Wednesday's interesting reads

"Just 'trust our incumbent senators' " Las-Vegas Review-Journal editorial (HT: Club for Growth):

"These provisions [that law allows candidates facing a wealthy opponent to receive larger contributions] were challenged by Jack Davis of New York, a millionaire Democrat who lost races in 2004 and 2006 to Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds. The law says "we're going to make it easier for your opponent to beat you," said Mr. Davis' lawyer on Tuesday. He also argued that the law protects incumbents who can more easily tap campaign contributors.

He's right, of course. Most "campaign finance" reform amounts to an incumbent protection racket designed to make it more difficult for challengers to compete. Justice Antonin Scalia picked up on that theme when he said he was "deeply suspicious" of the regulations in question. "Do you think we should trust our incumbent senators and representatives to level the playing field for us?" he said during Tuesday's arguments.

Regardless of how the court rules, the case again highlights the Byzantine lengths to which "good government" reformers will go in their odd quest to limit the role of money in American politics. Whether it's a command-and-control regulatory structure that bans Americans from advocating for or against a specific candidate as an election nears, or the creation of arbitrary financing rules that apply to some office-seekers but not to others, the efforts are constitutionally troubling and counterproductive, as the money simply flows through new and different channels, leading supporters of "campaign finance reform" to then call for even more interventions."

When the "good government" guys make laws that insulates them from competition, watch out. The WSJ ("The Millionaire Ruse") had this to add:

"If none of this sounds like it has anything to do with "keeping money out of politics," you're getting the idea. Congress sold the Millionaire Rule as a way of "leveling the playing field" against rich, self-financing opponents. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted sarcastically during Tuesday's Supreme Court oral arguments, maybe we should next require that the more eloquent candidate talk with pebbles in his mouth. Like most of the rest of McCain-Feingold, the Millionaire Rule is really incumbent protection, pure and simple."

"The Sky's Not Falling" by John Stossel at Real Clear Politics (HT: Club for Growth):

"Where is this "credit crisis"? Did the supermarket reject your Visa card? I still see Ditech commercials offering fixed-rate mortgages at around 5.5 percent.

Sure, some lenders are skittish while things play out. Some investment banks and brokerage houses are sitting on shaky mortgage-backed securities. But why call that a "crisis"?

Do we have 25 percent unemployment, as we did during the Depression? Do we even have 7.5 percent unemployment, 12 percent inflation and 20 percent interest rates, as we did during Jimmy Carter's presidency?...

This is not to say that lots of homebuyers aren't having a hard time. But the rapid rise and fall in housing values in some parts of the country -- and the rippling consequences at each stage -- do not justify scrapping what we know about economic success and turning to government control. Prosperity and stability come from people being free to innovate and produce -- and yes, fail. Bureaucrats, however well-intentioned, cannot know enough to manage that process. They are unqualified to give the green light to some innovations and the red light to others. Bailouts create irresponsibility."

"Who'll Pay Alabama's Tax On 'Big Oil'?" IBD editorial (HT: Club for Growth):

"While tapping oil company earnings is a popular elixir for politicians inflicted with the "do-something disease," the millions of bona fide human beings who are really behind Big Oil's supposedly faceless exterior would be the ones left ailing."

I guess I'm just proud of myself because I thought of the tendency for government to want to "do something" back in the fall. Not that anyone knew it, though.

"Must I Bank?" WSJ op-ed by Jonathan Knee:

"Rainer Maria Rilke, in "Letters to a Young Poet," offers some words of wisdom that the newly jobless would do well to consider: "This most of all: ask yourself in the stillest hour of your night: must I write?" Rilke warned of the hardships of his chosen craft, arguing that if the poet could even imagine living without writing, he would be better off doing so.

This kind of profound introspection is rarely undertaken by those young professionals who march off to investment banking careers based more on what is expected of them than on any deep commitment to the field. They should take a moment to ask themselves: Must I bank?

Such introspection, even if it comes late in life, can lead to greater fulfillment than scrambling for the next best investment banking job that might still be available. I wrote in my last book that the opportunity to really pause and face a world where the next step has not been preordained can be a profoundly cathartic learning experience. Judging from the emails I received after the last bust, many may have benefited from doing just that...

Whatever the other negative ramifications of the current financial crisis, if bankers use it as an opportunity to ask themselves these questions they will likely be happier and, if they decide to stay in the profession, better bankers as well."

It'll be interesting how many of my classmates when I go back to school will choose to be investment bankers and what their reasons for doing so are.