Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler posts a link to Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom, recently published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University (here in Northern Virginia).
See the data behind the study here.
I'm heartened that Virginia ranks [relatively] high on personal freedom (relative, that is, to many other states) and also relatively high on economic freedom.
Over at Cato @ Liberty, a piece on Crédit Mobilier as a Model for High-Speed Rail.
Why, if we have such large subsidies for Amtrak, do we think that high-speed rail is affordable? What's changed?
Maureen Dowd's column in the New York edition of today's NYT focuses on the administration's approach to describing (and managing) our present economic state of affairs. She makes some interesting (and comment-worthy) points.
In reference to [former] President Bill Clinton's suggestions regarding President Obama's engagement with the American people (and, for that matter, people outside of America whom we expect to loan us a HUGE amount of cash):
Instead, he implies, the president’s warnings of calamity, designed to gin up support for borrowing and printing trillions to shore up the sagging economy, might actually be dragging down our already sagging self-esteem.
It's less self-esteem than it is perception and confidence. We make decisions based on perceptions of the future. Given a choice between saving, investing [speculating?] in the market (equities or bonds), paying down the mortgage [cost avoidance], or spending, we consciously or unconsciously select between those alternatives based on what we think [feel?] will happen. The alarmist drum-beat of late appears to be a cynical attempt to defuse opposition to the $US 8,000,000,000.00+ deficit spending bill.
It’s hard to muster moxie with stocks shriveling, Chris Dodd talking nationalization, and Paul Volcker making Chicken Little sound cheery — “I don’t remember any time, maybe even in the Great Depression,” he said, “when things went down quite so fast, quite so uniformly around the world.”
Yes, the market has retreated. That's what a market correction does - the market was overpriced for a long time, propped up by massive government intervention and misregulation (e.g., unprecedented and artificially-low interest rates, loan guarantees, nationalized financial institutions, bail-outs). The market will stop dropping as soon as assets are perceived to be priced correctly - no sooner, and no later. Hand-wringing (by politicians or columnists) isn't helpful.
We dutifully cut back on Starbucks macchiatos, designer water and even Girl Scout cookies, but we keep hurtling down.
Strangely tone-deaf for Maureen Dowd. The complaint in the MSM (and amplified by the administration and the Congress) is that AMERICANS ARE HURTING! It isn't about fewer caffè lattes, or drinking [heaven forbid!] tap water, it's about all the people being thrown out of their homes by craven bankers. Isn't it?
Many Americans lost a paper fortune when the equity market's valuation fell. Some of that fortune will come back, and some won't.
Many Americans are now structurally or cyclically unemployed. Individuals in real estate, housing, and related industries will need to shift industries, at least temporarily.
Many Americans lost another paper fortune if they owned a home (particularly in the big housing bubble states: California, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado). People who thought that the tremendous run-up in housing prices was sustainable were foolishly delusional. Remember, we even had cable television programs dedicated to house flipping (note: this show is still running new episodes! What's with that?). What were people thinking? I can't know what they were thinking then, but now they're thinking about getting bailed out.
Two words come to mind: moral hazard.
While W. and Dick conjured an alternative reality about Iraq, our avaricious bankers created an alternative reality about our financial system. Now our busted trust is not so easily fixed.
Aha. The obligatory shot at President Bush and Vice President Cheney. BDS is tough to cure. Did "avaricious bankers" really create an alternative reality about our financial system? Did these "avaricious bankers" force us to think that a 100% increase in the value of a home over a period of just a few years was at all realistic or sustainable? I'm inclined to believe that it is the avaricious consumer who ran those home prices up, then vacuumed home equity out as quickly as possible, who is responsible for this mess as the interventionist and over-regulatory policies of our government.
In an Associated Press article headlined “Obama Plans Eclipsing New Deal Spending,” the Rutgers University political science professor Ross Baker notes, “Not surprisingly, people are wary of some very expensive proposals with no guarantee of success or even a high probability of how well they’ll work.”
Wariness = uncertainty, which leads to sitting on the economic sidelines. Note that savings rates have increased significantly -- that, and chipping away at the mountain of credit card debt racked up by profligate Americans, is a good thing. [Note: at the end of 2008, consumer credit outstanding was a whopping $US 2,596,000,000,000.00].
In The Times, Eric Dash reported that Wall Street is losing confidence in Washington’s vague and shifting plans, sending shares of bank companies plunging to new lows on Friday.
"Washington" = the administration + the Congress. "Washington" doesn't have plans; the administration and the Congress, on the other hand, have plans and interventionist policies. Shares of banks and bank holding companies are heading down to their real valuation. The sooner we get there, the better. Let's rip the metaphorical bandage off all at once, instead of prolonging the damage.
He spoke for those who want a pound of flesh. With the Wall Street bailout, Mr. Obama at least gave bankers a bit of the belt, and capped their pay. But homebuyers who wanted more than they could afford seem to be getting a free ride.
More moral hazard. Why on earth should we think that the federal government should be in the pay-setting business? This is poor political theater, and even worse public policy. The federal government has no business attempting to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. And while I'm at it, since professional sports teams are often subsidized by the public, shouldn't we cap those salaries?
Yet Obama is oozing empathy compared with his attorney general, who last week called us “a nation of cowards” about race.
I've ignored the AG Holder remarks -- he's stepping on the administration's news cycle (and message).
