BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Nancy Pelosi 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.

Friday

4

May 2012

2

COMMENTS

Nancy Pelosi Blows the Whistle

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government

The dog whistle, that is:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wants President Barack Obama to lay off the weed.

Reacting to an ongoing crackdown on medical marijuana facilities in California, Pelosi said in a Wednesday statement, “I have strong concerns about the recent actions by the federal government that threaten the safe access of medicinal marijuana to alleviate the suffering of patients in California.”

The California Democrat said that medical marijuana is “both a medical and a states’ rights issue.

States’ rights? States’ rights? Doesn’t Nancy know that invoking states’ rights is dog-whistle racism? Or so the left tells us anytime someone on the right points at that, no, the federal government cannot just do whatever it wants and, yes, states do have sovereignty over some areas in which the federal government has no authority.

Nancy Pelosi is actually right for once; the federal government is grossly overstepping its bounds in pursuit of the “drug war.” And I should point out that “states’ rights” is actually a misnomer, as only people have rights. States have sovereignty. Regardless, since she is using the language of the racist small-government types, I am eagerly awaiting* the usual leftist uproar directed at the former Speaker.

*And by eagerly awaiting, I mean not holding my breath.

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.

Friday

5

November 2010

0

COMMENTS

Friday

2

July 2010

0

COMMENTS

Pelosi: Paying People Not To Work Creates Jobs

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

I’ve heard a few economic whoppers in my time, especially from the mouths of politicians, but this statement by Speaker Pelosi has got to be one of the most foolish yet.

Talking to reporters, the House speaker was defending a jobless benefits extension against those who say it gives recipients little incentive to work. By her reasoning, those checks are helping give somebody a job.

“It injects demand into the economy,” Pelosi said, arguing that when families have money to spend it keeps the economy churning. “It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.”

This is the same Keynesian clap-trap that claims you can “stimulate” the economy through government spending.  It’s the same theory that created a “lost decade” in Japan as they tried one Keynesian stimulus after another throughout the 1990’s.  It’s the same theory behind the 2008 Bush rebate checks, which did not spur growth, and the Obama stimulus, which did not spur growth.

You don’t have to be completely against some degree of unemployment insurance, as a cushion against economic hardship, to recognize that there has to be a balance between safety nets and the danger of creating a disincentive for work. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.  When you pay people not to work, you’re going to have more people not working.  Jobless benefits have to be finite; they can’t simply go on forever.

The length of the unemployment benefits granted so far is already unprecedented, so it’s not surprising that we’ve seen evidence that people are choosing to stay on the dole rather than to take work.  It is ludicrous for Speaker Pelosi to now argue that further encouraging such mooching is actually creating jobs.  The only real job she’s interested in creating (or saving in this case) is her own.  She clearly thinks that continuing to handout other people’s money is the best way for her and her party to stay in power.  Only time well tell whether she is right on that account.

Wednesday

24

March 2010

0

COMMENTS

The Threats Begin

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

For those who stubbornly insist the government hasn’t taken over the insurance industry:

Asked if insurance companies might raise their rates on health coverage and blame the increases on the new health-care bill, Pelosi said that the insurance companies should be aware that they’re not “automatically included” in the new health exchanges the bill creates.

“Unless they do the right thing, they’re not going in,” she said. “They will be relinquishing the possibility of having taxpayer-subsidized consumers in the exchange,” she said.

That’s a nice insurance company you got there. Be a shame is something were to ‘appen to it.

Wednesday

6

January 2010

0

COMMENTS

At All Costs

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

Nancy Pelosi and the far left have decided that gaining control of our health care system must be done at any cost.  Promises be damned.

Both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi promised there would be transparency during the health care debate.  Pelosi assumed the Speakers role while promising to work at “restoring accountability and openness.” She also promised “ample time” for the public to learn what is in the health care bill.  Don’t hold your breath.

