Paying your taxes ≠ giving to "charity"

The two biggest complaints I hear about conducting charity on a voluntary basis as opposed to via the tax code (a.k.a. at the end of the barrel of a gun) is that 1) it is an unreliable source of funding and 2) that if government doesn't do it, nobody will do it.

The federal government collects roughly $1 trillion annually in revenue from the income tax. Unfortunately it also spends about $1 Trillion annually on occupying and bombing other countries and in general failing miserably at policing the globe. Private charitable donations by Americans, on the other hand, total roughly $300 Billion annually and go largely to peaceful things like helping the poor. They also volunteer about 8 million hours of their time which can be valued at roughly $158 Billion. That's even in the midst of a "Great Recession" like 2010.

So this begs the question...where do you want your money to go?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant

"60 Minutes" recently did a report on soft corruption in Congress suggesting quasi-insider trading by congressional members. They looked at the investing habits of several lawmakers around the time that various pieces of related legislation were being debated. As CNN Politics reported, while a piece of legislation opposed by credit card companies was making its way through Congress "Pelosi and her husband participated in an initial public offering of Visa in 2008, according to CBS. They bought 5,000 shares at the initial price of $44; two days later, shares were trading at $64, CBS said." Her spokesman, predictably, denied the allegations.

In other news, the Daily Caller pointed out "Wealthy celebrities including Bruce Springsteen, Jon Bon Jovi, Quincy Jones and Ted Turner have received federal subsidies, according to 'Subsidies of the Rich and Famous,' a new report from the office of Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn.

The wealthy and the elite play by a different set of rules than the rest of us. They often engage in risky and/or odd financial behavior knowing that the government will socialize the risk/activity via the middle class and they rely on our ignorance and apathy to make it happen.

As former Justice Brandeis stated, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." Thank goodness for the Internet!

Quid Pro Quo: Crony Corporatism 101

FBI agents raided a California solar panel manufacturer Thursday in an attempt to uncover why Solyndra, a company that had been given over $500 Million in stimulus funds, had suddenly and unexpectedly gone bankrupt. Coincidentally, Solyndra executives and board members donated $87,050 to Obama’s 2008 election campaign. Solyndra was a centerpiece of Obama's green jobs agenda; just a little over one year ago President Obama visited Solyndra's California solar panel plant. He boasted that this plant that would produce enough solar panels annually to generate 500 megawatts of electricity. Instead, they've simply flushed $500 Million of our money down the toilet.

These shenanigans are not unique to Obama and the democratic party; unfortunately, they are a hallmark of our brand of democracy. Solyndra's story is merely the latest in a long line of cautionary tales warning of the dangers of big government.

What is regulation anyway?

There exists a pervasive mentality on the American left that our economic maladies would magically disappear if only the "rich" paid their "fair share" and if "business" was sufficiently "regulated." I want to focus on the latter half of that equation for a moment. We hear it all of the time in the liberal media that deregulation destroyed the economy. But what is regulation, and why would more of it fix the problem when it has failed so miserably at doing so in the past?

To answer, I'd like to revisit something that I posted nearly two years ago in the lead up to the passage of Obamacare. This time around, I'd like to present it using the analogy of your cell phone bill.

I have cell phone service through a major provider. They offer 450 anytime minutes for $39.99/month. If that doesn't meet your needs, you can opt for other domestic calling plans that include 900 anytime minutes for $59.99/month or unlimited calling for $69.99/month. Want to add texting? You can get 1000 messages for $10/month, 1500 messages for $15.00/month, or unlimited messages for $20/month. If you've got a smartphone and want internet/data then they have a solution for you too; 200 MB for $15/month or 2 GB for $25. You have choices and can customize a plan that fits you and your lifestyle. If you don't like any of those options and are willing to sacrifice your coverage area, you can choose another provider that offers unlimited talk, text, and data for $69.99/month or you can go with a prepaid cell phone, for example.

Suspending disbelief momentarily, let's assume that the government were to consider cell phones a right as many on the left posit to be true of health care. You can't possibly get by on only 450 minutes/month; you need at least 900 minutes/month to adequately function in society. Texting? It's a given that you need texting; at least 1500 messages/month. And internet? How are you going to have a cell phone and not have the internet?! You need minimum 200 MB/month and that is really cutting it close. So we're going to mandate that all cell phone providers make available plans to consumers including the above minimum coverage.

"But what if I don't need texting?" Too bad. "No really, I don't want a contract I just want to prepay for minutes and buy more when I run out." Nope, not happening. "I have a home computer, really I don't have the money for internet on my phone I can just use free Wi-Fi or wait until I get home." Sorry about your luck...now pay up!

This may sound absurd but this is exactly what the government does every day with a wide-ranging host of regulations; over 80,000 pages of new federal regulations were added in 2010 alone. With the above cell phone example, people that don't text or use the internet on their phone could once opt for a plan that costs them $39.99/month, end of story. With our new regulations, their minimum coverage option would be $89.99/month, a full $50 more monthly, and include many features that they would never use. It also blocks smaller providers that lack the infrastructure to support data transfers from providing lower cost options such as plans that provide minutes only or that allow customers to "pay as you go."

Regulation, no matter how well-intentioned, limits consumer choice and inevitably raises costs; goods and services such as health care and prescription drugs are not immune to economic reality.

On taxation and income vs. wealth

If you favor a progressive income tax because you want to see the wealthy "pay their fair share," consider the following analogy: Wealth is the amount of water in a bathtub and income is the amount of water flowing into it. The wealthy have a full bathtub and the resources to make it look like there is less water going in than there really is. "Progressively" turning down everyone's faucet discourages achievement and only makes it harder for others to become wealthy, leaving them to bathe in an inch of water.

More evidence that we are living through Bush's third term

Remember this?



So that sixteen-month time frame has come and gone and now the AP reports today that the US is open to keeping troops in Iraq past the end of 2011 withdrawal deadline.

In other news, the Hill is reporting that a watchdog group is asking for a probe of Google's "unusually close" ties to Obama:

The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), a group that advocates for a smaller and more ethical government, wrote to leaders of the House Oversight Committee this month urging them to investigate a major privacy breach by Google. It wants to know if the company's ties to the administration helped it dodge penalties after the incident.

The article continues:

"Like Halliburton in the previous administration, Google has an exceptionally close relationship with the current administration," the letter says.

Is it 2012 yet?

President George W. Bush Admits to Authorizing Waterboarding

President George W. Bush, in his memoirs "Decision Points," reveals that he was asked for and granted permission to the CIA to waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. As you may or may not recall, KSM was reportedly waterboarded 183 times in March 2003.

President Obama announced in 2008 that he would not pursue charges against former President Bush or other government officials for war crimes related to waterboarding, even though waterboarding is generally accepted to be a form of torture. The Geneva Convention of 1949, ratified by the US, expressly prohibits torture. At the Tokyo Trials following WW II, Japanese soldiers were tried, convicted, and hanged for crimes committed against American POWs which included waterboarding.

President Bush gets blamed for a lot of things; some rightfully so, some not. With his stunning admission of authorizing waterboarding, this is one particular case where it is painfully obvious that Bush is deserving of whatever criticism he has coming. While I don't think that the former President should be hanged for his crimes and would likely be pardoned if convicted, the Justice Department would be remiss to fail to prosecute him.