We need leaders to help us through our crises, not provide us with crude evaluations of our character. And we don’t need sermons from liberal virtuecrats, anymore than from conservative virtuecrats.
I agree.
In the middle of all the Heimlich maneuvers required now — for the economy, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, health care, the environment and education — we don’t need a Jackson/Sharpton-style lecture on race. Barack Obama’s election was supposed to get us past that.
Whether or not we need a Jackson/Sharpton-style lecture, we're going to get it [routinely]. Witness the frivolous discussion over the NY Post cartoon this week (which also stepped all over the administration's message and killed another news cycle -- I wonder what would happen if President Obama told Reverend Sharpton to simply shut up).
Advice, from Copious Dissent, regarding words and phrases that we need to strike from our daily discourse. Well worth reading and sharing with others....
I watch The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer many nights for several reasons: the analysis is generally more thoughtful, and individual segments are longer, providing more context. There is a distinct leftist bent to the coverage, but it's not the shallow and superficial coverage available from the so-called broadcast networks or the shrill shoutfest at cable outlets such as MSNBC or CNN.
I had a few minutes, earlier this evening, to send a short note to the folks at The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, which I'll share here:
Selection of terminology is important to clearly and concisely explain complex subjects, such as the economic situation facing our country (and the world). I'm bothered by a selection of terminology that obscures, intentionally or not, the source of the treasure that will be spent. For instance, one of tonight's stories has the following lede on your web site:
"Nine weeks after automakers made their first plea to Congress for emergency aid, General Motors and Chrysler submitted new restructuring strategies and requests for additional federal funds that could bring the government's total tab to $39 billion."
Use of the term "federal funds" obscures the fact that funding will come from two sources: taxpayers and bondholders. While bondholders are important, and have a critical stake in the problem, taxpayers will bear the full brunt of any decisions made to "stimulate" the economy. Additionally, the phrase "government's total tab" can easily be interpreted by inattentive citizens as being somehow different from "taxpayer's total tab". Using the more accurate phrase will help avoid misinterpretation, and continue to remind taxpayers that they (and not "the government") are picking up the tab here, and are accountable for the decisions made by their elected representatives.
By the way, "bailing out" General Motors and Chrysler is a bad economics and bad public policy. It was a bad idea in December, and it's a bad idea now. Taxpayer intervention in market forces that are trying to establish the fair value of these companies will postpone (and increase the cost) of the inevitable.
Remember the infrastructure bill that was rushed through the Congress in response to the I-35W bridge collapse in Minnesota? Ilya Somin, over at the Volokh Conspiracy wonders (as do I)...read more at:
The on-again, off-again Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the so-called stimulus package (H.R. 1) was posted on the CBO Director's blog today.
Assuming enactment in mid-February, CBO estimates that the bill would increase outlays by $92 billion during the remaining several months of fiscal year 2009, by $225 billion in fiscal year 2010 (which begins on October 1), by $159 billion in 2011, and by a total of $604 billion over the 2009-2019 period. That spending includes outlays from discretionary appropriations in Division A of the bill and direct spending resulting from Division B.
How do you spend $92B intelligently in only six months (the time remaining in this fiscal year)? Didn't we just have an acrimonious debate about spending incident to the Iraq War? I may be missing something important here, but it seems to me that the folks who were so concerned about wasteful spending and contracting abuses in the past are getting ready to open the floodgates.
In addition, CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting the provisions in Division B would reduce revenues by $76 billion in fiscal year 2009, by $131 billion in fiscal year 2010, and by a net of $212 billion over the 2009-2019 period.
In combining the spending and revenue effects of H.R. 1, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $169 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $356 billion in 2010, by $174 billion in 2011, and by $816 billion over the 2009-2019 period.
Outlays increase. Income decreases. We eat the difference. Ugh.
But wait, it gets better!
The budgetary impact of the bill stems primarily from three types of transactions: Direct payments to individuals (such as unemployment benefits), reductions in federal taxes, and purchases of goods and services (either by the federal government directly or indirectly via grants to states and local governments). CBO estimates that impacts from the first two categories of transactions would occur fairly rapidly. In the third category, CBO estimates slower rates of spending than historical full-year spending rates in 2009 for a number of reasons:
- The bill’s enactment would likely occur nearly half way through the fiscal year.
- Previous experience suggests that agencies have difficulty rapidly expanding existing programs while maintaining current services; the funding in H.R. 1 for some programs is substantially greater than the usual annual funding for those activities.
- Spending can be delayed by necessary lags for planning, soliciting bids, entering contracts, and conducting regulatory or environmental reviews.
- Agencies face additional challenges in spending funds for new programs quickly because of the time necessary to develop procedures and criteria, issue regulations, and review plans and proposals before money can be distributed.
Frequently in the past, in all types of federal programs, a noticeable lag has occurred between sharp increases in funding and resulting increases in outlays. Based on such experiences, CBO expects that federal agencies, states, and other recipients of funding would find it difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so as to spend added funds quickly as they expend their normal resources. The seasonal nature of some spending also affects the speed at which activities can be conducted; for example, major school repairs are generally scheduled during the summer to avoid disrupting classes.
In short, there's no way this money will be spent without waste -- perhaps a LOT of waste.
Read all about it, here:
Director’s Blog » Blog Archive » American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Ugh. According to the folks at Contrary Investor, there are more people employed by government than are employed in the manufacturing and construction industries.
