Tag: 2016 Presidential race

You Asked For It America!

And now you’re going to get it!

Click below for a high resolution version of the image:

A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful, please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, meme, Presidential campaign 2016

folly ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies too much government

That’s Entertainment

presidential, debates, candidates, three stooges, illustration

This presidential campaign has been very entertaining.

The three leading Republican candidates could give The Three Stooges a run for their money. Front-runner Donald Trump calls his opponents liars and chokers (or “chockers”) as often as Moe used to smash Curly and Larry in the face.

Slapstick has made a comeback.

Indeed, food fights attract a large TV audience, obviously giving many viewers what they want. And they no doubt produce windfall advertising profits for the television networks that host the debates.

This may be as close to creating economic growth as these politicians will ever come.

No surprise that the media is giddy at the mud-slinging, but why do the candidates go along? Nastiness apparently works.

At least in attracting media attention.

Mr. Trump has dominated the news cycles for months, cycling outrageous statements and cutting remarks, rinse and repeat. As Sen. Marco Rubio explained to those questioning his recent resort to dishing out invective, “I’m insulting Trump because it’s the only thing you [media] guys pay attention to.”

Even the debate rules actively encourage pugilism. By giving candidates additional time to speak when verbally assaulted by name, the ground rules are in place.

No wonder the mostly ignored Dr. Ben Carson interjected during the last debate, “Can somebody attack me, please?”

Neophyte Carson doesn’t understand that the game is tit-for-tat: to be attacked, attack first.

Sure, the critical issues facing our country — terrorism, war, debt, economic stagnation — get short shrift. But what a fun way to choose the next stooge to sit atop the dysfunction.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful, please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Presidential campaign 2016, Sen. Ted Cruz

Accountability folly government transparency moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility

Unfair Reform?

Donald Trump, Presidential, Social Security, illustration

I am sure we all think it would be great, other things being equal, to try to make many of life’s unfairnesses less … problematic. But most grown-ups understand (or used to) that “life isn’t fair” is a truism for a reason.

So when Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump criticized his competing GOP hopefuls for wanting to reform Social Security and other so-called “entitlements,” I was unimpressed.

“Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security,” Trump said last year, referencing Medicare and Medicaid as well. “And we can’t do that. And it’s not fair to the people that have been paying in for years and now all of the sudden they want to be cut.”

Not fair.

Well, yeah.

But the unfairness is not in fixing the system by raising retirement ages, etc. The real injustices lie in the past, with previous fixes and … “unfixes” — that put us in the fix we are currently in.

And not fixing it now will lead to further, more obvious “unfairness” in the future.

Trump is just avoiding responsibility. By not addressing the problem honestly, we do not make things or keep things fair. We make things worse.

Peter Suderman notes that Chris Christie’s endorsement of Trump, last week, puts the lie to the New Jersey governor’s much-ballyhooed seriousness about entitlement reform.

Well, yeah.

But no major politician wants to handle it. For the problem shows how deep the unfairness runs in the American system.

That would require real leadership.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful, please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Donald Trump, Presidential campaign 2016, Social Security

folly general freedom ideological culture meme moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies Popular

Bernie’s Slippery Definition of Democratic Socialism

Post author By CS Admin
Post date February 23, 2016
No Comments on Bernie’s Slippery Definition of Democratic Socialism

Bernie Sanders has always given a comically slippery definition of democratic socialism. For years he simply called himself a socialist, but given the dismal and bloody history of that word, he’s modified his label (and has repeatedly modified its definition).

Bernie:

Socialism has failed in the past because it’s been hijacked by ruthless dictators… but the socialism I want is “democratic,” so the people would be in control and not a dictator!

Skeptic:

But Bernie… every socialist regime has defined itself as a “people’s movement.” Even today, socialist dictators come to power through democratic means… Venezuela is a modern example.

Bernie:

But I mean countries like Denmark and Sweden! They’ve figured out how to make it work! That’s the kind of socialism I want!

Skeptic:

But Bernie… After several decades of economic decline, the Scandinavian countries have found it necessary to liberalize their economies… not make them more socialistic. Even the Prime Minister of Denmark says that his country is not socialist. He insists that Denmark is a market economy.

Bernie:

Well I don’t really mean Scandinavia. I mean something like FDR’s New Deal. Don’t you like Social Security and Medicare? Don’t you like government service?

Skeptic:

But Bernie, Social Security and Medicare are insolvent and teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Every government service I can think of is plagued with inefficiency and corruption. Our welfare system has a decades long history of trapping people in poverty. Why would you want more of that?

Bernie:

Well, What I really mean is Scandinavian democratic socialism! They’ve figured out how to make it all work!

Skeptic:

But Bernie…
and round and round and round…

Of course, his core socialist beliefs have remained pretty consistent: capitalism must be opposed, wealth must be redistributed and the state must have more power to enforce these goals.

