I believe that all government is evil,
and that trying to improve it
is largely a waste of time.
HL Mencken
Earlier One-Off Post: SCOTUS, the Voting Rights Act, and a Rant
New Nominee for Bad Elephant of the Year: Ann Coulter
Coulter begins her latest op-ed like this: "This week, instead of attacking a Hispanic senator, Marco Rubio, I will defend a Hispanic citizen, George Zimmerman, on trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin. (Zimmerman would make a better senator.)" Coulter doesn't like Rubio's leadership on immigration. Civility is not Coulter's strong suit. Coulter liked Rubio when he took on RINO Gov. Crist in 2010 (whom, by the way, is being rumored for a comeback election as a Democrat against Gov. Scott). It should be noted that Rubio was one of seven 2012 ACU "Defenders of Liberty" Senators (perfect vote scores), and he is one of the few politicians I admire.
DC Declares War on Consumers
Minimum wages are already economically illiterate and counterproductive policy: they don't allow markets to clear below the wage floor; this is extremely self-defeating in a sticky high unemployment world; if you win the job lottery of above-market wages say through connections vs. market competition, life is good. (I'm going to ignore here the complicated discussions of monopsony power, e.g., the ability of large employers to set wages. I'll give a minor example; I started my computer programming career in San Antonio for a well-regarded employer when there weren't a number of large employers at the time. A year later I found similar work in Houston paying 50% more. There are also nuances; I was offered more in California, but my living expenses and taxes largely offset the increases. I wouldn't take a job in California or NYC if I was offered double my last salary offer.)
Minimum wage is bad enough, but DC--which has sought for years to draw low-price leader and big employer Wal-Mart, reluctant to expand in the crime-prone area--has pulled a play from the "progressive" playbook. Wal-Mart was in the process of planning and/or building 6 stores, when the city council decided to play Russian roulette, tacking on a so-called "living wage" requirement (roughly 150% of minimum wage) for non-union "big-box stores"--clearly targeting Wal-Mart, especially given a grandfather clause exempting existing big box retailers. Wal-Mart has threatened to pull the plug on at least 3 unbuilt stores--and perhaps all 6 projects. (I should note at least one area hasn't had a major supermarket in 40 years.) (The same soap opera has played out in Chicago and other locations in the past. Mayor Daley vetoed the nonsense, and his veto was sustained.) Mayor Gray is hinting at a veto and currently there aren't enough votes to override a veto, but some opponents, with Wal-Mart projects in their wards, aren't happy with Wal-Mart's hardball tactics.
Mark Perry of Carpe Diem reminds us of the brilliant Bastiat's pro-consumer principles; the story, of course, goes beyond Wal-Mart. Think of Wal-Mart like Mikey of the old Life commercials. If and when Wal-Mart opens in an area, other retailers may be drawn to the same area, if for no other reason other than the opportunity to attract some of the Wal-Mart customers. This is penny-wise, pound-foolish public policy at its worst; Wal-Mart will be paying local taxes, and it will hire local people paying taxes and buying goods and services locally. Why you would discriminate against a prospective major new area employer? It is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.
Nick Gillespie on the Social Security Ponzi Scheme
Gillespie of Reason is spot on. I'll give you one guess as to what "progressives" regard as the "solution"--did you think "increase the marginal taxes on top earners"? This is, of course, a not-too-subtle conversion of a lockbox plan to an old age dole, something FDR specifically rejected. "Investing" in past Congressional overspending, mere IOU's, is no better than Bernie Madoff's promises to gullible clients. By delaying reform, this generation continues to underpay for its own future benefits at the expense of smaller up-and-coming generations, which will have their own massive taxes to pay. Listen especially to how Gillespie closes off the discussion; I believe I've made a similar point in earlier posts: why do we have separate government policy differentiating between earlier and old-age poverty support? We need to think big picture; the government needs to get out of the morally hazardous retirement-for-everyone business and target any relief from a means-tested approach.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Bob Gorrell and Townhall |
The Beatles,"Ticket to Ride"
