2241 Committee Chair Limits, RIP? 2242 Bad-Time Bonuses 2243 State Violence in Vladivostok 2244 Renting Rangel 2245 Too Much Trouble? 2246 The Freedom to Opt Out 2247 The Spirit of Initiative 2248 Annoyed by Anti-Annoyance Law 2249 Discord Over Spending in Concord 2250 No Paradox? January 12, 2008 Committee Chair Limits, RIP? Advocates of limited government have lamented the decline and fall of the 1994 Republican “revolution” since, well, not long after the so-called revolution began. But before it melted into a puddle of politics-as-usual, there were some serious efforts at reform. One procedural reform that survived was term limits on committee chairmen. The Democratic leadership, after gaining a majority in 2006, decided to keep these limits. But now, with their majority increased, a Democrat headed to the White House, and economic collapse as a distraction, they apparently feel the time has become as ripe as a freckled banana to peel away such impediments to their rule. The scuttling of committee chair limits is now part of their new rules package. The package also limits the ability of Republicans to force votes on bills that would be politically difficult for Democrats to vote on. Sheesh, I thought voting on stuff was the whole idea. The minority Republicans have sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi, complaining, “This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised.” But they shouldn’t stop there, even if the new rules are implemented over their protest. In politics, it often pays to keep fighting. Term limits remain very popular with the many of the voters, who also like the openness and accountability the new president keeps talking about. This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. http://citizensincharge.org Bad-Time Bonuses People often complain about executive pay. I don’t. What other people get paid isn’t my business. But after we discovered that many of the major companies bailed out by our government went on to give their execs bonuses, I changed my tune, a bit. How did failed companies and failed businessmen deserve bailouts in the first place? After being bailed out of their mess, the failed execs earned bonuses how? For bringing home the bacon from politicians? This problem is not limited to private enterprise at the public nipple. Take DC Metro. This governmental organization, tasked with providing public transit in the District of Columbia and adjacent areas, is in deep financial woes, even worse than many businesses. The transit authority threatens deep cuts in service. And yet, somehow, they just managed to hike the salaries of management, not to mention the wages of hourly workers. This is the reaction of a concern when its rising costs are not being matched by income gains? It seems insane. And yet, this is government, so we at least have a ready explanation. And, being a metropolitan service district rather than a city or county government, it doesn’t have many of the usual checks in place. From the people. If you are looking for a cause to get involved in, I bet your area’s metro district would get your blood boiling. Why not look into it? This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. CS2243.pdf January 14, 2008 State Violence in Vladivostok While our president was finagling his way to support two out of three of the Big Three automakers, folk in Vladivostak were protesting Vladimir Putin’s new high tariffs on foreign-made used automobiles. As many as 6,000 protesters on Russia’s Pacific Coast took to the streets, some even calling for Putin’s ouster. Used cars are a big deal on the eastern end of the Russian empire. Over 200,000 people in and around Vladivostok work on — or professionally trade — used cars. The used car business heavily undergirds the economy of the area . . . just across the East Sea from Japan. (I add this topographical note in case you forgot your grade school geography lessons.) Not only did Putin insist on keeping the high tariffs, he sent in extra police to beat heads. The police attacked not only protesters, but journalists, too — without regard for nationality. On the Sunday before Christmas, smaller protests were held around the vastness of Russia, including Moscow. Don’t dismiss the tariff as "mere" economic policy — Putin sure doesn’t. One protester went on record, saying, "First, we have been deprived of our right to elect, now they are taking away our right to choose cars." An important lesson for America, too. Government policy skews our ability to choose. Favors to local business (whether by subsidy or tariff) decrease our ability to contract to get what we want. Which, often, includes imports. This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. January 15, 2009 Renting Rangel Rent control is said to reduce rents. Economists disagree. Only some rents remain low, compared to others, in cities with rent control. If the cities foreswore rent control, most rents would tend to be lower. There are other reasons to oppose rent