Tag: funding

Categories
incumbents insider corruption

Involuntary Campaign Contributions

campaign, funding, politicians, elections, democracy, Labyrinth, advertising, propaganda

Incumbent lawmakers should not be looting taxpayer dollars to fund their election campaigns.

Investigative reporter Lee Fang has learned that incumbents of both major parties are ignoring ethics rules in order “to use government money for ads clearly designed to influence voters.” 

Back in the 1990s, I was shocked to discover that the average incumbent congressperson spent more using the franking privilege, government funding of “official” newsletters to constituents, than the average challenger spent in his or her entire campaign. In this video age, they’ve upgraded their bragging to living color.

Here is a bipartisan couple from the many examples Fang discovered:

Democrat: A taxpayer-​funded ad aired by the campaign of New York Representative Tom Suozzi, talks about how “Tom worked across party lines to convince the president” to do something about the border.

Republican: A taxpayer-​funded ad aired by the campaign of Virginia Representative Jen Kiggans, in which she boasts about her track record on issues pertaining to veterans and the military.

Fang has identified at least nine other culprits and put together a YouTube video compiling some of these taxpayer-​funded ads. Everyone sees these as campaign spots — or “campaign-​style ads,” as Fang also puts it.

The ads even say (for example, in Wesley Hunt’s video) that they were “paid for with official funds” from the office of the congressman or with “official funds authorized by the House of Representatives.”

These “official funds” are not voluntary campaign contributions.

Congressmen, you’ve been caught. 

So stop.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and ChatGPT and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
incumbents partisanship

AOC Right, DCCC Wrong

Democrat, incumbent, fairness, AOC

“AOC is right as rain here,” I re-​tweeted Sunday.

And what was the usually all-​wet U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-​Cortez (D‑N.Y.) right about?

“By stymieing primaries,” the freshman representative had tweeted at her own party’s congressional leaders and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), “you deny most voters their best chance at choosing their representative.”

On purpose. 

Ocasio-​Cortez refers to the recent DCCC announcement, first reported by The Intercept, that “warned political strategists and vendors … that if they support candidates mounting primary challenges against incumbent House Democrats, the party will cut them off from business.”

Isn’t the goal of the DCCC to elect as many Democrats to Congress as possible? 

No. 

“The core mission of the DCCC is electing House Democrats, which includes supporting and protecting incumbents,” reads a new form for party political consultants. “To that end, the DCCC will not conduct business with, nor recommend to any of its targeted campaigns, any consultant that works with an opponent of a sitting Member of the House Democratic Caucus.”

In short, if you want to make money, and most political professionals do, don’t dare work for a Democratic challenger against a Democratic incumbent. 

“If the DCCC enacts this policy to blacklist vendors who work with challengers, we risk undermining an entire universe of potential candidates and vendors — especially women and people of color,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, another Democratic freshman who defeated an incumbent Democrat, tweeted on Saturday. 

The policy has been enacted and is in full effect.

Among Washington Democrats, incumbency trumps everything … even diversity. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

N.B. The National Republican Congressional Committee has long had this same total fixation — mutatis mutandis — on re-​electing incumbents. In fact, the newsworthiness of this latest DCCC strong-​arming of consultants seems to be only that the insider power-​play is more “open” than ever before.

PDF for printing

Democrat, incumbent, fairness, AOC

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
education and schooling ideological culture moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies Popular

Make Others Pay?

Betsy Devos, education, special olympics, funding, budget, debt, spending,

Special Olympics has found a way to get kids and young adults with disabilities to feel something important: Able.

Three decades ago, as part of a community service requirement, I spent one day each week working with physically and intellectually-​challenged adults at Easter Seals in Little Rock, Arkansas. I loved it. 

Most unforgettable were their beaming smiles of pride when they got a chance to show what they could do. I’ve always loved sports, but never as much as there and then. In the decades since, my family has given to the Special Olympics what financial support we could afford. 

So, can you imagine how I must feel hearing Education Secretary Betsy DeVos testify in favor of cutting all $17.6 million in federal funding for the Special Olympics? 

“It’s appalling,” declared Rep. Barbara Lee (D‑Calif.).

John Kasich, the former Republican governor of Ohio, called the cut “outrageous” and “ridiculous.”

“Cruel and reckless” were the words Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D‑Conn.) used.

“The Special Olympics is … a private organization. I love its work, and I have personally supported its mission,” countered Sec. DeVos.* “But given our current budget realities, the federal government cannot fund every worthy program, particularly ones that enjoy robust support from private donations.”

Federal funding provides only 10 percent of Special Olympics revenue, with over $100 million raised annually in private donations. 

So, how must I feel about DeVos’s suggested cuts? 

