So I've mentioned before I get a newsletter (most) every week from Georgia's Senator Johnny Isakson. Even though he's a Republican, I find myself to the right of him more and more. Some quotes from today's update:
"This credit [I'm proposing] targets the purchase of the very homes causing the economy its biggest problems: foreclosures. A $7,000 tax credit will inspire buyers to get back into the market to absorb this standing inventory of homes that are foreclosed or pending foreclosure. I hope that the overall housing stimulus package will focus on helping the market and not become a ‘bailout’ that has more negatives than positives for the long-term."
I've said this before, but I think this is a bad idea. I usually support all kinds of tax cuts and the like but not when they are designed to interfere with a market and will only benefit a small segment of society while hurting others. First, I think the right thing to do is to let home prices find a bottom on their own. Second, because the credit applies to such a specific group of buyers and homes, you'd have to either be targeting the credit or just lucky to get it.
This is a common justification for requesting earmarks. The congressman who was put on the House Appropriations Committee a month or two ago instead of Jeff Flake (from what I hear) often talked about "bringing tax dollars home." The biggest reasons I'm against earmarks is that they can be easily used to "buy" votes for other projects and that they assume the district receiving the money needs the money worse than other district without actually doing the research to find out. I don't think the purpose of our representative government is the "betterment of our state" or district at the expense of other states, districts or the nation.
"Taking a hard line on rewriting the bankruptcy code" Boston Globe op-ed by Edward Glaeser (HT: Cafe Hayek):
"There are winners and losers in both booms and busts. Owners, who win during booms and lose during busts, get the most attention. We often ignore prospective home buyers, who lose just as much as owners gain during booms and gain just as much as owners lose during busts. Moreover, housing cycles don't pose huge risks to most homeowners, whose longer time horizons enable them to sit out downturns."
It's funny we don't often hear of the benefits of falling house prices to people who were priced out of the market when homes were more expensive. Why haven't Democrats, the champions of the poor, brought this up? I've got some friends in Northern California who, awhile back at least, couldn't approach buying a home because they were so expensive. Now with prices falling as much as they are, he might finally be able to afford something and buy a home. To me, that's a good thing.
"Unintended Lesson" Cafe Hayek by Russ Roberts quoting Hillary Clinton:
"I was in Indianapolis the other day and I was shaking hands after I spoke. And there was this young boy about eleven years old and he's trying to tell me something—you know the crowd was yelling—so I leaned over and he said, "You know, my mom makes minimum wage and even though it went up, her hours were cut. So we're not making any more money. Can you help her?" You know, when somebody says something like that to you, it really does kind of energize me. I think, yeah, I can, I'm going to really try to help you, because this is wrong."
He responds:
"She clearly thinks the story is emblematic of something important that needs to get fixed. What is it? Just when you help someone by passing a minimum wage, greedy employers ruin everything by lowering the hours. Well, we need to "fight" and fix that, too.
I wish Jay Leno (Hillary said this on his show) had pointed out that the cut in hours was the result of passing the minimum wage--that it was as inevitable as gravity. I wish he'd said that the story showed how the minimum wage is a false promise of prosperity. I wish he'd pointed out that fighting isn't enough, caring isn't enough, that prosperity can't be legislated any more than self-interest can be made illegal."
I like how he said that prosperity can't be legislated. I was thinking of that recently as I've been reading The Forgotten Man. Hoover used the bully pulpit to get business owners to maintain employment and wages despite their inability to do so and continue operating. The result was that several businesses went under and many others just decided not to try. She quotes a bank executive who was critical of Hoover's plan to increase wages as saying, "It is not true that high wages make for prosperity. Instead, prosperity makes high wages."
"Bear's Market" WSJ editorial:
"Details that emerged from the hearing offered a better understanding of the high drama during the days of the sale. These particulars make us inclined to give the Fed the benefit of the doubt on doing the basic deal to forestall systemic risk. We remain unconvinced about the new precedent of the government holding $29 billion in mortgage-related securities as collateral."
I too am unconvinced.