04congress_slide9_nancy-pelosi

The mallet is for bashing heads

At a 2008 debate, Obama said that a potential health care bill would not be negotiated “behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-Span so the American people can see what the choices are.” He lied on all accounts.  Democrats are negotiating behind closed doors, will subvert the normal legislative process, and have cut out Republicans.  Meanwhile, the CEO of C-Span wrote a letter, thus far to no avail, asking these leaders to live up to their promises by having the process televised.

Faced with this reality, Nancy Pelosi put on her best Baghdad Bob impression and declared, “there has never been a more open process for any legislation.”  Au contraire! There has never been a bigger liar serving as Speaker of the House, nor President of the United States.

Tuesday

8

December 2009

0

COMMENTS

Nancy Pelosi Wants Global Financial Tax

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

We need to “pitch in” more:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed the idea of a “global” tax on stock trades and other financial transactions, saying the estimated $150 billion in annual revenue from such a tax could be used to help fund more stimulus spending.

At her weekly press briefing on Thursday, Pelosi said the financial transactions tax (HR4191) currently before Congress would have to be made “global” to keep U.S. investors from taking their business overseas and out of taxable reach.

…Pelosi said she thought the idea might have currency among a public eager to see Wall Street firms “pitching in” to help the government grow the economy.

“I think there would be a market for it among the American people to say that we are all participating in the economic prosperity of our country, and we are all pitching in to continue that prosperity,” said Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi’s view of society and the economy is gloriously and unabashedly foolish.

Let me get this straight: we need to tax productive financial transactions and give that money to a cadre of bureaucrats and politicos, who will then waste it various and sundry ways, in order to be prosperous.  No.

Taxes are not how we contribute to prosperity.  We contribute to prosperity by producing, and taxes are a burden on production.  Nancy Pelosi has it exactly backwards.

Saturday

5

December 2009

1

COMMENTS

Third Time Is Not The Charm On Stimulus

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy

The jobless rate is currently at 10% (or higher if you count the discouraged), so clearly we need a little government job promotion, right?  Barack Obama thinks so, and is set to unveil his latest “plan.”  But not so fast! Haven’t we done this before?

This will be the third time government has acted to “create jobs” since the beginning of 2008.  Why should we believe it will be any more successful now than it has been in the past?government-waste

In early 2008, President Bush teamed up with Nancy Pelosi to pass a $150 billion (then considered a lot of money) stimulus package.  This “booster shot” to the economy, consisting primarily of rebates to individual taxpayers, was supposed to head off recession.  At the time, the unemployment rate was under 5%.

A year later, Pelosi found herself with a new dancing partner in Barack Obama. President Obama’s subsequent stimulus package dwarfed that of President Bush.  Passed when the unemployment rate was not yet 8%, it was promised that the $800 billion stimulus would hold joblessness below a peak of 9%.  This package also failed, and today the unemployment rate is in double digits.

Leave it to government to insist we continue down a path with such a sterling record of failure.  It is time to abandon the Krugman-championed policies of Keynesian economics.  Government cannot create jobs by taking money out of the economy, funneling it through a wasteful bureaucracy, then directing it to the most politically connected and favored industries.  No economy has ever been successfully powered by such a model.

The best thing Democrats can do is to stop threatening to destroy so many industries via regulation and government control.  This would reduce the uncertainty hampering investment.  If they combined that by lowering the rates of the most destructive taxes, such as the corporate and capital gains taxes, an improved job market would follow.  Otherwise, we can continue banging our collective heads against the wall while insanely expecting an outcome other than pain.

Friday

23

October 2009

1

COMMENTS

Nancy Pelosi: Constitutional Questions Are Not Serious

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

Every piece of legislative problem solving ought to start by answering a simple question: under what Constitutional authority do we act?  Given that the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers, a specific empowerment should be found to support the action. Not only does Nancy Pelosi disagree, she and her office thinks it’s ridiculous to even ask:

The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a “serious question.”

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Exit question: Ideally, ought this attitude constitute an impeachable breach of her oath to “bear true faith and allegiance to the [Constitution]?”

Hat-tip: Yid with Lid