But he can’t simply say that out loud… because genuine socialism has some very serious problems…

A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful, please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Merry-go-round photo by cbransto on Flickr

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Presidential campaign 2016, socialism

general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies too much government

Koch Feels the Bern?

Charles Koch, Bernie Sanders, Bern, socialism

“Hardly.” That was the response the CEO of Koch Industries gave to his own question, “Is Charles Koch feeling the Bern?”

Yet, in Mr. Koch’s Washington Post op-ed last week, the multi-billionaire did “applaud the senator for giving a voice to many Americans struggling to get ahead in a system too often stacked in favor of the haves.”

Though Sen. Bernie Sanders regularly bashes Charles and his fellow-billionaire brother, David, the Kochs are ahead of Sanders in decrying “the regulations, handouts, mandates, subsidies and other forms of largesse our elected officials dole out to the wealthy and well-connected.” As Charles explains, “Perversely, this regulatory burden falls hardest on small companies, innovators and the poor, while benefitting many large companies like ours.”

Koch cites the government’s unfair, wasteful and destructive ethanol mandate: “We oppose that mandate, even though we are the fifth-largest ethanol producer in the United States.”

That’s putting his mega-money where his mouth is.

Indeed, it is just one example of the Kochs doing the very opposite of what their critics charge them with: advocating “radical” or “reactionary” policies that serve their business interests.

Sanders’s regular, ritual demonizing of the Koch brothers ignores the reality of who the Kochs are.

Their real disagreement with Sanders is over how best to increase opportunity.

The Vermont senator believes the answer is more government programs, regulations and taxes. Charles Koch, on the other hand, sees those very policies as “what built so many barriers to opportunity in the first place.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Common Sense Needs Your Help!
If you enjoyed this article, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Bernie Sanders, Charles Koch, Presidential campaign 2016

crime and punishment general freedom moral hazard national politics & policies

Needless List?

Are Republican presidential candidates getting the NFL draft and the military draft confused?

Get drafted by the NFL and you’re a millionaire. Participation is voluntary. Get “chosen” by the Selective Service System for the military draft and you could wind up in combat. Participation is involuntary.

Last Sunday at Townhall, I wondered why Republican presidential candidates keep talking about registering young females for a future draft like they are bestowing some great benefit, as if women are clamoring for the equal chance to be conscripted.

Sen. Marco Rubio first agreed that draft registration should be expanded to women. He then elaborated, “I’m open to Selective Service being opened up to women that want to be a part of it.”

Wait a second … the current male-only draft registration isn’t optional. It’s mandatory — under the threat of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. This I know first-hand.

After Sen. Ted Cruz suggested Rubio and other presidential contenders were “nuts” to support forcing women to register, Rubio tried to explain on Fox News Sunday: “What I’ve never said and I don’t support is that we are going to draft women and force them into combat roles. That’s absurd.”

The senator volunteered that he did not “believe anyone ever will” be drafted, because “that’s not the nature of modern warfare.”

“I’m actually in favor of a volunteer armed forces,” he told host Chris Wallace. “I’m not even sure we need Selective Service anymore.”

Calling it “just a registry of names for a draft that’s never going to happen,” Rubio added, “I don’t know why we still have Selective Service.”

Me neither.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, draft, draft registration, Marco Rubio, Presidential campaign 2016, selective service

national politics & policies political challengers

Trump Card Trumped

Trump, popularity, polls, president, 2016, illustration

According to poll after poll, Donald Trump is winning. He’s a winner.

… of a plurality, anyway.

Admittedly, he lost the Iowa caucuses to Sen. Ted Cruz. But he rebounded with a sizeable plurality victory in New Hampshire. Now Trump leads in South Carolina polls.

Among Republican primary voters, that is.

It is a different story in the public and private polls I’ve seen, ones surveying the entire electorate — Republicans, Democrats and independents. Consider the new poll of swing-state Virginia voters by the Judy Ford Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University.

Again, Trump garners a plurality of Old Dominion Republicans, leading next closest contender, Sen. Marco Rubio, 28 to 22 percent. On the other hand, among the entire voting population, a disquieting 64 percent — nearly two out of three voters — view The Donald unfavorably.

Put another way, Trump’s winning in un-favorability. Only Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are seen anywhere near as negatively, at 58 and 59 percent, respectively.

Can Trump turn that around? Not likely. Folks already know him. He has the highest name recognition of any candidate — higher than Hillary Clinton.

“Almost all the voters have an opinion about Donald Trump,” explained the Wason Center’s Dr. Quentin Kidd, “and twice as many see him in an unfavorable light as view him favorably.”

Trump starts at a “disadvantage,” according to Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight, because “Most Americans just really don’t like the guy.”

To appoint future Supreme Court justices, one must win the General Election with all the people voting, not merely the GOP nomination.

