Posts
Government Allows Banks to Repay Aid, But Move Not a Sign of Recovery, Experts Say - Political News - FOXNews.com: "The White House plans to announce that some of the nation's largest banks can pay back billions in federal aid"
It's pretty bad when the government can determine when you can repay a loan and when you can't.
Friday, June 12, 2009
CEObama | Daniel J. Ikenson | Cato Institute: Commentary
CEObama | Daniel J. Ikenson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Even if President Obama were sincere in his claim that he doesn't want to run a car company, it will be impossible for him to eschew policies that distinctly benefit GM. With taxpayers on the hook for $50 billion (just for starters), the administration will do whatever it takes to demonstrate the wisdom of its intervention.
That will require, at a minimum, a positive return on the coerced investment. But to merely break even on taxpayers' 60% stake, GM will have to be worth $83 billion (60% of $83 billion is $50 billion). How and when will that ever happen? At its peak in 2000, GM's value (based on its market capitalization) stood at $60 billion. Thus, the minimum benchmark for 'success' will require a 38% increase in GM's value from where it was in the heady days of 2000, when Americans were purchasing 16 million vehicles per year. U.S. demand projections for the next few years come in at around 10 million vehicles. Taxpayer ownership of GM is something we should all get used to, and the 'investment' is only going to grow larger. Think Amtrak.
It should be obvious that the administration will rely on policy (tax policy, trade policy and regulations) to induce consumers to purchase GM products, to subsidize production and, indeed, to hamstring GM's competition. This will have perverse effects on Ford and other companies that find it difficult to compete against a free-spending Treasury. And all of this will happen even if the president is true to his claim that he doesn't want to run a car company. He can take a hands-off approach and tilt the playing field in GM's favor at the same time."
That will require, at a minimum, a positive return on the coerced investment. But to merely break even on taxpayers' 60% stake, GM will have to be worth $83 billion (60% of $83 billion is $50 billion). How and when will that ever happen? At its peak in 2000, GM's value (based on its market capitalization) stood at $60 billion. Thus, the minimum benchmark for 'success' will require a 38% increase in GM's value from where it was in the heady days of 2000, when Americans were purchasing 16 million vehicles per year. U.S. demand projections for the next few years come in at around 10 million vehicles. Taxpayer ownership of GM is something we should all get used to, and the 'investment' is only going to grow larger. Think Amtrak.
It should be obvious that the administration will rely on policy (tax policy, trade policy and regulations) to induce consumers to purchase GM products, to subsidize production and, indeed, to hamstring GM's competition. This will have perverse effects on Ford and other companies that find it difficult to compete against a free-spending Treasury. And all of this will happen even if the president is true to his claim that he doesn't want to run a car company. He can take a hands-off approach and tilt the playing field in GM's favor at the same time."
Reform Must Empower the Consumers | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
Reform Must Empower the Consumers | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Furthermore, cost estimates for government programs have been wildly optimistic over the years, especially for health care. For example, when Medicare was instituted in 1965, it was estimated that the cost of Medicare Part A would be $9 billion by 1990. In actuality, it was $67 billion. Similarly, in 1987, Medicaid's special hospitals subsidy was projected to cost $100 million annually just five years later; it actually cost $11 billion, more than 100 times as much. And in 1988, when Medicare's home care benefit was established, the projected cost for 1993 was $4 billion, but the actual cost was $10 billion. If the current estimates are off by similar orders of magnitude, we would be enacting a new entitlement that could bury future generations under mountains of debt and taxes."
Obama Speech Connects to the Founders' Foreign Policy | Christopher Preble | Cato Institute: Commentary
Obama Speech Connects to the Founders' Foreign Policy | Christopher Preble | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Still, for all their faults, the Founders views on foreign policy are worth recalling. They believed that the new nation should advance human rights and the cause of liberty by its example, not by force. They believed that military force was sometimes required, as does Obama today, for example, when he pledged to 'relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security.' By the same token, the Founders realized that war was one of the primary vehicles whereby governments infringed upon individual liberty, and they sought ways to limit the government's propensity to wage war, particularly by giving the power to declare and fund wars to Congress."
Sotomayor: A Presidential Power Skeptic? | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary
Sotomayor: A Presidential Power Skeptic? | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Her record on property rights is no more promising: In 2006's Didden v. Village of Port Chester, she ratified an eminent domain abuse that makes the infamous Kelo case look mild.
The landowner in Didden, who wanted to build a CVS, refused to pay off a politically connected developer, so the town gave his property to the developer to build a Walgreen's. Sotomayor's panel saw no evil in this case of state-sponsored extortion."
The landowner in Didden, who wanted to build a CVS, refused to pay off a politically connected developer, so the town gave his property to the developer to build a Walgreen's. Sotomayor's panel saw no evil in this case of state-sponsored extortion."
