long last, it’s over.

Citizens have won. Our rights to initiative and referendum are now immutably safe and secure, forevermore, from disingenuous assault by the powers that be.

All power-lusting, citizen-mocking career politicians everywhere have in unanimous concord acceded to the democratic virtue of the citizen initiative process. The binding promissory compacts have been signed, wax-sealed, stamped, and bar-coded by all pertinent parties.

As of today, this first day of April, 2011, every obstructionist politico throughout the land has agreed in solemn ecumenical council to desist said class’s hitherto drearily unrelenting efforts to hamstring, handcuff, harry and harass anyone who’d dare try posting ballot questions on important political issues. (We’ve got the proof on video!)

Yep. No more will politicians multiply the arbitrary requirements to foil their attempts to opacify government transparency, as they tried in Utah.

No more will politicians force every petition circulator to wear privacy-violating ID badges, as they were eager to do in Nebraska.

No more will politicians clog the initiative process with fictitious accusations of wrongdoing, their M.O. in Colorado.

No more will . . .

Continue reading “Pols Pack It In”

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

America’s Dirty Nuclear Secret

Before Cherynobl, we could sort of dismiss nuclear power’s danger. Afterwards, we could still say “Well, that’s the Soviets, for you.”

Now, with the ongoing Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster, the extent of what can go wrong is becoming horrifically clear, especially now that it looks like merely gaining control of the worst-off reactor could take months, not days.

It rightly makes us worry about the whole industry.

It’s a pity, too, because nuclear power concentrates its costs (spent fuel in containers) while providing enormous marketable benefits. Burning coal, on the other hand, disperses its “costs” in the form of pollution. Nuclear power would seem to be a perfect market solution.

But a “meltdown” — or just losing control of a fission process — concentrates harms in a manner hard to ignore or justify.

We hear that new nuclear tech is in development, and might become quite safe. But the promised extra-safe variety is not yet online anywhere, yet.

Why?

Could it be because government protects the currently unsafe technology? America’s nuclear power is protected from the rigors of risk as assessed by the cold, calculating insurance industry under 1957’s Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which shifts risk from investors to taxpayers in case of catastrophe.

Perhaps if that were repealed, better nuclear tech would emerge faster.

As it is, our old nuclear tech awaits a rare convergence of disastrous factors, like a major earthquake plus human error, or terrorism plus x.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

One Industry’s Boom Time

The current economic slump lumbers along, but one industry is booming: Health-care lobbying.

Over 180 groups have registered to help shape the new health care law, prompting CNNMoney to explain that “President Obama’s drive for health care reform has been a years-long boon for lobbyists”:

Over 2009 and 2010, $1.06 billion was spent on lobbying, with more than $500 million spent on lobbying the issue in each year. . . . In addition, lobbyists for 1,251 organizations disclosed that they worked on health care reform in 2009 and 2010. . . . The number of individual lobbyists who reported working on health related legislation last year hit 3,154. . . .

Bad or good?

Well, it’s to be expected. The more the federal government involves itself in any domain of life, the more reactions to expect from those engaged in that domain. And it’s not just big business petitioning government for favors or forbearance or simply an ongoing “in.” Unions and associations and non-profits are onboard, too. After all, a simple line or even a word in a law can make or break a concern.

Besides, if our legislators insist on regulating every aspect of life, they’ll need all the help they can get. But since that “help” inevitably emanates from ever larger legions of back-slapping lobbyists huddling with glad-handing politicians, it’d be better if Congress left well enough alone.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.