Tag: Congress

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies

Border Problems, Solutions?

Bill Maher began the panel segment of his latest Real Time with Bill Maher episode taking on the “children at the border” problem. He identified the underlying cause: drug cartels.

His solution? Legalize all psychoactive drugs, particularly cocaine.

Wait a minute. The best response to a border crisis is to legalize drugs?

Seems orthogonal to the issue. “Out of left field.”

Which is not to say I don’t support legalizing drugs. But I try not to bring it up every discussion. Could Maher have drugs a tad too much on his brain?

Be that as it may or may not, for the facts I then turned to . . . Cato Institute.

Only to have the good folks at Cato back up Maher’s assertions.

On July 8, Ted Galen Carpenter, a Cato senior fellow, pinpointed the growth in drug cartels’ power in Central America as central to the whole issue. The drug cartels are “driving vulnerable populations northward to the United States to enhance their own profits.”

But the whole picture is more complicated.

A month earlier, Alex Nowrasteh, Cato’s immigration policy analyst, focused on two American border policies that “likely” and “unintentionally” incentivized “some of the migration and the smugglers that carry many of the migrants,” leading to the current debacle of thousands of unaccompanied minors now being housed — in poor conditions — in detainee centers.

True to form, Nowrasteh notes that “some American politicians who blame American law for the surge actually voted for that American law in the past.”

Which is more horrifying: The idea that politicians make things worse? Or that comedians make more sense than our elected representatives?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture too much government

We Can Do With Less When Less Is More

With congressional approval ratings at the lowest ever, it’s evident: the sclerotic old institution needs new blood.

But note what I’m not saying — that “Congress doesn’t do enough.”

As A. Barton Hinkle points out in a column, yesterday, complaints about the 113th Congress hail from “CNN to McClatchy to NPR to the L.A. Times,” one lamentation dominating: “the 113th makes ‘the infamous “do-nothing Congress” of the late 1940s look downright prolific.’”

But, as he makes clear, the complaint is witless.

Producing more bad legislation is certainly no improvement. And, as Hinkle observed, the most talked-about recent congressional responses to apparently real problems have been widely judged worse than the problems themselves. Almost everybody was glad that SOPA — the “Stop Online Piracy Act” — didn’t pass; vast majorities opposed and now regret Obamacare.

So, why is most new legislation bad? The reasons are legion, but one stands out: Congress doesn’t even have time to read the laws it debates and passes. 

A British economist explained it like this:

[E]ven Members of Parliament find the burthen of reading through the multitudinous and mazy provisions of the Bills issued day by day . . . too heavy to be borne by mortal man.

That was over a hundred years ago. It’s worse in this new year of 2014, both in Britain and America. Today’s laws are cooked up in back rooms by legislative assistants and lobbyists. When such is “more,” less is better.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability

Boots on the Ground

Our congressional representatives, as well as each and every mouthpiece sent forth to speak for the Obama Administration, all repeat, ad nauseam, the “no boots on the ground” mantra regarding a U.S. military intervention in Syria.

Give them their due: politicians can recite poll-tested phrases better than the best-trained kangaroos.

But I’m decidedly not reassured. Saying “no boots on the ground” while advocating military actions that might trigger the need for ground-stomping boots simply suggests a dangerous naivety about the nature of war among policymakers.

If the situation in Syria is so serious that the United States should launch a military attack, is it really so unthinkable that at some point after intervening directly in an evolving civil war — say if things don’t go so swimmingly — that the circumstances could arise for U.S. soldiers to be placed on the ground in this devastated country?

War isn’t always easy-going and reasonable — or predictable. And firing missiles to blow up things in Syria, almost certainly killing people, is very much an act of war.

Granted, the U.S. can fire Tomahawk missiles destroying targets in Syria from Navy ships sitting safely far away in the Mediterranean Sea. But what if the Syrian government found a way to respond militarily or via a terrorist attack killing large numbers of American soldiers or civilians?

Wouldn’t that lead to a major military response, including the distinct possibility of boots on the ground?

Of course.