Campaign For Liberty — The Deceit of the Drug War
Campaign For Liberty — The Deceit of the Drug War: "The movement against marijuana, hemp, and cannabis was pushed forward by special interest groups who saw hemp specifically as a competitive threat. DuPont had recently patented nylon and jumped on the opportunity to take hemp out of the picture. Hemp was also a legitimate force in the paper industry and represented a threat to that area of the lumber industry. Pharmaceutical companies didn't appreciate the fact that they couldn't control the cannabis market, given the fact that people could grow it right in their backyard and didn't rely on the commercial market."
"Dr. William Woodward of the AMA would explain in Congress that the AMA opposed the legislation, did not recognize any of the violence that the government linked with marijuana, and generally questioned the whole approach that the government was taking with the proceedings. In short, there was little to no medical evidence or support from the medical community that marijuana induced violence, one of the primary reasons for the government's incessant attack on the substance.
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was signed into law by Franklin Roosevelt on August 2, 1937, after several years of racist, medically unsupported, and exaggerated propaganda. Of course, in WWII the Department of Agriculture produced a video, "Hemp for Victory," encouraging farmers to grow as much hemp as possible for the war effort. I can't help but get the feeling that when the government needs it, it is okay to farm hemp. But when the government doesn't have the urgent need for it, hemp is off the table."
"Hemp is currently one of the most (if not the most) efficient prospects for renewable fuel. Hemp is an extraordinary plant that could easily cut down our dependence on oil, reliance on trees to produce paper, and expand the vital element of choice and competition in various areas of the economy. Over 25,000 products can be made with hemp. There is nothing remotely dangerous with hemp that the states and the market can't work out that justifies prohibiting it from freely competing in the marketplace."
"We can't forget the lessons of alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s. People did not suddenly stop consuming alcohol, alcohol did not disappear, and as a result it was the gangs and criminals who ran the industry. It is a nearly identical situation we are in today with drugs. As with Prohibition, we are trying to control individual behavior, and the only way to bring it about is through increased government force and infringement on personal freedom."
"Dr. William Woodward of the AMA would explain in Congress that the AMA opposed the legislation, did not recognize any of the violence that the government linked with marijuana, and generally questioned the whole approach that the government was taking with the proceedings. In short, there was little to no medical evidence or support from the medical community that marijuana induced violence, one of the primary reasons for the government's incessant attack on the substance.
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was signed into law by Franklin Roosevelt on August 2, 1937, after several years of racist, medically unsupported, and exaggerated propaganda. Of course, in WWII the Department of Agriculture produced a video, "Hemp for Victory," encouraging farmers to grow as much hemp as possible for the war effort. I can't help but get the feeling that when the government needs it, it is okay to farm hemp. But when the government doesn't have the urgent need for it, hemp is off the table."
"Hemp is currently one of the most (if not the most) efficient prospects for renewable fuel. Hemp is an extraordinary plant that could easily cut down our dependence on oil, reliance on trees to produce paper, and expand the vital element of choice and competition in various areas of the economy. Over 25,000 products can be made with hemp. There is nothing remotely dangerous with hemp that the states and the market can't work out that justifies prohibiting it from freely competing in the marketplace."
"We can't forget the lessons of alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s. People did not suddenly stop consuming alcohol, alcohol did not disappear, and as a result it was the gangs and criminals who ran the industry. It is a nearly identical situation we are in today with drugs. As with Prohibition, we are trying to control individual behavior, and the only way to bring it about is through increased government force and infringement on personal freedom."
Five Questions for Sotomayor | Ilya Shapiro | Cato Institute: Commentary
Five Questions for Sotomayor | Ilya Shapiro | Cato Institute: Commentary: "senators from both parties should ask probing questions that can cut through the 'that case may come before me' clutter and actually shed light on Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy. Here are five:
1. Can the government rewrite leases, mortgages, and other contracts? The Depression-era Supreme Court said yes in a case called Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell because constitutional protections for property and contract rights can be sacrificed to 'protect' homeowners. While such reasoning may promote a crude form of social justice, it prevents people from planning their affairs because it undermines their confidence that contracts they sign today will be enforced tomorrow — and thereby destroys the credit and capital markets upon which modern life rests. Is this the kind of 'empathy' the nominee shares?
2. Can the government regulate activity that is neither commerce nor crosses state lines? The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution says no, but the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn allowed the Department of Agriculture to fine a farmer for growing too much wheat and not taking enough of it to market — because his actions, when aggregated with other farmers, could affect the interstate price of wheat. Sixty-three years later, the court used similar logic to stop a seriously ill woman from growing marijuana for "compassionate use" under California law.
