Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom

People Power

How many people does it take to run a civilization?

Lots.

And the more things you are doing — the more productive and wealthier you want your civilization to be — the more people it can use.

It’s people who do things. Without people, the things won’t get done. People aren’t the problem, they’re the solution.

But the non-problem of “too many” people bothers Jonathan Porritt, a “green” advisor to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Porritt says if Britain is to feed its population “sustainably,” her population will have to be reduced to 30 million. Britain’s current population is about 61 million, twice that. So . . . do we have 31 million volunteers?

Porritt says “Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure.” That terrible pressure of making it easier and easier to survive.

Industrialized, capitalistic countries are often slammed for consuming a disproportionate share of the world’s economic output.

Less often mentioned is that these countries also produce the lion’s share of the output. They can do so to the extent that people with brains and initiative are free to function. Free to work, keep what they earn, benefit from planning ahead. Let people be free, and they’ll feed themselves fine. They will expand resources.

You want to “sustain” economic development, Mr. Government Official? Get out of the way.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights too much government

Controlling the Message

In Portland, Oregon, the difference between Constitutional takings and just plain theft by government can be seen in bright neon.

The “Made In Oregon” sign on what used to be called the Bickel Building, on Burnside Street, is something of a landmark. It’s huge. It used to say “White Stag Sportswear.” It still features a white stag atop the sign. To much hullabaloo, every Christmas season the white stag’s nose gets lit, red.

Over the years, the sign’s ownership has changed. Now there are political rumblings to condemn the sign and make it public property, so to “control its message.” That’s city councilor Randy Leonard’s notion. Mayor Sam Adams (certainly not my favorite Sam Adams) and Commissioner Nick Fish have batted around the idea to buy the sign.

Jeff Alan, of the Cascade Policy Institute, makes the obvious point: If the city has a half million dollars to buy the sign, why not spend that money on real needs — like road repair or something — rather than on a neon sign?

How different were things back in 1925, when a portion of the Bickel Building, upon which the sign stands, was condemned to make room for the Burnside Bridge.

That displayed a commonsensical notion of public use.

Buying — or, worse, forcing the sale of — a sign to signal an official message? That’s Orwellian . . . if it even makes that much sense.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability

Expect the Unexpected?

If we expect things to be exactly the opposite of what we expect, would we still be surprised by the unexpected? Or surprised by the expected?

You tell me.

There exist laws about how employers must treat their employees. Employers are required to offer equal opportunity. To make certain this happens, the federal government has established and funded an agency called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. So what employer do you think was just found guilty of willfully violating the Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis?

Yup, it’s the EEOC. The federal agency charged with protecting worker rights has been systematically violating the rights of its own workers.

We often hear calls for tougher regulation, but the problem here is regulators who can’t seem to follow their own regulations.

Here’s another bizarre case of the unexpected. The Virginia branch of PETA — that is, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals — just filed a report about their animal shelters.

My kids have donated to no-kill shelters because they don’t like the idea of killing stray pets that don’t quickly find homes.

Well, don’t tell my kids, but PETA reports that under its “ethical treatment” 95 percent of the dogs and cats they “rescued,” were then killed.

As always, don’t listen to what folks say; watch what they do.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption

Here’s a Fact for You

However brutal or irresponsible Roman emperor Nero may have been, he didn’t literally fiddle while Rome burned. The violin hadn’t been invented yet.

Our modern rulers, on the other hand, know the metaphorical instrument’s arpeggios and double-stops, fiddling with taxpayer dollars as our economy sputters and smolders.

Washington Post columnist Al Kamen passed along the news of nothing unusual, just another so-called fact-finding junket undertaken by intrepid congressfolk. Says Kamen, “Spring break is upon us. That means the skies will darken for two weeks with military jets winging our lawmakers and their spouses to faraway places in search of elusive facts.”

Representatives Ed Pastor, James Clyburn, Maurice Hinchey, John Salazar, Tim Ryan, and Rodney Alexander are winging their way south, to a check list of fascinating tourist spots, plus perhaps a Brazilian state dinner or two. Facts, facts, facts — at Copacabana Beach, Corcovado mountain, the beautiful Iguazu Falls, then on to Salvador.

You could probably pick up a lot of facts about these places from Wikipedia and YouTube. But hey — nothing like being there.

Mostly Democrats in this particular gang, but using taxpayer and lobbyist dollars to fund exotic jaunts to far-flung sumptuous locales is a bipartisan tradition.

The full cost is trivial.

This year? Not even a trillion dollars.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability insider corruption

Why Pay Your Taxes?

Why pay your taxes? I mean, why pay your taxes until you’ve been chosen for President Obama’s cabinet?

Most folks pay with little or no threat of having to serve on Obama’s brain trust.

I pay because my wife tells me to and she agrees to fill out the forms. Some folks pay because they like all or much of what government does. Others may hate the waste, folly, or unconstitutional criminality of the bulk of government spending, but pay taxes out of a sense of duty.

Or fear.

But what of those politicians who constantly put forth the importance — the glorious nobility — of granting government an ever-larger role? Why would they fail to pay their taxes to support that government?

The latest is the current nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. She owes $7,000 in back taxes, which now that she’s in line to be a cabinet secretary, she’s taking care of.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel hasn’t paid his tax bill. Sebelius’s predecessor, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination because of, yes, tax problems. And who can forget Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner? He paid up after he was nominated. But of course, he was “too big to fail.”

Maybe it’s how our leaders see the division of labor: We pay, they spend.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
education and schooling

History, Economics, Pizza

The recession deepens and budgets tighten.

