Grow old along with me!
The best is yet to be,
the last life,
for which the first was made;
our times are in his hand who saith,
'A whole I planned,
youth shows but half;
trust God:
See all,
nor be afraid!'
Robert Browning
Government Official, Police Thyself
[On the news that President Obama has proposed a "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights"...] I was amused to find this comment posted on The Freeman website:
Don’t invade people’s privacy. The government hates competition.
Ah, yes: the same government that knew about Martin Luther King's extramarital affairs, can see what you look like naked before boarding the aircraft and recently extended the Patriot Act with multiple anti-privacy measures wants to let you know that you can trust them to crack down on Internet companies tracking your every move. Obama wants to let you know the Social Security Administration won't send you an AARP insert with your annual statement when you turn 50. (But, you know, the USPS is going broke, and .... Scratch that idea: I don't want to give Obama any ideas...)
Let's have a brief reminder:
The original Patriot Act made it far easier for the FBI to use National Security Letters (NSLs) to compel private citizens, businesses, nonprofits, and other entities to surrender information on demand. NSLs empower the FBI to seize records that reveal “where a person makes and spends money, with whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches for and reads on the Web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at work,” the Washington Post noted. The FBI was issuing more than 50,000 NSLs per year.
The prior year, when he was running for reelection, Bush assured Americans that no wiretaps were occurring without federal court authorization. But the Times revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) had conducted warrantless wiretaps on thousands of Americans based on flimsy pretexts. The Times’ James Risen reported that Bush’s “secret presidential order has given the NSA the freedom to peruse . . . the email of millions of Americans.”Google can only dream what it could do if it only had access to government data on citizens...
Libertarians are not convinced that Obama has made reform of the oversight boards a high priority with belated appointments, there has been little accountability of past abuses, and the status quo seems to build on the same opaque characteristics as the past...
Yes, Obama understands the nefarious invasive nature of private businesses gathering information on customer behavior; of course, he wants to let you know behind that new bill of privacy rights will be a new wing of an expanded federal bureaucracy
I think Obama has far bigger issues on his plate: (1) a federal government that knows its boundaries and does not harass, stalk or spy on the private lives of its citizens without their knowledge and consent or due process that goes beyond lip service; and (2) the need for a strong, independent, proactive federal internal affairs unit protecting citizen privacy from government abuse.
Bill O'Reilly On Rising Gas Prices: Grade F
I want to reassure my readers that I didn't start off the day intending to write a rant about a Bill O'Reilly commentary. I'm sure that there are dozens of things that are said everyday that I would disagree with on all the major cable news outlets. The fact of the matter is Bill O'Reilly's opinion reflects a populist standpoint that could have been written from the left or right; probably the main difference would be that liberals or progressives wouldn't have felt the need to bring Obama into the conversation.
I have edited the following commentary excerpt, which I present in the event the accompanying embedded video, available at the time of this post, becomes unavailable at a later date. The excerpt is printed for reader convenience and context for relevant discussion; I found the video and transcript available here (I always encourage readers to visit Fox News and/or Bill O'Reilly's website for the original material):
O'REILLY: Yesterday at LAX I saw gas signs that said $4.50 a gallon. Working Americans and the poor are getting hosed at the pump. The President gives working Americans a payroll cut tax,but the extra income goes into the gas tank. Why is this happening? Well, Lou Dobbs says there is plenty of gas and oil in America. The record warm winter means reserves are way up.I hardly know where to start here. First of all, this is not the first time Bill O'Reilly has voiced his conspiracy theory about oil companies and speculators; let me also point out I hold no direct positions in oil companies or the industry itself (e.g., in a sector fund or ETF).
DOBBS: Primarily jet fuels, diesel and gasoline which normally would be in abundance right now is being shipped overseas. The fact of the matter is we are competing with demand in China, in Europe, and primarily in Latin America.
O'REILLY: There is plenty of oil in the USA. Prices should not be at record levels. But they are because the oil companies are sending their products overseas to make more money. And what is the federal government doing about that? Zero. It's my job to tell you the truth. Right now we are all being taken advantage of by an administration that has an anti-fossil fuel agenda and an oil industry that manipulates the U.S. market.
But I have to question O'Reilly's understanding of basic economics. You always have the law of supply and demand at stake. There are reasons that Saudi Arabia, for instance, doesn't want the price of oil to get too high, too fast: it can trigger a global recession, and recessionary economies cut back on energy, and it also makes alternative energy supplies more cost-competitive. For example, Canadian oil sands are more expensive to process versus, say, pumping oil out of a traditional well. Not to mention the high prices encourage more oil exploration.