control. The policy increases social stratification, as sociologists put it. The people with controlled rents become an elite, and they feed off of insider connections and . . . well, corruption results. Congressman Charles Rangel is a classic example. He’s one of New York City’s representative to the U.S. House of Representatives, and he chairs the powerful Ways and Means Committee. And yet he nabbed four rent-controlled apartments in New York, thereby gaining a huge advantage over many other New Yorkers. He then failed to report his success at the rent control game, as required. Rangel proved quite the source for corruption stories last year. He had numerous tax difficulties, failing to report this and that. He wrangled $80,000 from his campaign treasury to his son, for doing website work. The son did scant work. After getting a cool million from an oil company for his Charles B. Rangel Center at City College, he then fought for a tax break for that company. The list goes on. It’s been famously said that you can’t buy politicians, only rent them. Well, guess what form of rent control I support. This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. CS2245.pdf January 16, 2009 Too Much Trouble? Can you believe it? A new political argument . . . well, not really. Over at the Michigan Students for a Free Economy website, Isaac Morehouse reports on what he calls the "most honest anti-term-limits argument ever." It’s too much work! Not only politicians, but lobbyists and reporters, too, find it difficult getting to know all the new guys. Thanks largely to term limits, there are 46 new lawmakers coming into Lansing. According to Michigan political reporter Tim Skubrick, "It’s a very disconcerting feeling to know that you need to get news out of these folks, but . . . if you got in the elevator with any one of them you’d have no idea if they were lawmakers, staffers or capitol tourists." Sure. How much easier making the same old deals with the same old crowd! Foes of term limits often claim that lobbyists "love" term limits, because lobbyists can presumably leverage their knowledge of issues to more easily control ignorant freshmen legislators. But term limits are a hassle for lobbyists, too. All those new people to befriend, and try to convince that your special interest is identical to the public interest. Morehouse sees through the argument. He says that as a citizen concerned about his wallet, he can do without politicians who "know their way around" the capitol and are experts in politics as usual. Most people can agree — except those who absolutely hate updating the rolodex. This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. CS2246.pdf January 19, 2009 The Freedom to Opt Out A new administration is poised to take over, with medical care a high priority. There’s been lots of talk, lots of trust put on big government. Unfortunately, the doctors, hospitals, insurers and others that opposed HillaryCare, way back when, now jockey to get whatever benefits they can out of whatever new system that develops . . . which, jumping the gun, they consider a “done deal.” And yet the simplest, most sensible bit of legislation about health care garners almost no attention. Introduced by Representative Sam Johnson several months ago, the Medicare Beneficiary Freedom to Choose Act would allow seniors who go on Social Security to opt out of Medicare. At present, when you retire with Social Security benefits, you are required — forced — to accept Medicare part A benefits. Doctors whom you hire for cash can be penalized. Quite a system. You might think anyone who’s for freedom of choice would support the bill. You might think it uncontroversial, since it simply allows people who have saved money for their own medical care to continue to use that money. It doesn’t affect anybody negatively. It doesn’t reduce Medicare taxes that anyone is forced to pay. It simply lets people who want to opt out of a bureaucratic system do just that. And it would save the government money. Oh, maybe now I get it. The name of the game is money, spending, and . . . regulation of our lives. “Congress knows best.” That is the very antithesis of Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. CS2247.pdfPaul January 20, 2009 The Spirit of Initiative Today is inauguration day for President Barack Obama. When I think of presidential inaugurations, I think of John F. Kennedy’s speech on another January 20, back in 1961. Kennedy told Americans to “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” In other words, government ought not be a spectator sport. Government is us. “We the People” must be engaged. And, around the country, people are engaging in all sorts of ways. Many are launching ballot initiatives. You could, too. Initiatives allow voters a direct say on issues. In Missouri, for example, Ron Calzone and Missourians for Property Rights are campaigning for two constitutional amendments to fully protect citizens from continuing eminent domain abuse. Ron and the