They are not only adamantly opposed to off-shore drilling for oil, but now House Democrats want the federal government to take over oil refineries. Government bureaucrats obviously know best how much oil should be refined and not the market.
I guess basic knowledge of economics isn't necessary to most voters to be in Congress.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Compare and contrast
Good questions! Reminds me a recent flood...
Where are all of the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for help in restoring Iowa and helping the folks affected by the floods?
Where is all the media asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn't solved the problem? Asking where the FEMA trucks (and trailers) are?
Why isn't the Federal Government relocating Iowa people to free hotels in Chicago?
When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines?
Where are Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks?
Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes and big screen television sets?
When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants to rebuild a "vanilla" Iowa, because that's the way God wants it?
Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of cannibalism?
Where are the people declaring that George Bush hates white, rural people?
How come in 2 weeks, you will never hear about the Iowa flooding ever again?
Where are all of the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for help in restoring Iowa and helping the folks affected by the floods?
Where is all the media asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn't solved the problem? Asking where the FEMA trucks (and trailers) are?
Why isn't the Federal Government relocating Iowa people to free hotels in Chicago?
When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines?
Where are Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks?
Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes and big screen television sets?
When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants to rebuild a "vanilla" Iowa, because that's the way God wants it?
Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of cannibalism?
Where are the people declaring that George Bush hates white, rural people?
How come in 2 weeks, you will never hear about the Iowa flooding ever again?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Obama's chief economic advisor hearts Wal-Mart
This is quite an interesting development. I had Obama pegged as basically a socialist on economic policy. Today he hired his chief economic advisor on his campaign, and it's a guy who likes Wal-Mart (from a liberal point of view):
So there's quite a lot of grumbling in labor circles today about his bringing on Jason Furman as his chief economic policy advisor, because Furman wrote a key, 2005 defense (.pdf) of Wal-Mart from the left, titled, unironically, "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story."
The piece makes two arguments. The first is that Wal-Mart lowers prices, so low-income people (and others) can buy more. The second is that Wal-Mart's low-wage jobs are consistent with the Clintonite philosophy of making work pay, and that the right fix is to have government subsidize the low-wage workers' salaries and help provide them healthcare. He denies that Wal-Mart lowers local wages.
Except for having government throw tax money at poor people, I agree with the rest of the points as summarized here. Organized labor, which hates Wal-Mart with a passion even as many of its members love shopping there, is less than thrilled:
Furman's arrival is one more mark of the transition to a general election in which labor may grumble, but really has nowhere else to go, and in which virtually all major unions backed his rivals in the primary -- . giving them seriously diminished clout on his campaign.
Here is the kicker, which helps to soften my anti-Obama stance somewhat, at least given that he's a Democrat:
But is the hire reflective more broadly that Obama's more a Clinton-style centrist than a man of labor? The case has been made that that's a false distinction, but there's not much evidence (aside from a couple of weeks in Ohio) for Obama as an economic populist.
Indeed Austan Goolsbee, another economist and key Obama advisor, also seems capable of mentioning Wal-Mart without spitting. He wrote in his Times column last year, in making the case that American workers are more productive htan others, that "companies like Wal-Mart seem to be more adept at translating technology into productivity than anyone else."
So there's quite a lot of grumbling in labor circles today about his bringing on Jason Furman as his chief economic policy advisor, because Furman wrote a key, 2005 defense (.pdf) of Wal-Mart from the left, titled, unironically, "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story."
The piece makes two arguments. The first is that Wal-Mart lowers prices, so low-income people (and others) can buy more. The second is that Wal-Mart's low-wage jobs are consistent with the Clintonite philosophy of making work pay, and that the right fix is to have government subsidize the low-wage workers' salaries and help provide them healthcare. He denies that Wal-Mart lowers local wages.