According to poll after poll, that candidate is not Donald Trump.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Donald Trump, Presidential campaign 2016

Accountability ideological culture national politics & policies

Tainted Money?

Bernie Sanders, PAC, hypocrisy, donations, illustration

Bernie Sanders’s supporters take great pride in the “fact” that their candidate doesn’t take money from corporate interests. He himself has said he doesn’t want PAC money. But he has not been returning the checks from unions.

The National Nurses United, a seven-year-old union, has been the biggest donor. According to the New York Times, “The union’s ‘super PAC’ has spent close to $1 million on ads and other support for Mr. Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who has inspired liberal voters with his calls to eradicate such outside groups.”

The Sanders crusade has, in fact, benefited from “more super PAC money … than for either of his Democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton.…”

You will forgive me my growing guffaw.

“I do appreciate the irony,” the union’s executive director told the Times. “All things being equal, we would rather not be doing this. On the other hand, we want to see Bernie as president.”

Bernie doesn’t see the irony, and denies a contradiction. He wants to overturn the Citizens United decision. If that decision allows unions to launder money and soak his cause with it, well, fine. At least he’s not getting his hands dirty like Hillary, who really knows how to milk corporate groups. Bernie benefits from “spontaneous” PAC support.

It is worth remembering that this PAC method, after all, is little more than a consequence of post-Nixon Era limits on individual campaign contributions. It’s a work-around.

Overturn Citizens United and other work-arounds will be found.

Meanwhile, Sanders and his followers will continue to live by a double standard: your money, bad; our money, good.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Bernie Sanders, Presidential campaign 2016

Accountability general freedom ideological culture moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies

Establishment, Always Establishment

Post author By CS Admin
Post date February 10, 2016
2 Comments on Establishment, Always Establishment

Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, primary, election, Common Sense

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders winning in New Hampshire is as good an indicator as any that Americans — or at least Live Free or Die staters — are tired of the bipartisan Establishment. Victories for a billionaire iconoclast and a self-designated socialist.

Both are “players” in their distinct ways: the former a publicity-minded entrepreneur who boasts of having been a briber of politicians, the latter as a long-term senator with a consistently pro-government-growth voting record.

But both are plausibly outsiders, too. Trump speaks off the cuff and in an entertainingly anti-PC manner, and Sanders proclaims a love of government so strong that he willingly embraces a label with a very negative record throughout the last century.

Indeed, Trump’s many words and Sanders’s One Word serve to negate these two candidates’ “establishment feel.”

But if elected, would either rock the Establishment boat?

Based on his voting record, Sanders is liable to continue the bipartisan “War, Always War” strategy abroad, along with the same domestic policy of “Spend, Always Overspend.”

That is Establishment.

Trump is less of a warmonger than Sanders, oddly enough: The Donald has criticized the Iraq War, argued that Russia should take care of its nearby Syria problem, and offered that China should worry about North Korea … in other words, he can conceive of foreign areas being outside of American purview.

But Trump is as protectionist as Sanders, and loves taking property from private individuals (with “just compensation”) and giving it to developers … like himself. You cannot get more Establishment than that.

Still, New Hampshire voters know something, and that something is undoubtedly that something must change.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Presidential campaign 2016

ideological culture national politics & policies

War on Young Women

Madeleine Albright, Gloria Steinem, HIllary Clinton, girls, women, voters, Common Sense, illustration

According to a weekend CNN-WMUR poll in New Hampshire, Sen. Bernie Sanders leads former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by eight percentage points.

Among women.

“Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the country’s first female president has encountered an unexpected problem,” begins a Washington Post report on Hillary’s “trouble persuading women, young and old, to rally behind her cause.”

Younger women seem to pose the biggest “problem.” The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC/Marist College poll of New Hampshire Democrats found Mrs. Clinton nine points ahead of Sen. Sanders among women 45 and over. But Sanders bests Clinton by a remarkable 29 percentage points with women under 45 years of age.

Not to worry, the faces of establishment feminism have been mobilized. Madeleine Albright, appointed to be the first woman Secretary of State in 1997 by then-Pres. Bill Clinton, stood at a Granite State rally with Hillary to shout, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

Persuasive?

On his HBO show, comedian Bill Maher asked feminist icon Gloria Steinem to explain why younger women “really don’t like Hillary.” Ms. Steinem postulated, “When you’re young, you’re thinking: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’”

In her subsequent Facebook “apology,” Steinem claimed she “misspoke” and had “been misinterpreted as implying young women aren’t serious in their politics.”

Imagine that.

Dana Edell, the leader of an “anti-racist gender justice advocacy group,” offers a less controversial explanation. “While the historic aspect of the first woman president is hugely powerful and important,” she told the Old Gray Lady, Hillary Clinton “might not be the right first woman.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF