January 2009 Archives

It's becoming clear exactly what the stimulus package is-

Like the PATRIOT Act, it’s a preexisting wishlist of initiatives being rammed through in an atmosphere of hysteria. Where the Obama administration has, to its credit, backed away from the language of war and crisis when it comes to international affairs and homeland security, the Obama team seems all too willing to revert to Bush-style fearmongering in the service of greater state involvement in the economy

The Republicans were actually smart for a change when they voted against it. As the details emerge this thing will be increasingly less popular, hence the need to rush it through congress. If the economy doesn't improve, it will be an electoral disaster for the Democrats.

Speaking of government action that's banal and anti-liberty, (we were!) the Bush administration left us this parting gift:

In its final days, the Bush administration imposed a 300 percent duty on Roquefort, in effect closing off the U.S. market. Americans, it declared, will no longer get to taste the creamy concoction that, in its authentic, most glorious form, comes with an odor of wet sheep and veins of blue mold that go perfectly with rye bread and coarse red wine.

The measure, announced Jan. 13 by U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab as she headed out the door, was designed as retaliation for a European Union ban on imports of U.S. beef containing hormones. Tit for tat, and all perfectly legal under World Trade Organization rules, U.S. officials explained.

Besides, they said, Roquefort is only one of dozens of European luxury products that were attacked with high tariffs. The list includes, among other things, French truffles, Irish oatmeal, Italian sparkling water and "fatty livers of ducks and geese," which apparently is how Washington trade bureaucrats say foie gras.

Among the many evil things governments do, this is hardly the worst. But it's just not what decent people do.

Here are some numbers from the bailout:

$20.0 billion to increase the maximum benefit under the Supplemental Nutrition Assurance Program (i.e., Food Stamps)

$18.5 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs

$20.4 billion for programs administered by the Department of health and Human Services

$20.0 billion to renovate elementary and secondary schools

$17.6 billion for Pell grants and other student financial assistance at post-secondary institutions

$29.1 billion for other elementary and secondary educational programs

$30.0 billion for highway construction

$13.1 billion for other transportation programs

$11.2 billion for housing assistance programs administered by HUD

$19.5 billion (minimum, could be higher, as per Title XIII) for education grants to states

$27.1 billion for increase unemployment benefits

$13.3 billion to increase health insurance for unemployed workers

$11.1 billion for “Other Unemployment Compensation”

$20.2 billion for Medicaid and Medicare incentive payments to encourage providers to improve healthcare IT

Much of that looks hard to justify as stimulus. Jim Manzi observes "It sounds to me like a wish list for the left wing of the Democratic Party."

He also correctly observes that the nearly $100 Billion in increased education spending will be entirely wasted in terms of improvements in actual education. At least if history is an indicator, that is.

Colorado Pols is in a tizzy because someone has suggested cutting taxes in the face of a state budget shortfall.

Without getting into the details of the proposal (which Pols also avoids) I'd like to point out a couple of things - first, states with low tax rates attract growth. In a down economy that's a good thing, one might think. Second, low tax rates are like low crime rates. You can assume it's a good thing even before you know all the details.

...when a really dumb idea comes up in a legislature children are somehow involved?

This time some high school kids are proposing a six cent tax on every plastic grocery bag. Note the fawning media coverage here, here, and especially here.

This is the worst kind of legislative action, managing to be simultaneously trivial, banal, and completely anti-liberty.

The Bush years as the great era of deregulation and free market policy. I think every libertarian of any stripe knows what a lie that is, but the enemies of free human action have been and will continue to spread that idea. Nick Gillespie writing in the Wall Street Journal tells what really happened:

In a way that was inconceivable when he took office, Mr. Bush -- the advance man for the "ownership society," smaller and more trustworthy government, and a humble foreign policy -- increased the size and scope of the federal government to unprecedented levels. At the same time, he constantly flashed signs of secrecy, duplicity, ineffectiveness and outright incompetence.

Think for a moment about the thousands of Transportation Security Administration screeners -- newly minted government employees all -- who continue to confiscate contact-lens solution and nail clippers while, according to nearly every field test, somehow failing to notice simulated bombs in passenger luggage.

Or schoolchildren struggling under No Child Left Behind, which federalized K-12 education to an unprecedented degree with nothing to show for it other than greater spending tabs. Or the bizarrely structured Medicare prescription-drug benefit, the largest entitlement program created since LBJ. Or the simple reality that taxpayers now guarantee some $8 trillion in inscrutable loans to a financial sector that collapsed from inscrutable loans.
[...]
The most basic Bush numbers are damning. If increases in government spending matter, then Mr. Bush is worse than any president in recent history. During his first four years in office -- a period during which his party controlled Congress -- he added a whopping $345 billion (in constant dollars) to the federal budget. The only other presidential term that comes close? Mr. Bush's second term. As of November 2008, he had added at least an additional $287 billion on top of that (and the months since then will add significantly to the bill). To put that in perspective, consider that the spendthrift LBJ added a mere $223 billion in total additional outlays in his one full term.

If spending under Mr. Bush was a disaster, regulation was even worse. The number of pages in the Federal Registry is a rough proxy for the swollen expanse of the regulatory state. In 2001, some 64,438 pages of regulations were added to it. In 2007, more than 78,000 new pages were added. Worse still, argues the Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy, Mr. Bush is the unparalleled master of "economically significant regulations" that cost the economy more than $100 million a year. Since 2001, he jacked that number by more than 70%. Since June 2008 alone, he introduced more than 100 economically significant regulations.

