Category Archives: ethics

“Banking System is Safe”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what President Joe Biden (D) claims after the Silicon Valley Bank collapse.

Americans can rest assured that our banking system is safe. Your deposits are safe. Let me also assure you that we will not stop at this. We will do whatever is needed.

But that’s true only if regulators do their job and enforce the rules in place—as they chose not to do in the runup to SVB’s failure—and if risks are well-known and left to the responsibility of the risk-takers in a free market rather than laid off to us taxpayers to make those taking the risks whole.

That last just transfers the risks to us and leaves the risk-takers entirely free of risk. That last, also, is what concerns Senator Tim Scott (R, SC), even though Biden claims that taxpayers won’t cover the losses. Yes, we will. SVB doesn’t have enough book value, even were its liquidation not done at fire sale prices, to cover the billions of investor—venture capitalists, startups, bond holdings, and on and on—losses that will occur. Scott’s concerns:

We just heard recently that they’re going to really have the greatest form of corporate cronyism that we’ve seen in a very long time. They’re going to insure all the deposits, even the ones over the $250,000 limit, which means that the most sophisticated investors are now going to have the insulation of the federal government. That is problematic. It sends a very negative statement to the marketplace….

Scott’s concerns are well-founded. Here’s what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, and FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg said in their Sunday joint statement

Today we are taking decisive actions to protect the US economy…providing access to credit to households and businesses in a manner that promotes strong and sustainable economic growth.

That bailout is destructive of our banking system and of our economy at large.

I’ll have more on that last tomorrow.

Forfeiture

Posted on by
Reply

Robert Frommer had a Wall Street Journal article centered on a case in which the FBI confiscated the life savings of his client as they raided a bank’s safe deposit box vault and snatched up the contents of deposit boxes rented by hundreds of customers, including his client’s. The FBI never charged his client with any wrong-doing, and in denying her request to get her stuff back, the FBI simply said “No,” with no explanation.

What drew my attention even more strongly, though, was Frommer’s penultimate sentence:

Courts must demand justice by preventing agencies from forfeiting property without informing owners of what they did wrong.

That’s not enough. Seizing and forfeiting are two different things. If existing statutes don’t permit courts to bar forfeiture altogether prior to actual conviction, than Congress must correct the statutes’ shortfall.

Further, rather than seizing property prior to conviction—the FBI and too many local police departments repeatedly show how difficult it is even to get back seized property—law enforcement agencies should be limited to getting courts to freeze property pending conviction, leaving the frozen property at least nominally, and formally, in the possession of the owner.

At Least There’s One

Posted on by
Reply

One man in DC understands the situation. Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee has this radical idea on getting violent crime, at least, back under control:

What we got to do, if we really want to see homicides go down, is keep bad guys with guns in jail. Because when they’re in jail, they can’t be in communities shooting people.

Sadly, that’s a concept that’s too complex for the wonders of the DC City Council, who passed—and overrode the Mayor’s veto to do so—an ordinance that

reduce[s] maximum penalties for violent crimes such as burglaries, robberies, and carjackings, along with abolishing minimum sentences for most crimes.

Contee illustrated the depth of the problem:

Right now, the average homicide suspect has been arrested eleven times prior to them committing a homicide[.]

Sadly, he’s only one in DC governance, though, for whom the simple solution isn’t too complex to understand.

Needs

Posted on by
Reply

In an editorial centered on the travails of a small pharmaceutical company, Novavax Inc, in developing medicines—here, particularly, Novavax’ Wuhan Virus vaccine in alternative to Pfizer’s and Moderna’s—there were these claims by then-NAIAD head Anthony Fauci in explaining the apparently deliberate regulatory delay in getting FDA approval:

We don’t need another vaccine.

And

It just seems rather unusual that people are waiting for something else when you have vaccines that have been given to now nine billion people[.]

This is another instance of Government presuming to dictate to us average Americans what our needs are instead of accepting that we know our needs and how to satisfy them much better than any Government bureaucrat.

Novavax’ alternative vaccine was 90.4% effective against symptomatic infection and offered 100% protection against moderate and severe illness, and now the company is on the verge of bankruptcy due to this governmental arrogance.

So much for medicine innovation.

Negative Inference

Posted on by
Reply

Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg likes to jet around the country and to overseas locations. He claims to do this while flying coach on commercial airlines, but he’s also taken 23 jet rides at taxpayer expense on private Government-owned jets. Now he’s refusing to supply relevant oversight data for these rides.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has turned down repeated requests for information related to the taxpayer costs of 23 flights Secretary Pete Buttigieg and his advisers took on government private jets since taking office.
The DOT and the agency’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office both declined to detail how much each flight cost taxpayers over the course of multiple months and in recent weeks.

It’s illegal for Government agencies to refuse to respond substantively to FOIA requests (clearly saying “No” with a clear explanation of the legality for that “No” would constitute such a substantive response).

It’s a common practice in cases before a court for a judge to advise a jury that when a prosecutor’s witness obfuscates during his testimony, or refuses to answer clearly or at all, the jury is free to attach the most negative interpretation to those witness failures during the jury’s subsequent deliberations.

So it is with the man who sits in the Transportation Secretary’s chair. Pete Buttigieg cannot be taken as anything other than both in over his head and dishonest. His words are useless, and the only conclusion possible concerning those flights is that they were done illegally, and that illegality—repeated 23 times—should be a fireable offense.

Perhaps it’s time for Government officials who stonewall to lose access to their office facilities through those facilities’ loss of funding. And this step, also, although it won’t have immediate effect, even were it to get through the Progressive-Democratic Party-dominated Senate and White House:

House Republicans plan to vote to defund non-complying witnesses in the government when the new fiscal budget takes effect on October 1.

In the present case, that would mean Buttigieg and the head of his FOIA Office would lose their salaries.