This isn’t news to citizens of Pocatello, Idaho. Students, teachers and administrators of the school district sure feel it. Cuts in state aid are leading to a $10 million shortfall. Citizens voted down a tax increase.

So every light switch has a warning next to it, to save electricity.

More interesting is history and economics teacher Jeb Harrison’s response. He went out shopping for a sponsor, and nearby Molto Caldo Pizzeria agreed to supply Harrison’s class with 10,000 sheets of paper.

Charity?

Community spirit?

No. Advertising.

Every sheet has the imprint of Molto Caldo Pizzeria. For a mere $315 the pizza joint places its name in front of a most promising clientele. With every test, pop quiz, worksheet, and info sheet on the Great Depression, students see the tasteful ad for what I hope is tasty pizza.

Though a schoolboard member gave kudos to Harrison for “creativity,” there are critics. One news report quotes Susan Linn, a Harvard psychologist, saying that this “crosses a line.”

OK . . . but, just maybe, instead, this sort of classroom advertising should increase. Students in public schools could bring home their report cards printed on on paper with ads from competing private schools.

“Learn more, better, faster — at Joe’s Education Emporium.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

Veteran Politicians vs. Veterans

Back in 2005 I testified in the Florida legislature against an attempt to weaken the state’s term limits. Ignoring my testimony, legislators put their anti-limits amendment on the ballot. But as the election approached, they got scared. So scared, in fact, that they went so far as to pull their anti-term limits amendment off the ballot.

Now, four years later, there’s a proposed constitutional amendment to extend the state’s property tax discount for disabled veterans to those veterans who live in Florida now, but were not Florida residents when they entered the military. This popular idea is likely to win legislative approval to be on the ballot.

Well, at least, it was likely . . . until Senator Mike Bennett tacked on an amendment. Bennett wants to weaken Florida’s “eight is enough” term limits law by giving legislators twelves years. He sees latching it to the popular veterans’ measure as the best way to do that.

Notice that when Florida citizens propose constitutional amendments they can only address one subject, no pairing a popular issue with an unrelated unpopular one.

House Majority Leader Adam Hasner called the measure “disrespectful to those men and women who have served our country and are disabled veterans.”

It is also disrespectful to the 77 percent of Floridians who voted for eight-year term limits and want to keep them.

Floridians cherish military veterans.

Veteran politicians? Not so much.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Special Interests of the World Unite

Wish there were an issue that would engender bipartisan co-operation from our legislators? An idea that could bring together special interests of all stripes — from the teachers’ unions to the Chamber of Commerce?

There is: Taking away your initiative rights.

Last week, I was at the Missouri capitol testifying against several bills that would create restrictions for initiative petitions, many identical to those struck down all across the country as unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment.

Show-Me state legislators also came up with something new: A bill to actually prohibit citizens from gathering signatures on more than one petition at a time.

Very convenient. It just so happens that a campaign to stop the state’s rampant eminent domain abuse requires two constitutional changes, thus two petitions.

As a representative for the state’s League of Women Voters put it, they just want to place a few more hurdles in the way of the people. She was joined by many other big capitol lobbies, united by their desire to block the citizens from playing any role in policy.

Fortunately, a number of regular folks, representatives from several grassroots groups, as well as the state’s ACLU attended, urging their representatives to do the unusual — actually represent the people.

Special interests hate the voter initiative process. They know what we know: If there is to be reform, it has to come from the people directly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability too much government

Deep, Deep Waters

Are you surprised? I’m not surprised.

Turns out Congresswoman Maxine Waters had “family financial ties” to a bank for which she personally helped solicit bailout money. Without regard to its relative need or value to the economy.

Shocker.

Trillions in stimulus money, bailout money. And we expect politicians will allocate it according to some impersonal calculus that has nothing to do with who their chums are?

Nor can we expect the politicians and bureaucrats to sit back and let the market, or what’s left of it, function unhampered once bailout money has been forked over.

Many banks seemed to think they would simply be allowed to spend the subsidies according to their own judgment about how best to promote the health of their enterprises. But once the bailouts failed to work the instant magic they were supposed to, politicians began attaching strings. So that voters angry about the bailouts could see that there’s “accountability.”

It’s not just about trimming fat executive bonuses. The banks are also supposed to obey orders to cancel employee training, reduce dividends to shareholders, stop hiring employees from overseas, etc. This is about social engineering, not economic efficiency.

So, many banks now say they’ll give the money back. Good idea; great idea. But it would really surprise me if it found its way all the way back to taxpayers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
tax policy

Taxing Charity

The federal government allows people to give money to non-profit organizations and then deduct the money they give from their taxable income. If you donate to a hospital, a homeless shelter, the Salvation Army or an educational foundation, you don’t have to pay federal income tax on that money.

But President Barack Obama wants to change that longstanding provision, at least for higher income taxpayers — you know those newly suspicious folks who make $250,000 or more a year. These “wealthy people” wouldn’t get to fully deduct their charitable contributions.

Obama insists this won’t matter to donors or to the charities they support. Regarding the hurt this might put on charities, who have already been hit by the economic downturn — and I quote — “It’s not going to cripple them.”

Gee, thanks for not absolutely “crippling” charities.

Studies suggest charitable donations could fall by 5 percent, however. That’s almost $4 billion that won’t go to feed the poor, help the sick, educate people or provide legal defense for citizens fighting for their rights.

As times get tough, now seems a bizarre time to undercut charitable giving. Instead of removing some tax-deductibility from wealthier Americans, we ought to give extra deductibility to everyone.

Isn’t the goal to maximize help for those in need?

Don’t tell me it’s to maximize government’s role, to the exclusion of private charity.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.