"Our Free-Trade Consensus" WSJ op-ed by Kenneth Duberstein and Thomas McLarty:
"On the trade front, it is important to understand that, as Under Secretary of Commerce Chris Padilla has said, the U.S. already has free trade with Colombia – but it's "one-way free trade." Thanks to the Andean Trade Preferences Act, which Congress passed 16 years ago, Colombian exporters pay tariffs on only 8% of the goods they send to the U.S. Meanwhile, U.S. exporters currently pay tariffs – some as high as 35% -- on 97% of the products we sell Colombia.
The U.S.-Colombia FTA would level this uneven playing field, eliminating the tariffs on U.S. goods and creating new market access for U.S. service suppliers. And it would do all of this with a major trading partner. The U.S. exports more to Colombia than Russia, even though Russia has a population that is three times larger and an economy seven times that of Colombia."
By not signing this free trade agreement with Colombia, we won't be punishing the country's leaders. Instead, we're punishing the people. What happens to the price of something when import tariffs are dropped? Its price falls. They'll pay less for everything they buy from us. When the price of something goes down, the quantity demanded of that thing goes up: they buy more products from the US and exports increase. Yeah, it definitely seems like a bad deal for everyone.
"The Union Agenda" WSJ editorial by Kimberly Stassel:
"How bad does Big Labor want this? Consider the desperation. A global economy has meant higher-paying, more flexible jobs, and a U.S. workforce that sees little value in unions. Union membership has been in a free-fall for years, with private-sector membership now at just 7.4% of the labor force. Fights over how to stop this bleeding have fractured the movement. Labor leaders worry that if they don't reverse the trend soon, they'll be out of a job."
I don't like unions. They're an anachronism. They might have been necessary decades ago, but I think they do more harm than good now. Considerably more harm than good, both for the employee and the employer. They essentially take away freedoms and the incentive to do good work by forcing employers to enter into one-size-fits-all contracts.
I've said this before, but I think this is a bad idea. I usually support all kinds of tax cuts and the like but not when they are designed to interfere with a market and will only benefit a small segment of society while hurting others. First, I think the right thing to do is to let home prices find a bottom on their own. Second, because the credit applies to such a specific group of buyers and homes, you'd have to either be targeting the credit or just lucky to get it.
"I believe earmarks are a responsibility in representing my state. I believe we are elected by voters who trust us to use good judgment and common sense for the betterment of our state and nation."
This is a common justification for requesting earmarks. The congressman who was put on the House Appropriations Committee a month or two ago instead of Jeff Flake (from what I hear) often talked about "bringing tax dollars home." The biggest reasons I'm against earmarks is that they can be easily used to "buy" votes for other projects and that they assume the district receiving the money needs the money worse than other district without actually doing the research to find out. I don't think the purpose of our representative government is the "betterment of our state" or district at the expense of other states, districts or the nation.
"In December 2007, the Senate passed a Farm Bill that continues to provide a safety net for farmers, increases conservation programs, provides incentives for renewable energy production and establishes a permanent disaster program. I believe the Farm Bill is a win for rural America and for farmers in Georgia, where agriculture remains the number one industry in the state."
Why does he support a safety net for farmers but not any other industries? Oh wait, he is. The construction and real estate industries, his old stomping grounds, are getting some help with his tax credits. But that's beside the point. Why do we need to support one industry? What is wrong with what they're doing that keeps them from competing without help? Corporate welfare removes incentives for innovation and places the risks of competing in a business, whatever business it is, on taxpayers.
Why does he support a safety net for farmers but not any other industries? Oh wait, he is. The construction and real estate industries, his old stomping grounds, are getting some help with his tax credits. But that's beside the point. Why do we need to support one industry? What is wrong with what they're doing that keeps them from competing without help? Corporate welfare removes incentives for innovation and places the risks of competing in a business, whatever business it is, on taxpayers.
"Taking a hard line on rewriting the bankruptcy code" Boston Globe op-ed by Edward Glaeser (HT: Cafe Hayek):
"There are winners and losers in both booms and busts. Owners, who win during booms and lose during busts, get the most attention. We often ignore prospective home buyers, who lose just as much as owners gain during booms and gain just as much as owners lose during busts. Moreover, housing cycles don't pose huge risks to most homeowners, whose longer time horizons enable them to sit out downturns."
