Tag: George Will

Categories
First Amendment rights free trade & free markets government transparency national politics & policies

Your Taxes, in Small Type

The business of business is to profit by helping others. The business of government is to make sure that businesses don’t profit by cheating others.

Unfortunately, sometimes it’s the governments that cheat.

Take the airline industry. Though substantially deregulated by the early 1980s, government has not treated it in an exactly laissez faire manner since. First there are the taxes, quite heavy. And recently the Department of Transportation decided that it must regulate the way in which airlines may advertise their prices . . . and the taxes. That is, the DOT insists that the “total price” — by which it means the price-plus-tax — must be shown prominently, with the tax portion “presented in significantly smaller type than the listing of the total price.”

Talk about regulatory micromanagement!

Now, this rule isn’t something Congress cooked up. It’s the result of a bureaucracy gone wild.

And the rule has one obvious effect: It shields government from consumer criticism, showing bureaucrats at their most self-serving. About one fifth of every airline ticket goes to the government, and folks in government don’t want you to know that.

This being the case, you might think — as George Will does — that the First Amendment would apply, especially since the First Amendment is now routinely held as protecting political speech more strictly than commercial speech. But, so far, courts have ruled for the taxing and regulating bureaucrats, not the competitive airlines. Or consumers.

Frequent fliers (I’m one) should hope the Supreme Court justices take up the case, which shows why economic and political freedom go best together.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

The Bernanke Stretch

Last week, the Federal Reserve announced it was going ahead with “quantitative easing.” Chairman Ben Bernanke said that he’d be buying $40 billion dollars of mortgage-backed securities every month, no end in sight.

Now, the traditional way that the Federal Reserve influenced the money supply, economist Randall Holcombe explains, was via “open market operations by buying and selling government securities.” But this changed in 2008 with the $85 billion AIG bailout: “Since then it has engaged in continual bailouts of financial firms and purchases of non-government securities. . . .

The Fed has moved from engaging in monetary policy in a way that was neutral toward various businesses and industries in the economy to one in which monetary policy is targeted toward specific firms and industries. This current foray, specifically targeted at the housing market, is crony capitalism.

It’s actually worse. It’s crank policy, as the redoubtable Mr. Peter Schiff summarizes: “Ben Bernanke’s plan to revive the U.S. economy and create jobs is to inflate another housing bubble. That’s it. That’s what the Fed’s got. That’s what it came up with. As if the last housing bubble worked out so well for the economy that the Fed wants an encore.”

Our leaders are obviously desperate.

And out of control. George Will states that the Fed has gone far beyond “mission creep” — it’s “mission gallop on part of the Fed, which is on its way to becoming the fourth branch of government — accountable to no one and restrained by nothing, as far as I can tell, in exercising both monetary and fiscal policy.”

This is what forsaking limited government and the Constitution gets you: a sort of frantic idiocy in aid of politically connected speculators and financiers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
too much government

Paying the Right Wage

Local government is hard. In rural areas, it can be like organizing an ongoing bake-sale. In metropolitan areas, it’s more like running a small country.

Today’s big metropolitan governments tend to be run by un-term-limited oligarchs, so of course corruption is endemic. When there’s little competition for power and scant oversight, then the “above-board deals” become, de facto, insider deals.

And we wind up paying more in salaries and benefits for government workers than anything else. Recently, George Will off-handedly noted that in California “80 cents of every government dollar goes for government employees’ pay and benefits.”

Is that “too much”? Had we limited government, we would still expect salaries to make up a huge chunk of government. But since transfer payments are part and parcel of so much of modern governance, the fact that employee compensation packages are actually crowding out other line items should give us more than pause.

Truth is, though, it needn’t be hard to tell who is over- or under-paid, according to economist Arnold Kling:

If you do not have enough sanitation workers because you cannot fill job openings at the current level of pay, then those government workers are underpaid.

On the other hand, if you do not have enough sanitation workers because your budget is busted by the ones you have, then those government workers are overpaid.

Take that notion to your next local government board meeting. Big or small.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
local leaders political challengers

Candidate Somebody

Sharron Angle, who is running for U.S. Senate against Harry Reid, the majority leader seeking a fifth term, had a very good reason for entering politics. The powers that be wouldn’t leave her be.

In his column “Candidate Nobody Is Not to Be Underestimated,” George Will reports that the roots of the grandmother’s current campaign lie three decades in the past. Her son was being forced to repeat kindergarten, so she decided to teach him herself. But although homeschooling was legal in Nevada, you couldn’t do it unless you lived at least 50 miles from a public school.

Angle and other parents trooped to the state legislature to demand change. One job-holder there, annoyed by this torrent of interest by mere citizens in legislative doings, said if he’d “known there would be 500 people here instead of 50 and it would take five hours instead of 30 minutes, I would have thrown it [the legislation] in my drawer, and it would never have seen the light of day.” Angle has been “politically incandescent” ever since.

I like this story for many reasons, in part because my wife and I have home-schooled our kids. One thing you have to teach the young is not to expect politicians to look out for your genuine best interests.

Another is that vigilance is the price of liberty.

A third is that if you want something done right, often you have to do it yourself.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers

Anything Wrong With That?

Did President Barack Obama offer Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak, now the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, a high position in our federal government in exchange for not running against Arlen Specter?

Sestak didn’t take the deal, if indeed one was offered. But months ago, Sestak said, unequivocally, that a job had been offered. He has since clammed up, especially after defeating Specter last Tuesday.

Back in February, a White House spokesman denied any such deal was proffered. But, Sunday, on CBS’s Face the Nation, chief White House spokesman Robert Gibb’s declared, “I’m not going to get into it, but people who have looked into it assure me the conversations were not inappropriate in any way.”

A ringing defense! And after such an exhaustive search for the truth . . .

On ABC’s This Week, George Will offered context. “Politics is a transactional business,” he said, and offered his judgement: “I don’t see a thing wrong with it.”

Yes, well, Will has a point. Many businesses are “transactional” — banking comes first to mind. But there are honest transactions . . . and less-than-honest ones. I wouldn’t want the president of my bank hiring or promoting his girlfriend to, say, prevent her from finking on him to his wife.

Government employees have jobs to do — jobs that carry out legitimate governmental functions. If not, those jobs shouldn’t exist. If so, they should be staffed on the basis of merit, not political expediency.

I thought that was very simple, basic common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights

No More Speech Rationing

Advocates of campaign finance regulation, what George Will calls “speech rationing,” say letting corporations — including non-profit corporations — spend unlimited money on political speech corrupts democracy.

Actually, muzzling speech is what corrupts democracy and the point of it: i.e., to protect our freedoms, including freedom of speech.

Protecting these freedoms is a vital political good, even if some speech is deplorable.

The recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC, dramatically strikes down unconstitutional limits on electioneering by businesses and non-profits. But it leaves intact unconstitutional limits on their direct contributions to campaigns.

It also doesn’t touch requirements forcing campaign donors to disclose personal information. In his partial dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas pointed to how California donors giving more than $100 must reveal their names and addresses, info then publicized on the Internet. Supporters of a recent controversial ballot proposition were subjected to intimidation and property damage as a result.

The disclosure laws have spawned what Justice Thomas calls “a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights.”

Thomas is right. And campaign finance regulation should be tossed out root and branch.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.