That Bush was ostensibly the banner carrier for capitalism has done immense harm. The leftists now in charge will take the failure of Bush's increased spending and regulatory schemes as evidence that capitalism doesn't work, and use that as an excuse for more spending and regulation. As bad as Bush was, Obama may be worse.

Which brings me to the presidential campaign of John McCain. Going into the election cycle I couldn't imagine voting for anyone who would author an abomination like McCain-Feingold, but he had a chance to win my vote at one point.

As the credit crisis became apparent and the bailout was put together, he had the chance to do some good. He could have pointed out that at the heart of the problem were sub-prime loans encouraged by government, either through Fannie and Freddie or by pressuring banks to make more loans to low income home owners. But for some reason - perhaps he was advised that the American public couldn't follow such an argument - he failed to do it. Instead he joined the chorus in Washington blaming greed and lack of regulation.

What McCain missed, (assuming he had any real belief in freedom and free markets) is the opportunity to use a rare teachable moment. This last election cycle, moreso than any in recent memory, the candidates had the public's attention. He should have at least made an attempt to show the voters how decades of government corruption of the market contributed to the credit crisis, and that the very people calling for more regulatory power were the same ones responsible for the problems.

Would it have worked? I think there was a real chance it would have won the election. At the very least the public would now have a better handle on the facts of our current situation, and he would have won my vote.

See here. Which is why one should try to find diverse sources of news and commentary. Thank you, internet.

Colorado Gov. Ritter is predicting a $600+ million shortfall in revenue this year because of a declining economy, requiring matching budget reductions. But the politicians make their own definitions, and a budget cut for government might not be what you and I would call a budget cut.

Penn Pfiffner:

Out of this $600 million that we're hearing... about $400 million of it is just scheduled increases in the budget.
[...]
Let's talk about the real amount of dollars that won't show up in the general fund: it's $234 million. So when people say we're cutting the budget, they're accurate in saying $234 million. How much of that is the total budget we're talking about? It's three percent -- 3.1 percent.

Colorado's state government budget is in no real danger. Remember that when you see or read politicians whining about a lack of revenue, and asking for increased fees to make up a 'shortfall.'

Quote Say Uncle, "North Dakota experienced only two murders in 2008. Both were stabbings."

Yeah. The significance is that North Dakota is thick with guns. My family is from South Dakota, not far from the state line. For cultural distinctions, it's the same sort of place. As an eighth grader there, I had access to a cabinet full of firearms. As I recall, there were three or four shotguns, a couple of deer rifles, a smaller caliber rifle for smaller targets, and a revolver to carry while on horseback (although we rarely used that). My classmates at the time had similar caches at home. As far as I can tell not much has changed there in the intervening years.

I lived in Colombia around the same time. We had no guns while living there, since they are illegal barring lengthy permitting processes or bribing someone. Very few of the Colombians I knew had guns. I did know many Colombians who were murdered, a really astonishing number. Legal gun ownership there is uncommon, and illegal guns are far less common than legal ones here. The Colombian National Police reported 36.53 murders per 100,000 residents in 2005, including a rate of 6.94 non-gun homicides. That's down a bit from the year before. 2005 by comparison was a bad year in North Dakota - the murder rate was 1.89 per 100,000. (That same year South Dakota's rate was 2.32. I think they get more tourists there.)

Having lived in both places, I have some idea of why Colombia's murder rate is roughly 20 times higher than the gun ridden Dakotas. One thing I'm sure of, it's not the difference in firearm ownership.

Colorado voters with oh-so-best of intentions in 2006 approved an increase in minimum wage. A dumb idea, to be sure, but what's worse is this state constitutional amendment also indexed the wage to inflation, so it increases every year, barring a deflationary cycle.

So here's 2009, and with the economy floundering and unemployment increasing, Colorado is compelled to increase the minimum wage to $7.28 an hour.

Here's hoping that the enevitable job losses which will result will not include yours nor mine.

Cheers!

According to DP columnist Susan Greene, the Denver PD tends to be a bit shoddy in checking ID's:

Fury tinges Davis' voice when she tells how one officer mused, "This makes no sense to me," presumably after comparing police records about a white woman to the reality of Davis' brown skin.

"They were questioning me like I wasn't me," she says.

Police found no gun on Davis or her kids, charging her instead with interfering with a police officer and disobeying a lawful order. She pleaded guilty just to go home.

But deputies still wouldn't release her, citing a warrant for which they said she might have to wait 10 more days in jail until Jefferson County would come and haul her off.

That warrant was for a woman named Brandy Hair — whom, as it turns out, Denver police had arrested two days earlier on drug-possession charges. Hair happens to be 13 years younger than Davis. Not to mention white. Which is no minor oversight, given that Davis is black.

"Duh," she says.
[...]
Among those plaintiffs are a Sterling mother the city mistook for a suspect weighing 90 pounds less.

The city needlessly locked up a disabled former Denver sanitation worker four times, including once even after the man police really wanted was dead.

And deputies held a Latino construction worker for 26 days in lieu of a man with a discernibly different name, telling his pregnant wife he was lying to her about his identity.

Read the rest to get a sense of the nightmare Ms. Davis went through.

I wonder what punishment these cops get when they make such boneheaded errors?