We don't need to engage, like Bill O'Reilly does here, on unwarranted speculation of oil companies trying to "manipulate" the market. O'Reilly needs a healthy dose here of Ockham's razor. For example, it's not really clear how speculators got into a position of manipulating the market or why they would ever let it go once they had it. We see these things happen all the time in other contexts: Brazil has a poor coffee harvest, and prices everywhere jump; soaring corn prices, in part due to the competitive use of corn in the US production of ethanol for transportation, have led Mexican officials to institute price caps (thumbs DOWN!), hedge against rising prices, etc., because corn is a staple of everyday life (e.g, tortillas). In sugar, for instance, futures prices have averaged just over $11--but in Nov. 1974, they rose to $65. (I remember a sitcom episode at the time that focused on the high price of table sugar.)
The fact is, the free market WORKS. A bad harvest is followed by a good harvest, new oil supplies become available (e.g., the Williston, ND oil boom, with North Dakota looking to surge past both Alaska and California over the near future). As Obama noted (although it is not because of his efforts but despite them with meager offerings of offshore acreage, endless environmental lawsuits against the development of vast oil shale properties, the BP spill-related moratorium on permits, etc.), we are now beginning to import less oil than just a few years ago.
I also want to point out to Mr. Bill's attention, that US consumers pay much less than most consumers worldwide for a gallon of gas, and part of the reason that costs have gone up is because of a declining dollar in purchasing power thanks to the Fed Reserve's easy money policies.
O'Reilly also seems to ignore some inconvenient facts. For instance, America is far from self-sufficient in oil: what does he think the Keystone Pipeline project is all about? Canadian tar sand oil. Another major point is that he's missing a critical distinction that Dobbs is making: the US isn't exporting CRUDE--it's exporting REFINED PRODUCTS. Different thing; perhaps he doesn't remember but I seem to recall that Iran for years has had to IMPORT gasoline because the oil-producing state doesn't have enough of its own refineries: in fact, the US has attempted to use Iranian dependence on refined oil products as part of its economic sanctions. We also have millions of new Chinese, Indian and other drivers all needing refined products (no doubt there's a ramp up to get refineries up and running, especially, say, if available refineries are running at full capacity)--and there's a separate supply and demand issue in play.
When O'Reilly starts griping about the government doing absolutely nothing, I'm not really sure what he has in mind: banning exports of refined oil products? Price caps? Grandstanding Congressional investigations? Justice Department crackdowns on oil company "market manipulators"?
And/or is he talking about the government opening up new exploration areas, approving things like new pipeline projects from Canada, cutting through environmentalist red tape, etc.? Note that even in the case of the latter, it can take months to years before we drill productive wells and even longer to get to market, so short-term relief is questionable. (And note that Canadian reserves are already factored into the price equation: it doesn't really matter whether Americans or Chinese buy the oil in the same we are talking about a global market: we are paying market prices for oil wherever we find it.) What helps prices is when large new finds come to the attention of the global market--and as O'Reilly notes, Obama has little interest in seeing that happen on his watch.
O'Reilly seems to place most of the blame on the shoulders of Big Oil--he goes out of his way to say even if the Keystone Pipeline was already done, greedy Big Oil would export the relevant refined products anyway... (Ah, yes, let's build on this: Big Oil has been the secret party really responsible for seeding the market and raising the standard of living in India, China and other developing nations so their citizens can afford gas-guzzling cars. Maybe Obama should shunt aside his environmentalist cronies and put those wily economic geniuses running the oil companies on his board of economic advisers!)
Note that Dobbs is not, at least in the quoted excerpt, blaming the oil companies of manipulating the market; he's simply explaining there is strong global demand for refined oil products. Bill O'Reilly somehow thinks it is wrong for US companies to sell their products at the better price, domestic or international. Profiting from a robust market for your goods or services is hardly "manipulative": it's participatory. If I was a shareholder or employee, I want the company getting the highest price it can, which is to my own benefit. Selling for below-market prices is irrational sentimental behavior. If I had a $150K house, a young family offered me $175K, but a Saudi prince was willing to give me $350K in cash, I'm sorry but I'm taking the prince's offer. It's not personal but business. Yeah, the wife may be pregnant and tell you she can't afford to match the offer. But just imagine how I would feel if I gave in, only to see her turn around and flip the property to the prince, making a 100% profit at my expense?
