Tag: John McCain

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets general freedom media and media people national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Working for Whom?

Rand Paul, John McCain, Vladimir Putin, balanced budget, spending cap

Two articles on Sen. Rand Paul appeared in my Reason feed the other day. Up top. 

So it was hard not to look. 

They were “John McCain: It ‘Wasn’t Incorrect’ to Say Rand Paul Was ‘Working for Vladimir Putin’” and “Rand Paul’s Plan to Balance the Budget by 2023 Will Get a Senate Vote This Week.”

The latter story is the bigger one, of course. In it, Eric Boehm asked, “Do Republicans have the guts to impose strict spending caps?”

His answer was “probably not.” Good guess.

“Passing the Kentucky Republican’s so-​called ‘Penny Plan’ would be a dramatic reversal for Congress,” Boehm wrote, “which earlier this year approved enormous spending hikes that busted Obama-​era spending caps and threaten to put the country on pace for a $1 trillion annual deficits.… Paul tells Politico that it will be a ‘litmus test for Republicans who claim to be conservative, but are only too happy to grow the federal government and increase our debt.’”

I am afraid the litmus paper has turned … red. As in red ink. As in accumulating debt till we drop.

Yesterday Paul’s plan was voted down, 21 – 76.

In the other Reason piece, Matt Welch noted that Arizona’s senior senator stands by his calumny, last year, against Kentucky’s junior senator. Paul had delayed “ratification of Montenegro’s entry into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).” McCain, a gung-​ho NATO expansion proponent, accused Paul of “working for Vladimir Putin.”

If Putin really seethes with ill will towards America, wouldn’t he want to see the country burdened with debt? 

So, on this vote, those 76 senators who didn’t “stand with Rand” are undoubtedly working for Putin.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Photo of Rand Paul by Gage Skidmore | Photo of John McCain from Wikimedia Commons

 

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom moral hazard national politics & policies

An Inconvenient Empire

realpolitik, human rights, dictators, chess, empire, John McCain, Rex Tillerson, Glenn Greenwald, Trump

“Don’t look to the United States for hope. Our values make us sympathetic to your plight, and, when it’s convenient, we might officially express that sympathy. But we make policy to serve our interests, which are not related to our values. So, if you happen to be in the way of our forging relationships with your oppressors that could serve our security and economic interests … You’re on your own.”

That’s Senator John McCain’s New York Times op-​ed mockery of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who recently told State Department employees that conditioning our foreign policy “on someone adopting our values … creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests.”

In his op-​ed, entitled “Why We Must Support Human Rights,” McCain recounted the hope it gave him to know America would not abandon him as a prisoner of war during Vietnam. But, of course, Tillerson wasn’t suggesting the U.S. abandon POWs. 

McCain highlighted dissidents throughout the world, urging the U.S. to speak out for them, to provide “hope … a powerful defense against oppression.” 

No fan of President Trump*, the senator is playing up the praise Trump has awkwardly offered despots, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin, the Chinese leaders behind the Tiananmen Square massacre and recently North Korea’s Kim Jong-​un. Still, recent successes in freeing Americans and others from the grasp of tyrants in Egypt, Iran and China suggest some degree of caring by Tillerson, Trump and Co.

The inconvenient truth? American foreign policy has long pursued certain political and economic interests at the expense of extolling human rights. As Glenn Greenwald wrote in The Intercept: “The list of U.S.-supported tyrants is too long to count.…” 

Hypocrisy alone won’t change that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Very early in the presidential campaign, Trump needled the senator and reacted to McCain being called a war hero, by echoing a four-​lettered Chris Rock routine: “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured, okay. I hate to tell you.” 

In 1967, McCain was shot down over Hanoi, North Vietnam, on his 23rd bombing mission of the war. He broke both arms and one leg and nearly drowned after parachuting into a lake. Denied medical treatment by the North Vietnamese, McCain spent the next five and a half years as a POW, some of it at the infamous “Hanoi Hilton” prison, where he was tortured.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies too much government

Idealism or Brute Power Play?

Senator John McCain and other politicians advocate violating your right to contribute as much as you want to the political candidates you support. They also advocate violating your right to speak as much as you want, either positively or negatively, about a candidate.

