Tag Archives: government

Voting Rights

Posted on by
Reply

From The Wall Street Journal‘s Law Blog comes this hopeful sign.  A number of states have filed a Friend of the Court brief in support of South Carolina as that state prepares to defend itself against the Obama administration’s assault on its effort to protect the sanctity of the vote.  The money paragraphs in the brief speaks is this, and it needs no further comment from me.

Because Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act of 1965] applied arbitrarily to the Covered Jurisdictions [i.e., those states subject to the VRA], none of which uses discriminatory tests or devices, and many of which have higher voter turnout, or lower disparity in minority voter turnout, than many of the uncovered jurisdictions, the Covered States are denied the fundamental principles of equal sovereignty and equal footing.  Because the VRA’s purpose is to eradicate voting discrimination for all United States citizens, treating states differently is not congruent with the Act’s purpose.

The brief, BRIEF OF ARIZONA, ALABAMA, GEORGIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, AND TEXAS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER, can be found here.

Government Market Intervention European Style

Posted on by
Reply

From The Wall Street Journal we learn that that the European Central Bank wants to “manage” the interest rates on member nations’ sovereign debt instruments, and it wants to do so by entering the market for government bonds—announcing its buys and sells in a manner intended to “influence” the market’s interest rates imposed on those governments’ borrowings.  The WSJ quotes the ubiquitous “person familiar with the matter” as saying

ECB would guide investors toward a target, or range, for government bond yields of Spain and others by publicly communicating specifics about the amount of the bond purchases it conducts, as well as the details on the types of bonds it buys. For instance, if the central bank says it bought €1 billion ($1.26 billion) worth of shorter-dated Spanish bonds, it could move investors toward the yields it deems appropriate by raising or lowering purchases in subsequent weeks.

But the real thinking was revealed by the ECB’s President, Mario Draghi.  “Exceptionally high” risks are embedded in many government bonds markets, the WSJ cites him as saying, and to the extent to which these “risk premia” include a euro breakup scenario, they are “unacceptable.”  Thus, the market should sit down, shut up, and do what its betters tell them to do.  Investors’ pricings on exploding debt will not be tolerated.  Their duty is to simply keep lending at rates their Betters dictate.

Never mind that, as the Bundesbank’s Jens Weidmann puts it,

In democracies, Parliaments, not central banks, should decide about such comprehensive sharing of risks[.]

He’s not one of the Know Betters, so he’s just whispering in the wind.

***

Then we have this from Spain, in particular.  The government says it expects the Spanish economy to contract 1.7% this year, despite growing exports (from the declining euro more than any real productivity-related effects), and it will contract next year by an additional 0.5%.  Yet that same Spanish government fully intends to impose “billions of euros” in tax increases over these next two years (along with allegedly large spending cuts).  You read that right.  In a contracting economy, the government fully intends to take a ton of money out of the private sector: it intends to defund the very part of the economy that is the engine of economic prosperity—and here, of economic recovery.

***

And then there’s this.  The Obamacare Independent Payment Advisory Board, consisting of “15 philosopher kings,” is starting to be set up, although we don’t get to know who these kadi are until after the election this fall.  This Board will have the power to dictate prices to all participants in the health care industry: hospitals, doctors, insurers, patients alike.  No market forces at all here.  And yes, there will be plenty of patients: customer participation is mandatory.  Of course there’ll be fewer and fewer providers as these are driven out of business by the Board’s price controls; this will turn the Board into a Death Panel.  A third example of government market intervention European style.

Extremes

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama gave an interview to the AP in which he described Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney’s positions as “extreme.”  Yet both Obama’s descriptions and his countervailing positions demonstrate pretty conclusively which of the two is extreme.

Obama had this non sequitur in his remarks about what he has “learned about [Romney] this campaign:

What we’ve also seen is Gov. Romney has not been willing to, I think, own up to some of the responsibilities that are required if you’re president of the United States. So there’s been obviously a lot of discussion about his unwillingness to release his tax returns.

Apparently honoring the law (here, concerning the required releasability of personal tax returns) is “not willing to own up to some of the responsibilities that are required if you’re president of the United States.”  But ignoring the law (vis., DOMA) is such a responsibility.  Ignoring the will of the Congress and implementing carbon cap-and-trade by Executive fiat is such a responsibility.  Ignoring the will of the Congress (the failed DREAM ACT) and implementing immigration parameters by Executive fiat is such a responsibility.  Refusing to enforce our borders while attacking states that do attempt to enforce them, using laws that ape Federal law, is such a responsibility.

Obama made this argument about Romney being short on facts in his campaign.

[T]he most prominent argument that he’s been making for why voters should vote for him is this notion that Obama took the work requirement out of welfare, and he’ll put it back.

Never mind that the explicit requirement for actual work has been withdrawn, and the states’ “flexibility” includes the option to not require work or work training.

And without a trace of irony, Obama had this to say:

Well, I think that if you don’t have a good argument for how you’re going to make things better, then you stay focused on how you can discredit the incumbent.

After accusing Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a woman (he did say in a separate interview that he didn’t really believe that, but in that same interview, he refused to repudiate the ad that made the accusation, or to call out the SuperPAC (run by his ex-Deputy Press Secretary) for having run it).  And after accusing Romney of being a felon over Romney’s position at Bain while rescuing the Olympics—stemming from Obama’s own “misunderstanding” of SEC filings.

On those extreme positions themselves, Obama had this:

[Romney] has signed up for positions, extreme positions that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken.

