Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
Friday
January 2012
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in General/Misc.
He managed to stop himself before slipping in a “Thank you, come again.”
*And just to be clear, that was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I don’t think Biden is actually a racist. I think he’s an idiot. But we all know what the narrative would be if someone with an R after their name was equally as boneheaded.
Wednesday
January 2012
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Big Government, Economics & the Economy, Government Meddling
In his antagonistic, petulant, and stale campaign speech State of the Union address, President Obama said, “It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts.”
Oh, what fine rhetoric, Mr. President! Yet earlier in the very same speech, he said this: “On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen.” Just to be clear, he’s talking about his auto-industry bailout.
Beyond the fact that his premise is entirely wrong (the US auto industry as a whole was not on the verge of collapse, but a select few companies were and are still in bad shape despite what he says), it is telling that he deliberately avoided mentioning just what he did with the auto-industry: he bailed it out. More specifically, he bailed out his union buddies who were largely responsible for crippling those companies in the first place. And as for applying the same rules top to bottom, there is an exception again for his unions pals, who have been granted a majority of the waivers shielding them from the destructive impact of the government takeover of the health sector which those same unions supported.
The reason he was not open about his auto-industry bailout was because his intention was to be dishonest and give lip service to opposing bailouts. Like so much of this President’s rhetoric, you have to set aside the lies, and look at his record. Barack Obama is a statist and economic interventionist, and bailouts are an interventionists best friend.
Tuesday
January 2012
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Big Government
Some things never change (from Bankrupting America):
Expect more of the same empty rhetoric tonight.
Monday
January 2012
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Big Government, Liberty & Limited Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort
On the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (an odd number on which to get sentimental), President Obama released a statement that begins with this extraordinary claim:
As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.
Private family matters such as which car to buy, which doctor to use, or which insurance plan to purchase…well, those are certainly the business of Barack Obama. But whether or not a helpless, arguably human life (depending on when you think such begins) is destroyed, that’s no one’s business! How is this man so widely considered a serious political thinker?
Saturday
January 2012
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Economics & the Economy, Free Markets
The latest in a long line of stupid leftwing policies targeting the oil industry:
Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a “Reasonable Profits Board” to control gas profits.
The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a “windfall profit tax” as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.
Of course it doesn’t, because there is no definition they can use that isn’t arbitrary. The only definition for “reasonable profits” that makes any sense is the very one which they reject: whatever the market can bear.
This is nothing but price controls by another name, yet the consequences would be just as disastrous. Moreover, it’s curious the Democrats single out an industry that is not even close to having highest profit margins. One can only conclude that their position is not based on the application of any sort of principle, but rather that of political expediency. This is demagogic red meat for election season, plain and simple.
P.S. The oil industry already typically pays more in taxes than it earns in after-tax profits. Where’s the “Reasonable Thievery Board” to limit such government theft of the private sector to “reasonable” levels?
Friday
January 2012
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Gun Rights
Hoplophobia is the irrational fear of firearms. It is a term which describes accurately the mental derangement exhibited by the state of New York, and in particular by New York’s Supreme Dictator for Life Michael Bloomberg, regarding any issue remotely related to guns:
The owner of a discount store in Brooklyn says the city is holding him up for $30,000 in fines he can’t afford — all because he stocked six toy sheriff sets that included plastic guns.
And now the .44-caliber fines for the orange-tipped, obvious fakes are forcing him to close for good.
“It doesn’t make any sense,” said Khaled Mohamed, 23, manager of 99¢ Target in Flatlands, which has been ordered to pay a staggering $5,000 fine for each gun offered for sale — the maximum under the law.
New York is a classic example of what happens when a population becomes overgoverned.
Friday
January 2012
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Liberty & Limited Government
While Hollywood is busy projecting non-existent guilt onto Margaret Thatcher for a neglect of private affairs that happened only in the figment of Hollywood imagination, and at the same time glossing over her many accomplishments in public life, it’s a good time to reflect on what the Iron Lady actually did:
Friday
January 2012
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in General/Misc.