Politicians have long needed remedial instruction. Whatever your view on intervening in Syria, shouldn’t we begin with a lesson on actions having consequences?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom ideological culture insider corruption national politics & policies

Non-Reciprocity

There’s a basic rule that folks who seek power tend to forget and those in power flout outright: the principles we foist on others must apply also to ourselves.

Notoriously, Congress piles regulation over regulation upon the American people, but absolves itself from those very same laws. This became an issue, recently, when our moral exemplars on Capitol Hill began to speak loftily for a higher minimum wage and against modern internship programs.

“A new study,” Bill McMorris wrote last month, “found that 97 percent of lawmakers backing the minimum wage are relying on unpaid interns to help get the bill passed.” McMorris used the H-word in his title, as have many similar reports before him: hypocrites.

The program requirements of the Democrats’ “ObamaCare” have proven to be more burdensome than Nancy Pelosi promised. So President Obama now declares, unilaterally, to postpone applying the employer mandate in the law. Consider, too, the many waivers granted to other groups for various rules and regulations rules. None of this was done to better implement a carefully thought-out policy, but not to aggrieve certain influential groups.

And here we get to the heart of today’s weakness on principles.

You see, it’s not individuals who matter to our leaders, it’s powerful groups . . . groups that fund or swing re-elections.

And that’s the principal reason government policy works at cross-purposes, to our general detriment. Instead of insisting on broad rules that apply to all, our leaders pit group against group, favoring one, then another, then later still another.

Madness for us; method for them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

We the Congress

Grumpy. Nervous. Fearful.

That’s not how members of Congress look in TV interviews.

But if their attitudes matched their job approval ratings that’s how they should look, right?

A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that a mere 7 percent of likely U.S. voters “think Congress is doing a good or excellent job.” The national telephone survey shows 65 percent of American voters marking Congress as doing a poor job. Real Clear Politics, averaging out the polling of a number of different researchers, asking slightly different questions, places the job approval by Congress at 13.6 percent, with disapproval at a whopping 78 percent.

And yet, Congress remains unfazed.

A joint study by the Congressional Management Foundation and the Society for Human Resource Management, “Life in Congress: The Member Perspective,” shows how unfazed folks in Congress are.  We learn how these public servants spend their time, how they prioritize their activities, what they see as their challenges, and, indeed, how they feel about their job performance.

They think they’re doing a bang-up job.

So why the differing evaluations? The report hands us the general view of the membership: Congress blames the media — because of the media, We, the People, misperceive what Congress does.

Another possible explanation, not aired by the report, goes like this: Congress and the citizenry have radically different views of what “doing a good job” is, and these differences may be the result of that most ancient of class divides, between the rulers and the ruled.

We modern folk tell ourselves that this ancient divide is passé, in a democracy. Not possible. “We are the government.”

But we certainly aren’t Congress.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
links too much government

Townhall: Want Milk?

This weekend’s contribution to Townhall.com by Yours Truly concerns another one of those automated congressional time bombs. You know, like the “fiscal cliff” but less cliffy and more bomby. Head on over, and then back here, for a few links:

  • Thomas Jefferson’s pithy contribution to the socialist calculation debate, here.
  • The Washington Post’s “dairy cliff” article, here.
  • What Jia Lynn Yang said, here.

 

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Wanting Too Much

An old joke runs something like this:

    “We lose a dollar on every widget sold.”
    “So how do you stay in business?”
    “We make up for it in volume.”

The lesson? Mere numerical productivity is not key to the success of any human enterprise. Adding value is key. Quality counts. And profit.

Tell that to Ezra Klein. He measures Congress by how many laws it makes. The current Congress has made very few laws compared to previous ones — Klein has a very nifty graph of this, see at right — so Klein blasts Congress: “there’s no session of Congress with such a poor record of productivity.”

But it’s not gross-weight productivity that counts. As economist David Henderson perceptively noted, what matters is whether the laws are good or not.

The more laws we’re encumbered with, the less their quality. Or as Cicero once put it: “The more laws, the less justice.”

Laws carry the weight of force, and force is the opposite of freedom, so the more the laws, the less the freedom. Further, it’s almost impossible to manage the huge bulk of the legal code, leading to bureaucratic drudgery both in and out of government, and mismanagement of resources everywhere. At best, we wind up with only piecemeal enforcement, which is itself a temptation for a common sort of tyranny, the prosecution of folks someone in power doesn’t like.