Gratitude … for her generous contributions to Special Olympics — and for her fiscal responsibility. Let’s fund this wonderful program without the government forcing (taxing) support from others.

Check, cash or credit card is always preferable to virtue-​signaling gum-flapping.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Special Olympics is one of four charities to which DeVos donated her entire 2017 federal salary.

PDF for printing

Betsy Devos, education, special olympics, funding, budget, debt, spending,

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
Accountability general freedom ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

The Abortionists’ Cartoon Advice

planned parenthood, left, Trump, extremism, radical, Trump, funding

Let it not be said that Planned Parenthood lacks for principles.

When Donald Trump offered a deal, last year, to fund Planned Parenthood only if the organization would stop doing abortions, the company immediately clarified the situation. “Offering money to Planned Parenthood to abandon our patients and our values is not a deal that we will ever accept,” said the outfit’s executive vice president. “Providing critical health care services for millions of American women is nonnegotiable.”

And, for Planned Parenthood, abortion is indeed critical. “The Trump administration needs to stop playing political games that would put access to the full range of safe reproductive care at risk,” said Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand (D‑NY), “or they will get the fight of their lives.”

Well, that fight was won by Planned Parenthood. The politician who once said he would “shut down the government” over the abortionist enterprise has caved after various roadblocks. Trump signed a stopgap omnibus spending bill, last week, which continues to funnel $500 million towards the outfit.

So, as if to celebrate, a Pennsylvania branch of the abortion mill — er, “reproductive care” service — engaged in a bit of ebullience, a “light-​hearted” tweet:

We need a disney princess who’s had an abortion

We need a disney princess who’s pro-choice

We need a disney princess who’s an undocumented immigrant

We need a disney princess who’s actually a union worker

We need a disney princess who’s trans

This caused a firestorm.* And not because its Disney obsession was silly. The problem? The tweet showed that Planned Parenthood is really, really committed to valorizing the killing of fetuses. And that its agenda is far, far left.

The outfit should be left without taxpayer funds.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* The Tweet was quickly removed.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
Accountability moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Did We Pay for That?

convention, politician, money, spending, taxes, illustration

It takes a treasure trove of love for government to demand that taxpayers fund politicians and political parties, in addition to basic government services — and “handouts for everybody.”

Most of us have enough horse sense to seek to reduce the scope of subsidy in society. Especially subsidies to politicians and activists. Who wants their tax money going directly to their ideological opponents?

Well, at least there is one area in recent times that has been defunded: the major parties’ national conventions.

The quadrennial indoor parades and awards shows that constitute the modern presidential nominating conventions don’t have the same function that they used to. Because of the primary system, and a number of other factors as well, the conventions aren’t so much selection mechanisms as “four-​day infomercials.”

That’s Anthony L. Fisher’s term for the spectacles.

Fisher, in “Who Paid for the Conventions” — which appears in the October 2016 issue of Reason magazine — informs us that “this year, for the first time since 1972, the parties and their host cities’ host committees were on the hook to raise all the money” to pay for these festivals of folly.

Specifically, the directive was 2014’s Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, which diverted the convention subsidy funds to pediatric health care research.

It sounds like a good cause. But it is worth noting, once again, that Congress, when it defunds one thing, rarely just neglects to “spend the money.”

It’s the Spending, Stupid. Or stupid spending.

In any case, one small step for Congress, one giant leap for getting taxpayers out of politics.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

convention, politician, money, spending, taxes, illustration

 

Artwork based on original cc photo by Purple Slog on Flickr

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

The Missing Source

The New York Times says something is missing from comments by President Obama on how government has funded scientific research. What is it? The fact that the research can be, has been, and increasingly is funded privately.

Sometimes private efforts have immediate application, as is often true in the firms of electronics, pharmaceutical and other innovative industries.

But scientific research is also funded by wealthy individuals — James Simons, David Koch, Bill Gates, and Eric Schmidt come to mind immediately — without prospect of immediate financial payoff. Such wealthy men have financed investigations of disease, “hunts for dinosaur bones and giant sea creatures,” and “innovative ships, undersea craft and giant telescopes — as well as the first private mission to deep space.”

Good thing or bad thing, these privately inquiring minds?

In light of the billions too often splurged on wasteful or bad (but politically faddish) research programs, all without the assent of the source of those billions — us taxpayers — I see private inquiry into Nature and Nature’s laws as only a good thing.

We needn’t agree about the value of any particular private project. Maybe if you and I were funding research, we’d have different priorities from Bloomberg, Gates or whomever. But when they waste their money, it’s their money being wasted, not ours. And if the research we prefer is important enough to us, what’s to stop us from raising funds from like-​minded others to enable the inquiries we want scientists to pursue?

In a free society, nothing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.