Leaders don't make excuses for inaction.
They are first movers and early adopters.
They make things happen.
W. Bennis, G. M. Spreitzer, and T. G. Cummings
Mark Levin Has "Stolen" My Line
From the earliest days of this blog, I've mocked the Obama cult of personality and "feel-good" motivational progressive politics with a signature phase of Obama as "the Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism". I don't think that it ever caught on with others.
So here is an excerpt from a Levin interview with Sean Hannity:
Now, let me tell you something, Sean, this man and this party is ideologically driven. They're like the pied piper trying to take the country over the cliff. And we have to stop it, and that's what we're trying to do. And when the economic system collapses, all they're talking about, food, housing, schooling, kids, senior citizens, everybody's going to suffer miserably, and that's what we're trying to prevent.Granted, Levin didn't use my catch phrase and probably independently came up with the metaphor, but RCP thought it was significant enough to use as their headline on the piece... It doesn't matter who gets credit. I'm glad to welcome Levin to the Anti-Pied Piper Coalition.
Cummings Finishes Out of the (Pork) Money
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) won the dubious distinction of the Citizens Against Government Waste 2012 Porker of the Year on behalf of her ceaseless efforts to prop up Big Green Energy interests with tax revenues from future workers. Possibly the worst governor in the US, Pat Quinn (D-IL) (MD Governor O'Malley isn't far behind) just barely got nosed out, despite hinting that he would like a federal government bailout of his state's bottom-rated chronically underfunded pension system (not a chance in Hugo Chavez' current residence!), and His Dishonor Big Nanny Billionaire Michael Bloomberg. My tax-and-spend Congressman, Elijah Cummings, finished 3 points behind the Nanny. Maybe this year, Congressman: it may be the only way you'll ever get my vote.
Big Sugar Cronyism
I subscribe to email lists from a number of free market websites, including Laissez Faire Books. Douglas French talks about the USDA loan program to sugar farmers where nearly a quarter of the crop is used as collateral. Because of bumper crops and limited consumer demand, prices are low, and despite the government extending the loans, growers are having a hard time paying off the loans. If the growers go bankrupt, the government will lose a lot of money and take delivery on a lot of sugar. Of course, sugar consumers (e.g., chocolate companies, bakers, etc.) have been victimized by nearly $14B in excess costs due to Big Sugar protectionism since 2008.
So what do you think the government market manipulators want to do? Well, if domestic consumer demand doesn't pick up, organically pushing up prices, the government may step in and make huge purchases. Of course, paying above-market prices isn't good for the taxpayer, and higher prices aren't good for candy manufacturers and other consumers. Do you think Michelle Obama will approve Cupcake Days in the subsidized school lunch program? Actually, the Congress has directed all purchased sugar to go to the ethanol program...
The government seems to be a genius at lending money--losing money in real estate, student loans--and sugar, among other crops and things. Other aspects to the economy don't see government policies exacerbating overcapacity or socializing business risk.
Crony Government: Warren Buffett v. Millionaires
I ran into an interesting rant on a financial site, that basically argues that the super-wealthy largely get a free ride on the bulk of their assets. The basic gist is income, even in the millions, is mere pocket change to them; even though they benefit directly from government protections (security and justice system) than a plurality of people whom lack significant assets, they bear little cost for that. So in the eyes of these critics, Buffett is using a crony bait-and-switch tactic, willing to throw mere millionaires, far more reliant on current income to build wealth, under the bus, rather than draw to attention his own vast unrealized capital gains which become taxable only when he sells assets.
There is a certain appeal to this point of view: for example, some property (land, for instance) is taxed differently than others. There are obvious problems in assessing such taxes, however, especially when you are dealing with illiquid assets. There are Constitutional issues as well (there is a reason for why the 16th Amendment was passed: the Constitution was quite specific on the levying of taxes, direct or apportioned).
Some European governments have experimented with wealth taxes with mixed results. But one could argue in a wealth tax regime we do not really own property but basically hold it at the discretion of the "real owner", the State, and the State is hitting the same stream of income twice.
I am not interested in feeding or perpetuating today's bloated government; today's Democrats are trying to lock in an extra trillion in annual spending up in less than a decade. It's also one thing if we were talking about insufficient funding for core benefits of security and a justice system, but many government programs are re-distributional in nature and I have zero patience with budgetary shell games. The Gray Lady examined he issue here and here.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Chuck Asay and Townhall |
Journey, "Be Good To Yourself". This marks the end of my Journey retrospective. Next up is a very brief Led Zeppelin series before going on to the Backstreet Boys.