group worked their hearts out in 2008 to gather hundreds of thousands of signatures on two petitions. Unfortunately, both measures fell short in one of the six required congressional districts. Would you have given up, saying you did your duty? Well, Calzone’s troops can be called “the minutemen” because they didn’t quit for a minute. They will not rest until governments are prevented from stealing our homes and businesses, at least in Missouri. The group has filed two new initiatives and will soon be gathering signatures for a 2010 vote. The inaugural will be televised. I’m told the revolution will not be. This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. CS2248.pdf January 21, 2009 Annoyed by Anti-Annoyance Law I’m annoyed by a new law passed in the Michigan town of Brighton City. According to the ordinance, police may fine anyone who is too annoying in public. Up to $500. The ordinance states: “It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.” Obviously, many different things annoy many different people, most having little to do with the possible or actual commission of a crime. If you and I are annoyed, think about how annoyed the folks are who actually live there. One resident, Charles Griffin, told ABC News that the new law is “the most ridiculous thing in the world.” Area resident Chetly Zarko has written to the council asking them to repeal the law, arguing that it is “unconstitutionally vague . . . and impedes on free expression rights under the First Amendment.” Council members say critics are blowing things out of proportion. They say people aren’t going to be ticketed for talking too loud or making complaints to public officials, but for things like persistent harassment of an ex-girlfriend or the like. But words mean what they say, don’t they? They don’t mean what they would have meant if only you had said what you meant. In the spirit of being careful with words, let me revise my opening statement: I am more than merely annoyed. This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. CS2249.pdf January 22, 2009 Discord Over Spending in Concord I've read the proposed amendment to the Concord, New Hampshire, city charter and read it again. It looks like a fine, responsible attempt to limit government growth. But Paul Cavanaugh, Concord's city solicitor, has quite a different view. While three state agencies have given the proposed amendment their go-ahead, he filed an appeal, arguing that the amendment's spending cap would interfere with the city's ability to pay for legally required welfare and public safety services. On first blush, it seems he may have something. If you limit government growth with a charter amendment, and the state still requires you to pay out certain services, and there's an influx of people who ask for such services . . . what do you do? Well, you could develop a rainy day fund for just those services, to cover unexpected demands. Or, perhaps, prioritize spending just a tad. Stop spending so much on discretionary items so you have the funds to fulfill your constitutional duties. Yet the first thing that came to mind for Cavanaugh and Concord's politicians was to block the citizens from voting on the spending limit. Force it off the ballot. Politicians! They will do anything, it seems, rather than spend wisely. It's sad, really. Politicians hate saving. They hate not spending. Most of all, they hate citizens control of their prodigal ways. That's why it is citizens who should decide, directly. This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob. CS2250.pdf January 23, 2009 No Paradox? When you read the papers, good news turns bad with a turn of a phrase. The Wall Street Journal, reporting on a general decrease in private spending, cannot help but mention that old alleged problem of “the paradox of thrift.” “Usually,” writes Kelley Evans, ”frugality is good for individuals and for the economy. Savings serve as a reservoir of capital that can be used to finance investment, which helps raise a nation’s standard of living. But in a recession, increased saving — or its flip side, decreased spending — can exacerbate the economy’s woes.” Evans goes on, elaborating about the community-wide effects of cutting back spending: Consumer-oriented businesses going out of business. So, do you see the paradox? In normal times, we say savings is good. But when things are bad, and people wise up to save more — or pay off debt — businesses relying on previous levels of spending are hurt. Household debt has gone down for the first time since 1952. That’s good for the future, because this savings will allow future investment. For right now, though, the savings and debt reduction come at a social cost. But this will go on only as long as the rate of savings shifts. When people’s rates of savings to spending stabilizes at a new level, the economy will be able to stabilize, too. Not so much a paradox as a painful adjustment period. That’s life. This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.