Tag: Nick Gillespie

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Grasping for a Legacy

Rush Limbaugh recently characterized United States President Barack Obama as a narcissist — and not for the first time.

On the surface, Limbaugh’s complaint about presidential narcissism seems ludicrous: people are thinking about the president “all the time” — the man is in the position to be contemplated by millions every hour, every minute. He’s thought about in Arkansas and Zimbabwe, Alaska and Kenya, Washington, D.C., and every potential drone target in the mid-East.

So, whatever existential crisis runs through the president’s brain should worry us, too. This isn’t narcissism. Or messianism. It’s simply the position of power he’s in, and the position of null-power we’re in.

Nick Gillespie, at Reason, thinks that the prez is going through a major crisis of self-confidence. As nearly everything around Obama has turned to lead, his personal charm has shown to be something less than alchemical. He may be golden tongued, but nothing he touches upgrades to noble. The prez understandably would want a legacy, and Obamacare ain’t going to be it.

Gillespie suggests that Obama begin to end the war on marijuana. That would be a legacy!

And it would. Alas, Obama may have had some inclination to do this earlier, but likely feared that, just as it was Nixon who had to go to China, it would be best if someone other than an admitted former toker begin the legalization of drugs.

Too bad. Now’s the time.

Though neither Rush nor Nick nor I know the president’s heart, this seems certain: Obama rests most of his hopes for change on massive government programs, not on the repeal of programs. Wrong direction for a progressive!

But the right — responsible — direction for America.

Let’s hope “narcissism” trumps ideology.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
video

Video: An NSA Whistle-blower Before Snowden

William Binney interviewed by Nick Gillespie:

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Spelling Stagnation

The just-re-elected president had promised to slash the deficit in his first term. That didn’t happen, but there’s talk of back room deals being made right now, saith Politico:

Taxes will go up just shy of $1.2 trillion. . . . Entitlement programs, mainly Medicare, will be cut by no less than $400 billion — and perhaps a lot more, to get Republicans to swallow those tax hikes. There will be at least $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and “war savings.” And any final deal will come not by a group effort but in a private deal between two men: Obama and House Speaker John Boehner. . . .

However, the cuts all come in the far, Star Trekkie future. Nick Gillespie of Reason not unreasonably asks if Boehner is really “Dumb enough to take $400 billion in cuts a decade from now in exchange for $1.2 trillion in tax hikes that start ASAP?” Gillespie defines “dumb” in the context of history:

[T]here’s a clear pattern: Republican presidents ratchet up spending and Democratic presidents consolidate the increases. This reality is at almost complete odds with political rhetoric. . . . Perhaps the near-total disconnect between rhetoric and reality is the reason why we can’t get anywhere — taxpayers are constantly being misdirected by the powers that be.

Still, Republicans have stood for lower tax rates. Are Republicans alone in “standing by principle”? No.

There’s another: the 77-member Progressive Caucus “will not support any deal that cuts benefits for families and seniors who rely on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to put food on the table or cover their health costs.”

So, realistically, there is no insider constituency for reducing spending. If enough congressional Republicans vote to increase taxes, they’ll be bilked. Meanwhile, debt overhang strangles the economy, and increased taxes will also cut into the investments that make jobs.

Thus stalemate spells stagnation.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall too much government

Spending Cuts, Seriously

Taking on the government employees’ unions was a gutsy move for Wisconsin’s freshman governor, Scott Walker. Now facing recall, he’s caught in a swarm of controversy, his opponents as angry as bees near a kicked hive.

Nick Gillespie and Jim Epstein, in a Reason TV video segment called “3 Lies About the Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Recall,” look behind the hysterical denunciations and at the facts. All three of their points deserve consideration, but I’m most interested in the first, their debunking of the “lie” that “Gov. Walker Cut Spending.” Surprise, surprise — total spending in Wisconsin is going up:

Gov. Walker has cut the rate at which Wisconsin’s state budget is growing, but he hasn’t actually cut spending. In fact, the state’s biennial budget is scheduled to increase by about 3 percent on Walker’s watch, rising from $62.6 billion (2009-11) to $64.3 billion (2011-13).

We see the same disconnect at the federal level. A few Republicans present budgets that slow growth in spending, yet do not decrease spending in total. But, since we do see cuts here and there, to this program or that, Democrats take each minor cut as an occasion to scream and holler about how indecent and heartless “greedy Republicans” are for cutting spending.

And yet spending has gone up.

The complainers, by focusing on those few actual cuts, ignore the overall increases. They thus effectively demand that government spending increase always and everywhere.

While talk of Republican “cutters” must be taken with a grain of salt, it’s impossible to take their critics seriously at all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.