Recess appointments are certainly nothing new, even if Obama’s much talked about not-really-in-a-recess style recess appointment of Cordray to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the unaccountable regulatory agency created by Dodd-Frank, along with three new members to the NLRB, has gone above and beyond the more recently accepted practices. What’s interesting to me is how ridiculous is much of the rhetorical justification for the move. The argument I frequently see goes something like this: Republicans blocked Obama’s appointments, therefore he just had to act.
This line of reasoning renders meaningless the entire concept of Advice and Consent. What is the point of even requiring Senate confirmation if the refusal of the Senate to do so just means that the President should go around them? If the Senate is expected to be nothing more than a rubber stamp, then the whole process is a massive waste of time.
Although there are legitimate concerns with agencies being left unmanned by Senate inaction, I’m more inclined to view the idea of the recess appointment as the bigger problem here. It made much more sense when originally conceived, as the legislature was a part time body which might be out of session for months at a time. Such is simply not the case anymore. Today we have a full time legislature that rarely recesses for more than a few weeks at a time. There are few if an vacancies that are so critical they would have to be filled before the Senate soon returned to session. And if the Senate refused to do so for poor reasons, that’s a political issue best sorted out by voters at election time.
Monday
December 2011
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society
Finally, there is an issue for which the Obama administration has not reflexively sided with centralized government and limits on freedom:
A Justice Department opinion dated September and made public on Friday reversed decades of previous policy that included civil and criminal charges against operators of some of the most popular online poker sites.
Until now, the department held that online gambling in all forms was illegal under the Wire Act of 1961, which bars wagers via telecommunications that cross state lines or international borders.
The new interpretation, by the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, said the Wire Act applies only to bets on a “sporting event or contest,” not to a state’s use of the Internet to sell lottery tickets to adults within its borders or abroad.
…But the department’s conclusion would eliminate “almost every federal anti-gambling law that could apply to gaming that is legal under state laws,” Rose wrote on his blog at www.gamblingandthelaw.com.If a state legalized intra-state games such as poker, as Nevada and the District of Columbia have done, “there is simply no federal law that could apply” against their operators, he said.
No comment yet from the despicable, odious weasel Preet Bharara, whose ongoing crusade against human freedom has destroyed the once booming online poker industry in the U.S.
Friday
December 2011
COMMENTS
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Big Government, Energy and the Environment, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements
One of the eternal frustrations in dealing with those who argue for expanded governmental power in order to address ‘inequality’ is that government itself is the source of so much inequality. Farm subsidies transfer wealth to farmers who are much richer than the average American. Social Security transfers wealth from young workers without much wealth to older individuals who have had a lifetime to accumulate savings, and are thus already much wealthier. Indeed, the idea that government distributes from the haves to the have-nots is a myth. Rather, government distributes from the less politically connected to the more politically connected.
Add the Chevy Volt to the list of government welfare programs for the rich. Like so many ‘green’ subsidies, they benefit primarily wealthy, high-minded liberals at the expense of everyone else.
The buyers of Chevrolet’s taxpayer-subsidized Chevy Volt hybrid have an average income of $170,000, but still receive thousands in tax breaks for their purchases.
The wealthy buyers of the Volt each get a $7,500 tax credit for buying the car. The number of people who get the subsidy is unknown, because the company does not say how many of its buyers are individuals who pay taxes, as opposed to companies or government agencies.
All of the buyers, however, do enjoy a share of the roughly $1.5 billion in federal and state subsidies given to Chevrolet and its parts suppliers, according to a new analysis by James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
The government subsidies add up to a potential maximum of $250,000 for each of the 6,000 Volts that was sold by the end of November, 2011.
If the subsidies are discounted to include portions of the various subsidies not actually snagged by the companies, or also applied to other projects, the value per Volt of the already-used subsidies is somewhere between $30,000 and $88,000 per auto, he said.
But don’t expect to hear the so-called 99% protesting at the door of Chevy, or decrying the practices of the green elite.
I serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.