Bill O'Reilly says that he writes his own material and he claims to be a television journalist. However, all I see here is muddled thinking and unsupported, reckless allegations. As for O'Reilly's discussion of Obama, I do realize that high petroleum product prices encourages the production of alternative green energy, but I guarantee the last thing Obama wants is high gas prices with an election just about 8 months way. High energy prices can trigger an economic downturn, the last thing Obama wants, just as we finally seem to be emerging from the economic malaise.
Another thing, Bill: a plurality or even majority of poor households can't afford to buy or operate a car (including insurance and repairs); this is one of the lessons Bill O'Reilly seems to have forgotten from the public sector failure to evacuate New Orleans before the Katrina tragedy (see here, for instance). This issue does squeeze disposable income, particularly for lower middle class household, young drivers, senior citizens on fixed or limited income, etc., but O'Reilly's use of poverty in this context seems gratuitous and opportunistic in making the point.
A couple of final observations about O'Reilly's shoddy commentary:
- What was the point here? All he seems to be doing is whining: he doesn't seem to have any constructive solutions. Is this the kind of analysis Roger Ailes has come to expect for reportedly paying him somewhere in the range of $20M a year?
- O'Reilly's commentary seems to be an imitation of Barack Obama's pathetic "gotta be doing something: we can't afford to do nothing" rhetoric in arguing Big Government needs a blank check to impose its will on any matter crossing its radar screen; unlike business, the government doesn't have to worry about raising capital: government can tax at will or print money, undermining the currency and the people's savings. Why does Mr. Bill seem to think that government is solution and not part of the problem? True, he doesn't particularly care for Obama's "solutions", but he doesn't seem to have that much faith in Adam Smith's "invisible hand" either. "Looking out for the folks" obviously doesn't include those of us whom believe in economic liberty, personal virtue and limited government.
Watching Obama's lust for Big Government reminds me of this one occasion back in 1995 when I was eating in a São Paulo, Brazil churrascaria (steakhouse). (For those who don't know, it's often a single-price, all-you-care-to-eat steakhouse concept where you typically start off with a self-serve salad bar, but waiters come around with plates or skewers of meat, chicken hearts, etc, or certain side dishes and carve portions or serve you at your table.) What I hadn't noticed at this one particular restaurant was that there was a green/red button near the plate. So my plate is full, and this waiter comes by and politely offers to serve me a portion. I explain, in my limited Portuguese, that I have no room on my plate. He smiles and says, "No problem!", pulls out a second plate and serves a portion. Soon, that second plate is full, and the waiters are still stopping by. I'm sure I have enough to satiate my appetite and try to explain to the waiter when he points out my green button (which I promptly turn over). The point is that if we were talking about a government banquet table, Obama wouldn't be satisfied with a second helping--he wants a second table. And a third...
Bill O'Reilly is a pseudo-conservative; he's not a real Tea Party/limited government type of guy. Oh, he might grumble about that Solyndra plate served up and tell the restaurant owners that he's not going to pay good money for THAT. And, unlike Obama, O'Reilly does seem to be a little worried what the final bill is going to look like.
But you know, sometimes we experienced bike riders take a spill. We don't whine to other people or ask Mommy to kiss our boo-boo; we don't go around looking for other people to blame. A spill is what it is, a fact of life. We deal with it: we get up off the ground, dust ourselves off, fix the bike and start pedaling again: we don't need a government recall on the bike model and Obama-regulation training wheels, more public safety officials riding along our bike path "just in case", or new restrictions about where we're allowed to ride our bike.
And just a final comment about O'Reilly's bringing up the payroll tax cut. I have repeatedly argued against any payroll tax cut unless we get a fundamental reform of the social security system to deal with massive unfunded liabilities: cutting present contributions only makes since if we agree to take lower payouts in the future. Obama, of course, is hypocritical here: he can talk about the cost-saving benefits for government-paid or mandated health care funding, but what about preventive funding decisions underlying our currently unsustainable senior entitlement programs? Are you kidding me?
The last thing I heard is that the Congress did not agree on a tax increase/spending cut package to pay for the package, so it will be funded out of the deficit. We have an unfunded liability problem with social security even before Obama started raiding the lockbox last year and this year: I've also mentioned that, consistent with Milton Friedman's permanent income hypothesis, I oppose temporary tax cuts because consumers make decisions based on sustainable income.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Paul McCartney & Wings, "Band on the Run"
