"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!
Monday, November 14, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, August 15, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)