Note that graph. Each session adds to existing law. And unlike spending feeding debt, which is at least somewhat offset by revenues, these laws tend not to be the repeal of old laws. Graph the accumulation of laws, and it goes only one direction.

The wrong direction.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Fiddling in the Flames?

The president and congressional leaders came to some sort of an agreement last night. It sounded a tad vague to me. Apparently, politicians still fear taking pride in identifying actual cuts.

Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, writing last week, argues that the deals then on the table amounted to “fiddling while Rome burned.”

The only thing surprising about the above sentence, to savvy readers, might be the suggestion that “Harvard economist” is not a contradiction in terms. But hey: Judge for yourself.

“The problem with the Democratic position is that it regards redistribution, rather than economic productivity, as the prime goal of government policy,” Miron reasonably asserts. The problem with the Republicans? A “refusal to distinguish between the tax revenue that comes from higher rates and that which comes from fixing tax loopholes that inappropriately privilege certain consumption or production.”

Higher tax rates won’t work, because “the available revenue from the wealthy is far too small. And higher taxes discourage economic growth, making deficits worse.”

But Obama’s idea of closing some loopholes is not a horrible idea, Miron argues. These so-called loopholes are bad policy to begin with, integral, as they are, to bipartisan folly, favoring some folk at the expense of the rest. Picking winners — what some tart up as “industrial policy,” but most of us identify as “buying votes.”

Miron says that Medicare, though, is the biggest ongoing fiscal destabilizer. Cuts must be made there.

Those will likely be the hardest to secure.

This is Common SEnse. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers term limits

Congressional Stagnation at an End?

With this last election, 87 percent of House incumbents who chose to run for re-election got re-elected.

That’s low by modern standards. In fact, it’s the lowest since 1970, which garnered 85 percent rates for incumbents.

But it’s high by older standards. Eric O’Keefe, of the Sam Adams Alliance, says that the re-election rate may be low today but remains higher “than every election of the 19th century.”

Something changed. Individual career politicians gained the upper hand.

On the brighter side, it’s worth noting that if you include “voluntary retirement” in current figures, the turnover rate was much higher. Forty-five open House seats saw 16 flips of party affiliation, all but one going from Democrat to Republican. This leads Doug Mataconis to figure the retention rate at 64 percent. (Still, in the 19th century, that same rate averaged to under 60 percent.)

Of course, many of our recent “voluntary retirees” may have seen the writing on the wall, preferring to bow out with more dignity than an electoral trouncing would allow.

Credit this to an exceptional frisson amongst the voting public, born of anger and disgust at the political class’s habitual over-spending and general foolishness.

It remains to be seen whether this acuity of citizen focus can alone spur continued turnover and real change. It seems unlikely, which is why I’ve long supported term limits.

But, whatever the source, real change is necessary. And the current turnover, welcome.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

The Bill With No Name

It’s not legislation out of a Clint Eastwood western. It’s a congressional bill with the somewhat sketchy cognomen of the “________ Act of ________.”

This non-name may also front the law as eventually foisted. The Senate is in recess until September, so there might not be a chance to correct the title in both houses. To be signed into law, a bill must pass both chambers in identical form.

WashingtonWatch.com reports that HR1586 would “impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients” — referring to the controversial Troubled Asset Relief Program, the $700 billion bailout program of October 2008. But the nameless bill has morphed somewhat. As Jim Harper of the Cato Institute observes, it was “introduced as one thing (TARP taxes), became another thing (an aviation bill), and is now a batch of spending policies.”

Maybe it should be called the Still More of Your Money Down the Drain Act.

Merits of this $26 billion bill aside, there’s the hardly incidental question of why. The title of the Bill with No Name is the exception that symbolizes the rule, i.e. that bill-passage is typically a rush job even when bills are thousands of pages long.

We know that many politicians want to run every aspect of our lives. Apparently it scarcely matters to them how they go about it, just slap together greater restrictions on our liberty combined with grand authorizations to spend additional billions and call it a law.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.