Tag: barack obama

Categories
insider corruption

Moonlighting as President?

The presidency of the United States isn’t easy.  So, what does it say when a president takes a second job?

Our federal union’s chief executive, Barack Obama, has gone and done just that: He now serves as public relations flak for the city of Chicago. The Windy City wants to host the 2016 Summer Olympics, so he flew off to Copenhagen to lobby the International Olympic Committee.

Now, I wasn’t rooting for Chicago to get the Olympics. I have friends there, folks I’d rather not see fleeced with higher taxes to pay for it — nor forced to suffer the many inconveniences of such an event.

But here’s my real problem with Obama’s moonlighting: It shows that his priorities are way out of whack. Why is he being side-​tracked with something so insignificant as where an athletic event will be held?

Oh, we’ve been told he can zoom there and back on Air Force One in no time, not to worry. But don’t be fooled. Time and focus on this Olympic bid business costs both Obama and his staff. Cost is opportunity foregone. The executive branch has enough to do without adding on the Olympics.

Could it be that Obama shares that ol’ special-​interest class obsession with using a public position for the benefit of one’s own — as well as one’s buddies’ — private interests?

Next thing he’ll be running GM in his spare time.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability government transparency

Transparently Faster

If a promise is important, clear, specific — and keeping it would be honorable — well then, it’s bad to break it.

Alas, political candidates make and break such promises all the time. They make the promises to get votes, then break them from political expediency.

Usually, politicians don’t admit this. Usually, if they note the lapse at all, they plead some fictitious but awesome and unexpected impediment.

So, for example, candidate Obama’s promise that final legislation going to the president’s desk would be accessible online in every detail for a full five days before he signed it — well, that quickly went by the wayside. So has the idea of tracking every particular of so-​called “stimulus” spending. Technical difficulties, they say.

Who knew the web-​savvy Obama campaign would have so much trouble with “the Internets thing” once they got into power?

For some reason, however, a private company — unburdened by the rush to sign us all into permanent debt bondage — is doing much better when it comes to reporting the runaway spending. The Washington Times tells us that a firm called Onvia is tracking federal expenditures “down to the local level … in real-​time speed.” Onvia has free software that people can use to follow the dollars.

Sounds like time for a little outsourcing.

Oh, wait, I forgot. The Obama administration is opposed to outsourcing.

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.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Bailing Out of the Bailout

Freedom lovers would like to bail out of Washington’s endless bailout … that is, the government takeover of the economy.

The big spenders often won’t even debate the matter. Radio talker Rush Limbaugh is catching flak for saying he doesn’t want President Obama’s scheme to “work,” which sounds goofy until you realize that many of Limbaugh’s critics, including the White House, carefully ignore Limbaugh’s point. Economic upturn, great. Permanent loss of our freedom and permanent expansion of government, not great.

GOP congressmen aren’t exactly the most credible messengers when it comes to opposing massive new spending and intervention in the economy. But I’d rather see them repent and fight than repent and slink away in embarrassment.

Some Republican congressman are indeed fighting the good fight. And some of the nation’s GOP governors are too. Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal just turned down $100 million in bailout funds that he argues would result in permanently higher taxes for Louisiana businesses.

In a message distributed by Townhall, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford notes that the trillion or more dollars “in so-​called ‘stimulus’ money … is really little more than a social policy wish  list of the Left.”

We live in dangerous and interesting times. The only wish list worth pushing, now, is establishing the economic ground rules — and Constitutional principles — that should have been guiding us all along.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets too much government

Able to Raise Keynes

Recently on This American Life, economists told NPR listeners how the then-​upcoming stimulus bill would amount to the very first legitimate and full test ever of Keynesian ideas.

Sure, politicians have been using John Maynard Keynes’s notions as an excuse to deficit spend ever since the Great Depression. But then, Lord Keynes had wanted politicians to spend even more, more than they dared.

Now, President Obama and our Democratic Congress have decided to spend enough billions, or trillions, to really do the trick.

Switch to Larry King’s latest interview with Bill Clinton. Our former prez assured us that the stimulus bill “would do what it is supposed to,” and he mentioned three things, only one of them vaguely about stimulus. He said the bill was better seen as a “bridge over troubled waters.” 

Clinton said the real issue was declining asset values, which Congress would address later.

At Mises​.org, Stephan Kinsella asked how this could amount to Keynesianism. Clinton used a different lingo entirely. 

Here’s how: It’s not that the bill will give us Keynesian stimulus. It’s that it has stimulated politicians in the old, old Keynesian way. 

Congressional Democrats know that the stimulus won’t work. So they are preparing the spin now. From them we heard the official excuse for the bill. From Clinton, the future excuse. 

Politicians know zip about the economy. They just know how to spend our money. And our great, great, great grandchildren’s.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
U.S. Constitution

Hold Your Applause

Here’s a quiz. “[A] populist pep rally that’s constantly interrupted by applause.” This statement refers to

A. The shameful quadrennial nominating conventions of the Democratic and Republican Parties.
B. The constitutionally mandated State of the Union Address.
C. The Oscars.

It could be any of the three. There’s too much clapping in our society, not enough listening. This goes for your local PTA meeting as well as the annual presentation of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

But Gene Healy of the Cato Institute was talking about the State of the Union speeches. “In our constitutional system,” he recently explained in a Cato Weekly Video, “Congress is supposed to be the lead dog and the dominant branch. And they really shouldn’t be jumping up out of their seats to clap at every outsized promise like they’re members of the Supreme Soviet cheering a new grain quota.”

Healy says that next year, when Obama must offer up the annual State of the Union, he should begin the speech by saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please hold your applause till the end.”

I say, go further. Do like Thomas Jefferson did: Write up the report and send it to Congress. A public speech is not required.

And if Barack Obama cannot stand giving up the chance to use his golden voice and silver tongue, then deliver the speech as a podcast, for Congress to watch on their iPods.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.