Quote of the Day
I've always believed
no matter how many shots I miss,
I'm going to make the next one.
Jonathan Swift
Lightning Round
- Split GOP on Export/Import Bank? Say NO to Crony Capitalism! What often amuses me in reading The Hill's posts is watching the liberal/conservative comment food fight that often ensues. If, for instance, someone references articles reference Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank I've cited on multiple occasions and include in my blogroll), a predictable left-winger spits out that Cato is the puppet of the (private oil billionaire) Koch brothers. (Actually the Koch brothers own half the stock and have contributed less than 10% of the budget over the decades; they are attempting a hostile takeover, WHICH I OPPOSE, and they have nominated non-libertarians to the board. But there is no evidence that the Koch brothers have compromised the editorial integrity of Cato's libertarian analyses.) My position is readily predictable from points I have repeatedly made: (1) I don't think that the government should be in the loan business (whether directly or involving by use of loan guarantees); (2) I don't believe in the government picking winners and losers in the marketplace. This is basically a proxy for taxpayer financing big-ticket American produced goods (like airplanes) sold overseas. Why does Obama want to expand the program? Isn't it obvious? Obama has constantly beaten the drum for expanding the exports of American manufacturers: there are typically a number of union jobs behind these goods. What are the liberals (supporting this) arguing? These protectionists argue that (1) "everybody else does it" and (2) the Bank has sometimes made money for the government (and, of course, they suggest that we fiscal hawks are hypocritical for opposing federal programs that make money). Thumbs DOWN! Such trivial arguments are advanced by unenlightened individuals whom have probably never heard of Frédéric Bastiat and one of the most famous parables in all economics (if not world history): the broken window fallacy: "Stop there! Your theory [of how paying to fix a broken window has greatly benefited the economy] is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen. It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another." To make the point clearer: suppose, instead of the government picking taxpayer pockets to piss away on the likes of Solyndra, the taxpayer was allowed to spend more of his own money on his own preferred goods and services; it's what we call an opportunity cost. Even if, say, some of these loan guarantees don't go belly up like, say, the GSE's (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac), do you honestly believe a modest government return would even come close to the superior returns of the private sector? The protectionist argument that foreign sales of Boeing state-of-the-art airplanes would collapse without the taxpayer on the hook for deadbeat customers, say, unable to operate a profitable airline is patently absurd; it presupposes the necessity and legitimacy of government intervention, which I don't concede. It's time for the Congress to stop the insanity: NO NEW LOAN/GUARANTEES; wind down existing obligations! For a separate Cato Institute analysis of the issue, see here.
- Senate to Vote on House 'Jobs Act": Thumbs UP! Let me say that I'm lukewarm about this legislation (and as for my feeling about the Export/Import Bank amendment, see the above). I think the legislation doesn't go anywhere near as far as I would like to see to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit in America, I believe that the effects will be modest and politicians should not raise unrealistic expectations, and I think we have a far more pervasive inefficient house of cards regulatory empire which needs to be radically pared down across the board. A Democratic leader regulation-happy Dick Durbin (how many times did I vote against this empty suit when I lived in Illinois?) and other progressive Democrats are resisting Obama's endorsement of the bipartisan legislation (note carefully: Obama would normally be against this, but did you know there's a general election this fall?) But at least it does make some long overdue corrections to the status quo...
- "Conservatives" Unhappy With Alleged Romney-Paul Alliance? Blow It Out Your Ears! As someone who has alternately supported both Romney and Paul (and to be honest, I would love to see Ron Paul on the ticket, although I doubt that will happen), I'm getting sick of hearing this talk about a conspiracy against the two so-called conservatives, Santorum and Gingrich. First of all, the one thing that both Romney and Paul have in common, despite their policy differences, is for the past year they have been subjected to unilateral, unrelenting criticisms by the other candidates. Second, Santorum has no right to call himself a conservative; whereas Bush can be faulted for not using (or threatening to use) the veto to combat Congressional superspending, Santorum was part of the spendthrift Congressional leadership running up massive deficits, he never saw a federal earmark he didn't like, he cast pro-labor votes, he has supported protectionist legislation, he did little to stop the regulation orgy during the Bush Presidency, he is pro Big Defense, and he helped add an unpaid-for entitlement (Medicare drug coverage). And don't get me started on Newt Gingrich: his championing crony capitalism and what I personally consider as influence peddling with the GSE's and others. The flip-flopping Gingrich has done--on RomneyCare, on the GSE's, on environmental policy, etc.--goes beyond the allegations he has made at Romney's expense. Ron Paul is not just running against Mitt Romney: he's running against Santorum and Gingrich, both of whom have been personally dismissive of him but are afraid to death that Paul will run on a third-party ticket. Mitt Romney has aimed his attacks more at Obama than his GOP rivals. Paul is, by far, the most consistent conservative in the race; he's worked with both of those guys in Congress and considers them phony conservatives: why wouldn't he join in Romney's criticisms of these guys? There's no conspiracy there. And these anti-Romney folks crying foul seem oblivious to the fact that the Paul campaign has released anti-Romney ads. These clueless hypocritical "conservative" critics seem to think that Paul's criticisms should be limited to trashing Mitt Romney. Not going to happen, guys: Santorum and Gingrich had better learn to stand on their own two feet.
- The Monster Has a Name: Staff Sgt. Robert Bales. We know that he has been on 4 tours to Iraq and Afghanistan. We have learned that he has been injured in the past, including partial amputation of his foot and a vaguely-described brain injury (a past concussion?) We know that he's married with two preschool age children. This is the man whom allegedly murdered 16 unarmed Afghan civilians (three-quarters women and children) in the middle of the night this past weekend. This is very sad; I am sympathetic to someone whom has served his country in harm's way multiple times and whom has been injured in the line of duty. But I have a zero-tolerance level for excuses in committing war crimes: others have made similar sacrifices and have not resorted to mass murder. Sgt. Bales will be given something that he never gave those innocent civilians: his day in court. I am not interested in people try to explain away a war crime: whether he was having a bad day, whether he had been drinking immediately prior to his murderous rampage. Quite frankly, I don't care: he doesn't get a pass, a blank check to do what he wants. It's not just Sgt. Bales on trial here: it's the US military justice system. As a pro-life libertarian-conservative, I oppose a sentence of death by firing squad. But whitewashing murder is unacceptable. Sgt. Bales has sullied the professional reputation of our American troops and our country. He is responsible for his actions.
The most clicked-on posts over the past month are led by my popular Valentine's Day post. In the event new or occasional readers are interested in reading posts attracting the most direct pageviews, here is a list of the top 5 in descending sequence:
Political Humor
Rick Santorum says if elected president, he'll crack down on Internet porn. You thought he was alienating female voters with that birth control thing? Oh, guys are gonna be leaving in droves." - Jay Leno
[Santorum is nostalgic for old-fashioned porn, the kind you hide from Big Momma under the mattress... No doubt this is part of his plans to revive the undercover economy... Maybe he should focus on C-SPAN: there's something obscene about watching the Congress screw American taxpayers.]
"The NCAA college basketball tournament is one of the biggest events in sports. CBS will take in more than $600 million of ad revenue over three weeks. Of that, the players receive — what's 0 percent of $600 million?" - Jimmy Kimmel
[I'm not saying President Obama has other things on his mind, but as soon as he heard $600M and brackets, he asked about the one-percenters at the tournament.]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Cars, "You Might Think"