It's funny we don't often hear of the benefits of falling house prices to people who were priced out of the market when homes were more expensive. Why haven't Democrats, the champions of the poor, brought this up? I've got some friends in Northern California who, awhile back at least, couldn't approach buying a home because they were so expensive. Now with prices falling as much as they are, he might finally be able to afford something and buy a home. To me, that's a good thing.
"Unintended Lesson" Cafe Hayek by Russ Roberts quoting Hillary Clinton:
"I was in Indianapolis the other day and I was shaking hands after I spoke. And there was this young boy about eleven years old and he's trying to tell me something—you know the crowd was yelling—so I leaned over and he said, "You know, my mom makes minimum wage and even though it went up, her hours were cut. So we're not making any more money. Can you help her?" You know, when somebody says something like that to you, it really does kind of energize me. I think, yeah, I can, I'm going to really try to help you, because this is wrong."
He responds:
"She clearly thinks the story is emblematic of something important that needs to get fixed. What is it? Just when you help someone by passing a minimum wage, greedy employers ruin everything by lowering the hours. Well, we need to "fight" and fix that, too.
I wish Jay Leno (Hillary said this on his show) had pointed out that the cut in hours was the result of passing the minimum wage--that it was as inevitable as gravity. I wish he'd said that the story showed how the minimum wage is a false promise of prosperity. I wish he'd pointed out that fighting isn't enough, caring isn't enough, that prosperity can't be legislated any more than self-interest can be made illegal."
I like how he said that prosperity can't be legislated. I was thinking of that recently as I've been reading The Forgotten Man. Hoover used the bully pulpit to get business owners to maintain employment and wages despite their inability to do so and continue operating. The result was that several businesses went under and many others just decided not to try. She quotes a bank executive who was critical of Hoover's plan to increase wages as saying, "It is not true that high wages make for prosperity. Instead, prosperity makes high wages."
"Bear's Market" WSJ editorial:
"Details that emerged from the hearing offered a better understanding of the high drama during the days of the sale. These particulars make us inclined to give the Fed the benefit of the doubt on doing the basic deal to forestall systemic risk. We remain unconvinced about the new precedent of the government holding $29 billion in mortgage-related securities as collateral."
I too am unconvinced.
"Our Free-Trade Consensus" WSJ op-ed by Kenneth Duberstein and Thomas McLarty:
"On the trade front, it is important to understand that, as Under Secretary of Commerce Chris Padilla has said, the U.S. already has free trade with Colombia – but it's "one-way free trade." Thanks to the Andean Trade Preferences Act, which Congress passed 16 years ago, Colombian exporters pay tariffs on only 8% of the goods they send to the U.S. Meanwhile, U.S. exporters currently pay tariffs – some as high as 35% -- on 97% of the products we sell Colombia.
The U.S.-Colombia FTA would level this uneven playing field, eliminating the tariffs on U.S. goods and creating new market access for U.S. service suppliers. And it would do all of this with a major trading partner. The U.S. exports more to Colombia than Russia, even though Russia has a population that is three times larger and an economy seven times that of Colombia."
By not signing this free trade agreement with Colombia, we won't be punishing the country's leaders. Instead, we're punishing the people. What happens to the price of something when import tariffs are dropped? Its price falls. They'll pay less for everything they buy from us. When the price of something goes down, the quantity demanded of that thing goes up: they buy more products from the US and exports increase. Yeah, it definitely seems like a bad deal for everyone.
"The Union Agenda" WSJ editorial by Kimberly Stassel:
"How bad does Big Labor want this? Consider the desperation. A global economy has meant higher-paying, more flexible jobs, and a U.S. workforce that sees little value in unions. Union membership has been in a free-fall for years, with private-sector membership now at just 7.4% of the labor force. Fights over how to stop this bleeding have fractured the movement. Labor leaders worry that if they don't reverse the trend soon, they'll be out of a job."
I don't like unions. They're an anachronism. They might have been necessary decades ago, but I think they do more harm than good now. Considerably more harm than good, both for the employee and the employer. They essentially take away freedoms and the incentive to do good work by forcing employers to enter into one-size-fits-all contracts.
No comments:
Post a Comment