Except for having government throw tax money at poor people, I agree with the rest of the points as summarized here. Organized labor, which hates Wal-Mart with a passion even as many of its members love shopping there, is less than thrilled:
Furman's arrival is one more mark of the transition to a general election in which labor may grumble, but really has nowhere else to go, and in which virtually all major unions backed his rivals in the primary -- . giving them seriously diminished clout on his campaign.
Here is the kicker, which helps to soften my anti-Obama stance somewhat, at least given that he's a Democrat:
But is the hire reflective more broadly that Obama's more a Clinton-style centrist than a man of labor? The case has been made that that's a false distinction, but there's not much evidence (aside from a couple of weeks in Ohio) for Obama as an economic populist.
Indeed Austan Goolsbee, another economist and key Obama advisor, also seems capable of mentioning Wal-Mart without spitting. He wrote in his Times column last year, in making the case that American workers are more productive htan others, that "companies like Wal-Mart seem to be more adept at translating technology into productivity than anyone else."
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Corruption and a one-party system
Yes, yes, we all know Chicago's political system is corrupt. More stuff is coming out today, and I hope Patrick Fitzgerald keeps it up. No one is surprised, so I don't even find the details interesting.
What interests me is how often corruption festers in any system (local, state, or federal) where the levers of power are controlled by one party for too long. It's a pet theory of mine that any time that happens and we see dirty stuff, it's generally good for power to shift to the other party. Why? Then there is a totally fresh set of eyes and minds to clear out older practices. That means everyone from the politicians themselves to the staffers who perform much of the grunt work of running the operation.
(As a caveat, I understand that there are examples where a transfer of power makes no difference, such as the Illinois governor's mansion, where I thought it was actually a good thing for Blagojevich to take over for George Ryan and Republicans who had controlled it for 30 years or so. There are others, like the entire state of Louisiana, where corruption is just endemic in the entire culture, though they have a new governor who it trying to change that right now. Good luck to him, I say.)
That's one reason why I wasn't terribly worked up about Democrats taking over Congress in the 2006 elections. It's not that Hill Republicans were very corrupt or anything, especially compared to Democrats, but they had definitely gotten too comfortable with themselves and their power in the 12 years they were in charge (ignoring the brief Democratic Senate control earlier this decade due to a party-switcher). They still need to clean up their act to a degree, which is one reason Democrats can expect another big year in 2008.
The biggest example of such a shift that I can easily think of was in 1995 when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Democrats had it since 1954, and there were a fair number of scandals in the prior 15 years or so that played a factor. Besides my obvious bias towards the Republican party, it was certainly good for the sake of cleaning up the institution.
I often wonder what would occur in a city like Chicago if Republicans ever won the mayorship and a majority of the city council. Obviously such a thing is unlikely, but I'd be curious how that would affect the calcified beaurocracy.
Again, it's just a theory of mine.
What interests me is how often corruption festers in any system (local, state, or federal) where the levers of power are controlled by one party for too long. It's a pet theory of mine that any time that happens and we see dirty stuff, it's generally good for power to shift to the other party. Why? Then there is a totally fresh set of eyes and minds to clear out older practices. That means everyone from the politicians themselves to the staffers who perform much of the grunt work of running the operation.
(As a caveat, I understand that there are examples where a transfer of power makes no difference, such as the Illinois governor's mansion, where I thought it was actually a good thing for Blagojevich to take over for George Ryan and Republicans who had controlled it for 30 years or so. There are others, like the entire state of Louisiana, where corruption is just endemic in the entire culture, though they have a new governor who it trying to change that right now. Good luck to him, I say.)
That's one reason why I wasn't terribly worked up about Democrats taking over Congress in the 2006 elections. It's not that Hill Republicans were very corrupt or anything, especially compared to Democrats, but they had definitely gotten too comfortable with themselves and their power in the 12 years they were in charge (ignoring the brief Democratic Senate control earlier this decade due to a party-switcher). They still need to clean up their act to a degree, which is one reason Democrats can expect another big year in 2008.
The biggest example of such a shift that I can easily think of was in 1995 when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Democrats had it since 1954, and there were a fair number of scandals in the prior 15 years or so that played a factor. Besides my obvious bias towards the Republican party, it was certainly good for the sake of cleaning up the institution.