Do they support these repressive doctrines out of misguided idealism, or misguided pragmatic politics? Doubtless the answer depends on the individual. But McCain certainly acts as if today’s confusing welter of campaign finance regulation best serves as a very convenient club to beat an upstart challenger over the head and shoulders.

McCain faces a tough primary. His conservative challenger, J.D. Hayworth, a former congressman, is also a radio talk show host. Or at least he was until buddies of the senator began yelping to the Federal Election Commission. See, Hayworth attacked McCain on his show, which supposedly makes his show a form of “political advertising.” As a result of this pressure, Hayworth and the station agreed to take the show off the air. 

Jason Rose, who works with Hayworth, calls what happened a “political mugging.” Sounds right to me.

McCain is on record endorsing what his friends did here. So … Hayworth can say anything he wants to — à la the First Amendment — unless it’s a criticism of McCain. 

Funny how the framers failed to stipulate this when they were putting together the Constitution and that First Amendment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
too much government

The More They Speak of Change

The more the presidential candidates promise change, the more it seems things are likely to stay just the way they are.

And I’m not the only one to notice. Washington Post columnist David Broder recently called it “the strangest of all presidential contests.” He argued, “The longer it goes on, the less we know about what either of these men would do if he were in the Oval Office next year.”

Both candidates are slinging promises of billions for this and billions for that, claiming to be everyone’s Mr. Everything. In the second presidential debate, Senator John McCain declared that if he were president, he “would order the Secretary of the Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and … let people be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.”

No matter how much more house I buy than I can afford, the government will pay my mortgage?

Obama promises even more: “But most importantly, we’re going to have to help ordinary families be able to stay in their homes, make sure that they can pay their bills, deal with critical issues like health care and energy.…”

Obama’s administration is covering all my bills. Wow.

Both men seem oblivious to the reality that the next president will be handed a country badly in debt and unable to pay for the massive commitments it has already taken on. He won’t be handed a magic wand.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Must It Be Racism?

One of the two major-​party candidates for president is black, the other white.

Obviously, there is much more to say about them. We can talk about their ideas, character, experience, communication skills. Presumably, conscientious voters will choose the person they think can best do the job — regardless of race.

Not so, says Jacob Weisberg of Slate​.com. According to Weisberg, given the collapse of the Republicans and the weak economy, everything is stacked in favor of Barack Obama. Therefore, if Obama loses the election, only racism could explain it.

Weisberg offers no coherent argument. He simply asserts that Obama has vastly more advantages than liabilities, while with McCain it’s vice versa. So the right choice is transparently obvious.

And hey, even if you disagree with Obama’s policy prescriptions, at least they’re “serious attempts” to deal with big problems. It doesn’t seem to occur to Weisberg that the “seriousness” of a proposed policy is not what makes it right or wrong. Or that a voter might reasonably consider the actual content of a proposal.

Of course, some voters might reject Obama out of racism. But it’s not self-​evident that “racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.”

And would it not be racist, condescending, unjust, and downright stupid for us voters to treat a black man’s qualifications for the job of president as irrelevant, just to prove we’re not racist?

To his credit, Mr. Obama would expect more of us than that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets government transparency national politics & policies too much government

A Question Worth Asking?

The presidential candidates talk about leadership and change. What’s the one question that combines both, but is not asked? Simple: What happens if it all comes crashing down?

After the worst stock market drop since 9/​11, the question doesn’t seem so out of place. Our federal government’s debt is rising fast. Even if we balanced the budget tomorrow, the government would have a deep, multi-​trillion dollar debt. Trillions and trillions, you might say.

So, Mr. Obama; so, Mr. McCain — what do you do when the Treasury can’t find anyone to invest in all the debt we have created, and must maintain? What do we do when the compounding of interest and increased deficits make monthly maintenance impossible?

Neither of you have even suggested a balanced budget early in your first term. So what do you do when our credit goes crunch?

Add to this the federal government’s obligations to the citizenry, in the form of Social Security retirements and Medicare and pensions and such, and what can you do?

How do you stave off — or, if not, survive — a worldwide depression?

The scenario is not fantastic. Just look at current figures and crunch the numbers.

So, what would Senators Obama and McCain say? I’d be curious what Bob Barr and Ralph Nader would say, too. Have they thought of the possibility?

This is one question that sure would make the upcoming debates interesting.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.