A few random thoughts about some of the issues of the day, with a little football thrown in as consolation.
To get a handle on our deficits and exploding national debt, we must first rethink our understanding of the role of government and government spending.
For too long the approach has been "if it is a good idea, let's do it" when it comes to such spending. When framed in that fashion, the answer to whether we should spend the money is almost always yes.
The more appropriate approach is to ask "is it absolutely necessary to do this?" When framed in that fashion, the answer will almost always be no. And that is the right answer, because government should only be expected to do what only government can do and that which is necessary to have done; it is (or should be) the last resort in terms of both functions and spending.
Politicians spend and spend and spend only because we encourage them to do so. Because we have lost any sense of what government should and shouldn't do.
Peace might not be possible in the Middle East, but any chance for it will ultimately require the destruction not just of Hamas but those who back it (and Hezbollah and just about every other terrorist outfit in the region)--the Islamist regime in Iran. Just about every development in the region adverse to American and Western interests for decades now has had Iran's fingerprints somewhere on it, but we continue to inexplicably tolerate their behavior; nay, seek to reward it with various concessions and appeasements.
They are weak and easily defeated, but our policy makes them disproportionately stronger.
Thus, as a simple thought experiment: What if, back in November 1979, when the Ayatollah's minions seized our embassy in Tehran and took American diplomats hostage in one of history's most blatant violations of international law, President Jimmy Carter had asked Congress for a declaration of war against Iran (clearly, under the circumstances, legally justified in response to Iran's actions), and then invaded and toppled the mullahs?
Is there any doubt that the region would now be much better off, including any prospects for a permanent, stable peace between Israel and its neighbors, if Carter had responded in that fashion?
The arguments against minimum-wage laws (and proposals to continually increase that wage) have been made for a long time now and the research demonstrating that such laws do more harm than good has become voluminous, but pandering politicians still think they can win votes by waving the equivalent of a magic wand at labor markets, the latest example of which being California Gov. Gavin Newsom signing into law a new $20 per hour minimum wage for fast-food workers.
Contrary to the logic of minimum-wage laws, the value of labor is determined solely by the demand for it; more precisely for the skills those doing the labor can bring with them to enhance the profitability of their employer.
Working at Mickey D's is about the lowest-skilled labor in the labor market. It is often performed by teenagers working part time after school and during summer breaks. Making the correct change and handing over quarter pounders and fries at the drive-through window doesn't require a high school diploma, let alone a college degree. Just about anybody can do it, meaning the labor involved is entirely replaceable.
Economic logic and political logic are fundamentally at odds when it comes to such matters, in large part because those who operate according to the latter get to buy votes with other people's money (in this case that of consumers and business owners). They can order businesses to pay a certain wage that makes no economic sense, but a great deal of sense for them at the ballot box in the form of gratitude from the would-be beneficiaries.
If there are indeed millions of 40-year-old Americans with families to support frying burgers in Hardee's or Burger King, our country has more serious economic problems than where to set the minimum wage.
MSNBC and CNN cut away from Donald Trump's victory speech after New Hampshire because, according to Rachel Maddow, they didn't want to let viewers hear him say "untrue things."
A new journalistic operating principle is thus established--that journalists will pre-emptively censor politicians who they think might lie.
Such a standard, in the unlikely event it was equally applied (meaning beyond just Trump), would likely mean we would seldom hear from most of our elected officials, including the one who currently occupies the Oval Office.
Is it possible that such people are so utterly oblivious of their own contradictions and hypocrisy and double standards that they find nothing peculiar about using undeniably authoritarian means (censorship) to thwart an allegedly authoritarian figure (Trump)?
By the logic of Maddow and colleagues, the surest way to save our democracy is to take the right to vote away from anyone who might use it to vote for Trump. Better still, simply cancel the election outright. And any others in future that might fail to produce the "right" (by CNN/MSNBC assessment) outcome.
With friends like these, democracy doesn't need enemies.
Finally, Super Bowl prediction: Chiefs over 49ers, 24-20.
Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.