Tag: barack obama

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies

Greater Eloquence

Last week, two major speeches caught our attention.

Barack Obama wagged his finger at the Supreme Court and orated in front of Congress. He said the state of the union is sound.

Apple’s Steve Jobs gave the other big speech, presenting the new iPad, a portable device that accesses the Web, allows users niftily to buy and read e-books, and much more.

Which speech will usher in real change?

Both have their critics. Many people no longer trust Obama, whether he’s pushing more government or a freeze. And many folks second-guess Apple’s newest project, despite Jobs’s spectacular success record.

For my part, I don’t buy Obama’s agenda. But I probably won’t buy an iPad, either. I tend to regard even the best new tech breakthroughs as just more vacuum cleaners. They really do suck . . . one’s time, anyway.

But to succeed, Apple doesn’t need my excitement. Just enough from others.

Early in each of Apple’s revolutions, it was hard to prophesy success, with certainty.

The neat thing about a possible neo-Gutenberg Age of tablets, e-books and virtual libraries is that I will still be able to read a normal book. One the other hand, if Obama gets his way, his policies will, willy nilly, crowd out better ones.

Still, it’s heartening to realize that to most of us the eloquence of a revolutionary thing means more, now, than the eloquence of any politician.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency

Grading the President

Barack Obama promised a new era of government transparency. He even pledged a fully transparent congressional debate on health care reform, telling us repeatedly that the negotiations would be televised on C-Span.

Now in power, he’s forgotten that tune. But of course, that’s not up to him. It’s up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Last week, she laughed at such transparency.

But Clint Hendler of the Columbia Journalism Review has graded the president for what he — not Pelosi or Reid — can deliver on transparency. Regarding state secrets, Hendler gives Obama a “D.” With Freedom of Information Act requests the administration has done better: Mark it a “B.”

I’ve talked before about problems with the recovery.gov website. But what about data.gov? By the end of the month there should be some meat on that site’s database bones, but a lot more work will remain. Call it a “D-plus.”

Hendler gives an “F” to the White House’s routine — and utterly opaque — practice of concocting off-the-record background briefings. An “A-minus,” though, goes for White House visitor records . . . despite a refusal to issue lists of visitors in the administration’s first seven months. Further, the White House reserves its right to hold back this info at any time.

The president’s grades sure aren’t that of an overachiever. Maybe he needs a tutor.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets responsibility

Economist-in-Chief

I’m not an economist. So take my advice with a grain of salt. Or two.

But hold the pepper. I’m not the only non-economist. Our president isn’t one, either.

Sure, he has economists on his staff, but I’ve more than just begun to doubt their wisdom.

Take his latest advice to banks: “Go back and take a third and fourth look” at operations . . . and “explore every responsible way” to put their money in the hands of small and medium-sized businesses with current loan applications.

We can all agree it’d be nice to get rolling like we were before the bust.

But I bet bankers are trying to learn something from the bust, something about booms. They have every reason to be super-cautious. What if the current situation remains a house of cards, one that could come a-crashin’ at any moment? Lending money out now, in questionable cases, would be a horrid waste of capital.

I know that presidents are now cheerleaders for prosperity. One of their jobs, in the modern interventionist economy, is to pretend that prosperity is always right around the corner. Even if it isn’t.

But bankers have a different job. That job is to not lose money. And if they are now afraid tht in making a loan they might not get their money back, no amount of “advice” from our alleged economist-in-chief should change their minds. It’s called “fiduciary responsibility.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers

Enemies Lists

Courtesy of the Obama administration, we’re experiencing more and more Nixonian moments.

Take medical reform. The health insurers started out in Obama’s camp. But a shuffling of policies and a few insurance companies began making obvious points about how this or that feature would raise costs, not decrease them.

And the Obama administration struck back.

I’ve talked about the Humana gag order, how our bureaucrats in Washington decided to tell insurance companies to shut up about reform proposals. Congress gagged the gaggers.

Then a health insurance association released a study suggesting that the cost of insurance would likely go up under legislation being proposed in Congress. The president retaliated by threatening to take away the industries’ immunity from anti-trust laws.

What? An important policy change, and the president threatens it not to achieve a better outcome, or for constitutional reasons, but merely to punish and thereby silence opposition to his policies? How petty. How dangerous.

On the floor of the Senate, Lamar Alexander advised the Obama administration to play a little less hardball. Alexander warned that by creating an “enemies list,” including people in the media, the White House is heading into Nixon territory.

“An enemies list only denigrates the presidency, and the republic itself.” An old Nixon aide, Senator Alexander should know.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
individual achievement responsibility

That Ol’ Double Standard

On Townhall.com I discussed the ominous parallels between giving an award to a statesman who’s accomplished almost nothing and Hollywood insiders’ weirdo defense of international, jet-setting rapist Roman Polanski. My point was that people tend to relax their standards for the people they like, remaining harsh to the people they oppose.

Though I picked on the liberalish mindset, I want to make one thing perfectly clear: This is not a problem limited to the Left.

I remember Republicans of my younger days thinking that Richard Nixon got a raw deal. True enough. Nixon’s two predecessors did nearly everything he did. But let’s remember: Nixon got justice. Or nearly so.

What he’s getting right now is none of my business.

There’s also the delay that I saw in conservative reactions against Tom DeLay’s obvious corruptions. And I’m not talking about his recent stint on Dancing With the Stars. I’m talking about his fancy footwork — and that of his supporters — in Congress.

The tendency to support a double standard — leniency for friends and cohorts, hanging judgments for enemies and opponents — is not new. It will never go away. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t surprise ourselves by sticking up for principle especially for those on our side.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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.