BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

John Boehner Archive

Thursday

5

September 2013

0

COMMENTS

Syrian Intervention Reveals Central Foreign Policy Divide

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

When Obama was elected, I noted that his soon-to-be Ambassador to the U.N and now National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, had previously argued for unilateral military action in Darfur and represented a kind of left-wing humanitarian interventionism that those preoccupied only with the most current of events might not have been familiar with:

Left-wing interventionists are actually more common than right-wing ones. Before the neoconservatives had won the day in establishing Republican policy, there was Secretary Madeliene Albright, who asked Colin Powell, “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” The ironic difference between the left and right interventionists is this: on the left they only want to use force when U.S. interests are non-existent. Boondoggle that Iraq was in many ways, at least there was a debatable, though certainly plausible, claim of serving U.S. national interests in deposing Saddam. One can’t even make a pretense of serving U.S. interests in Darfur.

I assumed this information would come as a surprise to many given the dominant opposition rhetoric of the Bush years. Many had also forgotten that Bush ran a campaign opposed to interventionism and nation building, which contrasted with Clinton’s international adventures as world police. But like so many politicians, Bush reversed position upon entering office.

We’ve since witnessed Obama’s unilateral interventionism in Libya, an adventure conjured for the specific purpose of revitalizing the image of humanitarian interventionism post-Iraq. And now we see the same thing happening with Syria, where once again there is no credible argument of a U.S. interest at stake. Matt Welch at Reason does an excellent job of exposing the administration’s dissembling via Secretary of State John Kerry, who was against military mistakes before he was for them.

While the public overwhelming opposes a pointless strike on Syria, Republicans are nevertheless providing the President political cover. Speaker Boehner and House Majority Leader Cantor have endorsed a strike, while John McCain is once again one of the loudest voices calling for insertion of the United States into a Middle Eastern civil war, suggesting it would be “catastrophic” should Congress decline authorizing force.

The position of Republican leadership and the GOP old guard contrasts with more stridently small government newcomers Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Justin Amash, and they’re joined by true anti-war liberals (as opposed to those, like Nancy Pelosi, who apparently just took positions for convenience because they were against Bush). All of this makes for a lot of political intrigue surrounding the vote over a resolution of force.

Tuesday

15

November 2011

2

COMMENTS

Should Congressional Insider Trading Be Illegal?

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Economics & the Economy, Waste & Government Reform

A storm has erupted following 60 Minutes coverage of Peter Scheizer’s new book, Throw Them All Out, which highlights, among many other things, instances of “insider trading” by members of Congress. Following the report, many have called on Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, along with other politicians implicated by the book, like former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and current Speaker John Boehner, to resign.

In the past, I have argued that insider trading ought not be a crime, as it brings to the market information that might otherwise remain hidden. Imagine if we were able to learn of Enron’s dishonest bookkeeping much sooner, for instance, if some insider had been legally allowed to capitalize on the fact that they knew the company was lying. Economically, it really makes no sense to criminalize the practice. But politics adds a new dimension.

The addition of political power potentially changes the equation. As an example, if a politician can call a hearing on an issue, stirring up market angst, he can not only capitalize on it with his foreknowledge, but he can then call additional hearings just to create more angst on which he can capitalize. In other words, it potentially impacts the political process itself. The concern here is not misguided economic fairness, but rather the sanctity of the democratic process.

That politicians benefit financially from their political knowledge is not a new idea – we already knew that they consistently out perform average investors. And indeed, there may be some informational benefit and market efficiency reasons for allowing them to continue to do so. But it’s incredibly ironic that while there is a much stronger argument for curtailing the practice amongst politicians than among average market participants, politicians remain the only class immune from insider trading laws. It would make much more sense to constrain politicians, whether it be Congressional rule or legislation, and free the private individuals than our current approach of the other way around.

Ultimately, however, politicians have to answer  to their constituents. Regardless of the legality of their actions, the voters will ultimately decide. The more important issue from where I sit, and one which I think is being largely ignored in coverage of this story, is the degree to which politicians are involved in all manner of economic minutia in the first place. If they constrained their activities to those with Constitutional authority, there would be far less opportunity for financial mischief in the first place.

Sunday

28

February 2010

0

COMMENTS