3. Where in the Constitution is the right to privacy — and other unspecified rights — located? Cass Sunstein, a legal adviser to President Obama, has said that Roe v. Wade was poorly reasoned and not rooted in constitutional text or precedent. Does Sotomayor agree? The point here is not to tease out whether she is pro-choice. Rather, does she agree that the right to privacy comes from, as the court explained in Roe, penumbras formed by emanating constitutional amendments? If so, what else lurks in those shadows? Or is the right to privacy — at least as it relates to issues such as sodomy and contraception, which, unlike abortion, don't involve claims to potentially competing rights — really found in the Ninth Amendment, which protects "others retained by the people?" If so, what are other examples of retained rights? The right to pursue an honest living or otherwise be free from government interference with economic liberty?
4. What does the nominee think of Kelo v. City of New London? This is the case in which the city decided to take people's houses and give them to a private company, which promised to use the land in a way that would create jobs and generate more tax revenue. The Supreme Court approved this eminent domain abuse because the Fifth Amendment's "public use" requirement included the "public benefit" contemplated here. Justice O'Connor was forceful in dissent: "Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." What is Sotomayor's understanding of "public use"?
5. Should the Supreme Court refer to foreign court decisions to help interpret US law and the Constitution? Certain members of the court increasingly cite foreign sources to support their arguments, typically in disputes over the death penalty and other hot-button issues. The problem is that, while it is perfectly appropriate to look abroad when interpreting international commercial contracts, the views of foreign lawyers are simply irrelevant to the meaning of our founding document. And while Congress should look to foreign example when crafting legislation — much as the founders did when designing the Constitution — interpretation should be done solely with reference to national legal traditions. Otherwise, we not only delegitimize our own law but move it in unexpected directions. For example, US law is much more "liberal" than that in the rest of the world in areas such as abortion and free speech.
There are more questions that need to be asked. If Sotomayor refuses to answer them substantively or offers anodyne truisms, she will not have met the appropriate burden. More important, she will not have gained the trust of the American people."
1. Can the government rewrite leases, mortgages, and other contracts? The Depression-era Supreme Court said yes in a case called Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell because constitutional protections for property and contract rights can be sacrificed to 'protect' homeowners. While such reasoning may promote a crude form of social justice, it prevents people from planning their affairs because it undermines their confidence that contracts they sign today will be enforced tomorrow — and thereby destroys the credit and capital markets upon which modern life rests. Is this the kind of 'empathy' the nominee shares?
2. Can the government regulate activity that is neither commerce nor crosses state lines? The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution says no, but the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn allowed the Department of Agriculture to fine a farmer for growing too much wheat and not taking enough of it to market — because his actions, when aggregated with other farmers, could affect the interstate price of wheat. Sixty-three years later, the court used similar logic to stop a seriously ill woman from growing marijuana for "compassionate use" under California law.
3. Where in the Constitution is the right to privacy — and other unspecified rights — located? Cass Sunstein, a legal adviser to President Obama, has said that Roe v. Wade was poorly reasoned and not rooted in constitutional text or precedent. Does Sotomayor agree? The point here is not to tease out whether she is pro-choice. Rather, does she agree that the right to privacy comes from, as the court explained in Roe, penumbras formed by emanating constitutional amendments? If so, what else lurks in those shadows? Or is the right to privacy — at least as it relates to issues such as sodomy and contraception, which, unlike abortion, don't involve claims to potentially competing rights — really found in the Ninth Amendment, which protects "others retained by the people?" If so, what are other examples of retained rights? The right to pursue an honest living or otherwise be free from government interference with economic liberty?
4. What does the nominee think of Kelo v. City of New London? This is the case in which the city decided to take people's houses and give them to a private company, which promised to use the land in a way that would create jobs and generate more tax revenue. The Supreme Court approved this eminent domain abuse because the Fifth Amendment's "public use" requirement included the "public benefit" contemplated here. Justice O'Connor was forceful in dissent: "Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." What is Sotomayor's understanding of "public use"?
5. Should the Supreme Court refer to foreign court decisions to help interpret US law and the Constitution? Certain members of the court increasingly cite foreign sources to support their arguments, typically in disputes over the death penalty and other hot-button issues. The problem is that, while it is perfectly appropriate to look abroad when interpreting international commercial contracts, the views of foreign lawyers are simply irrelevant to the meaning of our founding document. And while Congress should look to foreign example when crafting legislation — much as the founders did when designing the Constitution — interpretation should be done solely with reference to national legal traditions. Otherwise, we not only delegitimize our own law but move it in unexpected directions. For example, US law is much more "liberal" than that in the rest of the world in areas such as abortion and free speech.
There are more questions that need to be asked. If Sotomayor refuses to answer them substantively or offers anodyne truisms, she will not have met the appropriate burden. More important, she will not have gained the trust of the American people."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)