I often wonder what would occur in a city like Chicago if Republicans ever won the mayorship and a majority of the city council. Obviously such a thing is unlikely, but I'd be curious how that would affect the calcified beaurocracy.
Again, it's just a theory of mine.
Friday, May 2, 2008
When is your "rebate" coming?
I use scare quotes around the word rebate because it's not necessarily a rebate. It's a welfare check to people who made less than $75,000 last year.
Anyway, I was worked up that I wouldn't get any of it. I was wrong, as I found out from this website. I also was told when it would be deposited. So there you go, it's my good deed of the year for you people.
Anyway, I was worked up that I wouldn't get any of it. I was wrong, as I found out from this website. I also was told when it would be deposited. So there you go, it's my good deed of the year for you people.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Too much money for college
I am fascinated by the way our post-secondary education system works, and have been ever since I read Thomas Sowell's Inside American Education in college (for fun, of course, not for a class assignment). Adam Creighton has a column on The American Spectator's website making a very convincing case that too many people go to college and government funds too much of it.
One point he hits is that far too many people go there not as serious students, but to waste time before moving on to the labor force. Liberal arts majors, avert your eyes:
BUT DOES THE OLD public benefit argument apply equally to college education? In my experience, university students fall into two broad camps, the studious and the typical. The former go to increase their own earning potential and study diligently, often in vocational fields like law, medicine, engineering, or accounting. They don't need any subsidy. The latter go to enjoy themselves and delay finding a job, often stumbling through alcohol-fueled semesters in search of the next party or conquest, and reading the occasional book on the side.
Maybe the studious deserve a subsidy for their determined efforts and higher future tax payments. But frankly, where is the public benefit of middle and upper-class children writing their desultory, unoriginal thoughts down twice a term, and drinking themselves silly for four years (and let's not kid ourselves about the demographic whose children make up the bulk of typical college enrollments)? The only public dividend these students provide flows directly from alcohol and nightclub companies to private stockholders. Yet public money is poured into the education and maintenance of both...
ACADEMIC TRADITIONALISTS might take issue with my apparent disdain for non-vocational fields, such as classics, history and philosophy. But far from heralding their demise, a withdrawal of public subsidies would reduce enrollment in these fields, leaving only the keen and bright. Academic standards would recover, and their pejorative, public dismissal as "soft-options" would fade.
That final point is exactly right, I think. There's all kinds of good stuff in this column, so if this interests you I recommend it heartily.
One point he hits is that far too many people go there not as serious students, but to waste time before moving on to the labor force. Liberal arts majors, avert your eyes:
BUT DOES THE OLD public benefit argument apply equally to college education? In my experience, university students fall into two broad camps, the studious and the typical. The former go to increase their own earning potential and study diligently, often in vocational fields like law, medicine, engineering, or accounting. They don't need any subsidy. The latter go to enjoy themselves and delay finding a job, often stumbling through alcohol-fueled semesters in search of the next party or conquest, and reading the occasional book on the side.
Maybe the studious deserve a subsidy for their determined efforts and higher future tax payments. But frankly, where is the public benefit of middle and upper-class children writing their desultory, unoriginal thoughts down twice a term, and drinking themselves silly for four years (and let's not kid ourselves about the demographic whose children make up the bulk of typical college enrollments)? The only public dividend these students provide flows directly from alcohol and nightclub companies to private stockholders. Yet public money is poured into the education and maintenance of both...
ACADEMIC TRADITIONALISTS might take issue with my apparent disdain for non-vocational fields, such as classics, history and philosophy. But far from heralding their demise, a withdrawal of public subsidies would reduce enrollment in these fields, leaving only the keen and bright. Academic standards would recover, and their pejorative, public dismissal as "soft-options" would fade.
That final point is exactly right, I think. There's all kinds of good stuff in this column, so if this interests you I recommend it heartily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)