Obama then listed the Republicans’ $5 trillion tax cut proposal, the elimination of tax credits for wind energy, and an amorphous objection to the Republicans’ Medicare proposals as those “extreme” positions.

If I understand Obama aright, then, it’s extreme to cut taxes, especially in a recession: it’s extreme to leave more of private citizens’ money in the hands of the original private citizens instead of those of whom Obama favors.

It’s extreme, in a time of enormous government spending and debt buildup, to cut spending—especially to fringe energy sources like wind power.  Obama proudly pointed out that he’s doubled the output of wind-generated electricity with his tax credits.  Let’s see: total electricity generated in the US in 2008 was nearly 3.5 Terawatts.  Wind-generated electricity in 2011 was nearly 47 Megawatts.  Obama has pushed wind energy from nearly nothing to twice nearly nothing.  And that doubling came, as he so proudly said, only with the aid of government subsidy.  Wind-generated electricity is fringe not because it’s an idiotic idea, but because it cannot compete in the free market on its own; it needs a constant propping up.

Finally, it’s extreme to take steps to reform Medicare so as to preserve it for tomorrow’s seniors, while leaving it alone for today’s seniors and near-seniors (who have no chance of adjusting to any changes).

But what are Obama’s plans?  He’s carefully nebulous about those, but we can look to his record and see his plans.

Obama intends to ratchet up the taxes on Americans of whom he disapproves.  He intends to ratchet up his spendinginvesting in his favored companies and in his favored unions.  He already has taken the (not at all extreme, he says) measure of removing $700 billion from the present form of Medicare in putting it into his Obamacare to pay for that.

Who’s extreme?

Federal Waste, Climate Change, and Federal Outsourcing

Posted on by
Reply

Fox News ran an article late last week concerning the State Department’s own Office of the Inspector General’s report concerning State’s handling of taxpayer funding of activities in support of the climate change meme—in other countries, yet.  The OIG audit itself can be read here, and the auditors’ list of State programs sampled can be seen here.

What the OIG found in State’s Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs and its Office of Global Change (OES/EGC), “the nerve center of the Obama administration’s international climate change policy,” was…interesting.  The findings, which included aggregate overspending of some $214 million over the period 2006-2010 that was the subject of the OIG audit, included these:

  • 7 of 19 program totaling $34 million in grants had no particular plans for results monitoring.  Thus, as OIG wrote, “…[State] may not always have reasonable assurance that federal funds were spent in accordance with the grant award; that the grant recipient performed program activities as dictated in the grant award; and that the program’s indicators, goals and objectives were achieved.”
  • [G]rant oversight officers failed to provide written reviews of compliance with State Department reporting standards….
  • [V]isits to climate change sites were rare, and then little effort went into actual examination.  [R]eports “typically summarized meetings held with grantee officials where only the statuses of the programs were discussed.”
  • Requirements that grant recipients submit quarterly financial statements seemed routinely to be ignored.  [A] recipient in Hyderabad, India, who got two separate grants totaling $1.1 million continued to receive funding, even though reporting requirements were not followed.
  • Indeed, reporting requirements for detailed results were not included in any of the seven grants examined by OIG.

Regardless of what anyone might think of the idiocy of spending taxpayer money on the chimera of man-caused global warming, here is a potful of that money being shipped overseas for…well, just because, apparently, given the interest in oversight shown here.  At least, had that money been spent at home, there might have been one or two domestic jobs created or saved, instead of those jobs being outsourced.

A Modest Proposal for Financial Law

Posted on by
Reply

Standard Chartered PLC agreed to pay a $340 million “fine” for improper financial transactions amounting to $250 billion, a fine of just a tad over 1% of that total.  Judge Jed Rakoff, of the United States Federal District, refused to sanction a proposed settlement between the SEC and Citigroup Global Markets of a $160 million “fine” for an improperly handled billion dollar CDO fund, arguing in part that there was no basis for a punitive settlement when there was no allegation or admission of a wrongdoing.

It is, in fact, routine for supposedly misbehaving financial entities and their Federal regulators to negotiate such chump change fines, whether or not actual wrongdoing is conceded or alleged.  This disconnect between the sanction and the (phantom) misbehavior generally is not the result of cronyism; all the players are, say I, fundamentally honest.  No, such settlements are driven by the complexity of our financial laws, of which Dodd-Frank is only the latest addition.  The defendant financial institution usually finds it cheaper to pay the government’s vig than to defend itself, even when innocent, and the government usually finds it cheaper to charge only a taste and make no demand for admission of wrongdoing than to prosecute a case.

As a result of this unnecessary complexity, the government simply continues to hector the financial institutions and the financials simply continue to misbehave (my remark about honesty not withstanding) with the settlements just part of the cost of doing business.

Accordingly, a modest proposal.  Get rid of the financial laws and the regulations.  Replace them with a few simple laws (which, in their simplicity will need no implementing regulations) to the effect of honoring freely signed contracts, the products sold having to be openly and clearly described, all parties to the contracts, and their roles, having to be clearly and openly described.  There might be one or two others, but you get the idea.

Then get serious about cases.  If these laws are violated, hale the miscreants into court and go for serious penalties.  No more “negotiating” pocket money payments.  That’s like negotiating with Willie Sutton over his “community service.”  $250 billion in illegal trades ought to get that much as the floor of a fine.  If that puts the misbehaving company out of business, I suggest that a criminal organization won’t be missed.