Every English poet should master the rules of grammar before he attempts to bend or break them.
Robert Graves
How About Justice For Taxpayers?
I'm not a populist; I'm more of a contrarian. Bill O'Reilly has mentioned the $16 muffin story so often on his show, he even brought the topic up on a visit to Jon Stewart's Daily Show. I think O'Reilly is more outraged that a government idiot would pay $16 for a muffin. I don't know if he mentioned the $10 cookie or brownie or 8 oz. cups of coffee or tea for $8, but I suspect those prices must have Starbucks lusting for a piece of US government action.
What kind of arrogance, audacity do Justice Department government employees or contractors at conferences have in order to expect to be fed at conferences? Just as an afterthought, I went to the GSA website and discovered that per diem continental breakfast caps range from $7 to $12 dollars. I don't know with over 9% unemployment (not counting the long-term unemployed), how you can possibly waste the taxpayers' money on mid-morning/afternoon overpriced snacks between sessions? I mean, I've worked in several local/county/state/federal projects where if I wanted to drink coffee or filtered water, I had to pay a monthly fee (and take turns making coffee). If you really need muffins, brownies, or cookies, bring your own.
But I want to go beyond that--isn't it time the federal government bureaucrats started spending money as if it was coming out of their own pockets, instead of "Obama money"? Discover twenty-first century technology like web conferencing instead of spending money the federal government doesn't have on hotels, airfare, rental cars, meals, etc.?
I do realize, of course, we are talking about the government. One of my favorite personal stories that illustrates the intrinsic stupidity of bureaucracy was my physical before getting into the military. The government paid my round trip bus trip from Austin to San Antonio and my hotel room; along with everyone else, I had to get up pre-dawn for the usual urine sample (for drug testing), and then there was an assembly line to get our physicals done. What I didn't expect was to be sidetracked by earwax. I passed my hearing tests with flying colors, but I think in their due diligence they wanted to double-check my eardrums. The physician cleared wax from one ear (we are talking seconds, not minutes) and seemed frustrated (surprise, surprise) when he found the other ear also had a wax problem. At that point, he decided to quash my physical. (You would be surprised by how many people will defend the physician's decision.) I would have to get the other ear done back in Austin and return to San Antonio, the next time they had another batch of physicals to do. So I go back to Austin, get an appointment at an ear, nose and throat clinic, and then make another appointment: another bus trip down to San Antonio, another hotel room, another drug test, and another physical. This one completed satisfactorily.
The point is all the costs to everyone involved. I thought it was ridiculous, even if they required me to use a private-sector doctor, why I couldn't do it in San Antonio rather than make a second trip. But even ignoring that, I don't know why they simply didn't gave me a conditional pass and give me a form for my ear, nose and throat doctor to validate and mail to them. But the military doesn't think in a problem solving context; it has its own procedures, rules and regulation.
Why We Conservatives Want to Cut Taxes
According to Obama's American Jobs Act:
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.Any regular reader of this blog knows I'm a strong believer in free trade, and this populist protectionist garbage is shameful. It is a knowing violation of international trade agreements and counter to the interests of the American taxpayer. By artificially restricting market participants, it drives up costs. If American goods and services are competitive, they don't need this restriction. This is a one-trick pony. In global markets, American iron, steel and manufactured goods have to compete.
This is Obama's morally corrupt picking winners and losers for something other than reasons of economics. If we need iron and steel, the American taxpayer is best served by the cheapest/highest quality, not because it's better for the unions and businesses. It's part of the law of comparative advantage.
Let me be clear why we conservatives prefer tax cuts to government stimuli. The government gets its cut in spending money and allocates resources in an arbitrary manner. With tax cuts, we expand the opportunities to spend our discretionary income as we see fit. It is likely this stimulus will lead to the broadest level of support through the economy.
Guest Editorial: Daniel J. Ikenson/CATO, "Punishing China, Punishing Ourselves"
There are a number of things to say about the currency manipulation issue, but Derek Scissors of Heritage notes that the yuan got pegged at its cheapest value relative to the dollar during Clinton's first term, and US unemployment declined subsequently through the decade; there has been only a weak relationship at best between the exchange rate and US unemployment (contrary to Donald Trump's assertions). Moreover, the trade imbalance between the US and China has escalated since China began a policy to loosen its peg, with the yuan rising about 24% against since June 2005.
There are a few relevant insights to point out. Not all components or resources used (e.g., energy) of Chinese widgets are domestically produced. If a yuan is exchanged below intrinsic value, this effectively raises the costs of goods sold. Second, as Matthew Slaughter suggests, currency pegging would effectively be a consistent bias--but if we look at floating currencies against the dollar, say, a dollar devalues against the euro (i.e., European imports of American goods are cheaper), we would expect more of an impact on Chinese-European trade, but evidence showed similar patterns of American and European trade with China.
Guest Editorial, Ira Stoll/Reason.com, "Stop Coddling Warren Buffett:
The billionaire investor should put his money where his mouth is."
The first thing that comes to mind when I read this commentary is the familiar story of crony capitalism: various tax and regulatory burden are embraced by the biggest players in the industry. They have the biggest pockets to accommodate the costs, which essentially constitute a barrier to entry. In essence, the government agrees to limit itself to a certain footprint, and Big Business gets protection from small business competitors where these costs may be nontrivial. The column points out that Buffett, like Obama, leads from behind.(In fact, a generation older than Bill Gates, Buffett only decided his estate years after most older Americans retire.) With Obamaian style arrogance, Buffett decides that once he makes his own decision consistent with his liberal political views, all other billionaires should kiss his ring and do what he decided for himself to do. Buffett has no moral authority to tell Ellison or any other self-made billionaire what to do with their own property.
Political Humor
"Hey, Congratulations to Donald Trump, who just welcomed his fourth grandchild! You could tell it was Trump’s grandchild because as soon as it came out, it demanded to see its own birth certificate." - Jimmy Fallon
[Not quite: after Baby Tristan was slapped, he fired the person responsible.]
"They say Chris Christie decided not to get into the presidential race because he has no shot at winning. That’s not stopping President Obama though." - Jay Leno
[President Obama plans to spend $1B to save a job that pays $400K/year. His campaign staffers will also earn 3 semester hours in Principles of Obamanomics.]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Moody Blues, "Go Now"
