Thursday's interesting reads - 5/29/08

"McCain's Question Time" by George Will (via RealClearPolitics):

"Before TR, presidents communicated mostly with the legislative branch, not the public, and mostly in writing. Jeffrey Tulis of the University of Texas, in his mind-opening book "The Rhetorical Presidency," says the Founders' theory of constitutional propriety strongly disapproved of presidential rhetoric used to move the public, other than patriotic orations on ceremonial occasions. Statesmen were supposed to serve as breaks upon, not arousers of, public opinion."

"Coal-Cap Disaster" by Larry Kudlow for National Review Online (HT: Club for Growth):

"And why not allow the current $130-a-barrel oil price to open the door to a full portfolio of energy resources, including offshore drilling, Alaska, nuclear power, oil shale, conversion of coal and natural gas to liquid fuel, and the development of so-called alternative-energy sources such as solar, wind, and various cellulosic investments (although this latter group may never contribute more than 10 percent to our energy needs)? A true free-market approach wouldn’t pick winners and losers with heavy subsidies or penalties."

Two things about stadium subsidies:

"Surprise! Stadium Predictions Flawed" by David Boaz [quoting Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys]:

"Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city’s economy. The net economic impact of professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area."

And this video from reason.tv (HT: Club for Growth).

I've said it before, but, as much as I'm a fan of sports, I'm opposed to cities paying for the stadiums because it forces non-fans to subsidize fans.

There were two editorials in the WSJ today that discussed health care reform:

"The Florida Revelation . . ."

"But the Florida reform, which both houses of the legislature approved unanimously...nudges the government out of the health-care marketplace. Insurance companies will be permitted to sell stripped-down, no-frills policies exempted from the more than 50 mandates that Florida otherwise imposes, including for acupuncture and chiropractics. The new plans will be designed to cost as little as $150 a month, or less."

". . . And Escape From New Jersey"

"This one-policy-fits-all system tends to cause the young and healthy to drop insurance, which only raises the cost of insurance for the sick, which in turn makes coverage unaffordable for ever more families. It's no accident that about 1.2 million people – one of every eight residents – is uninsured in the state.

Under Mr. Webber's choice proposal, New Jersey residents could buy policies chartered in more enlightened states. For example, a healthy 25-year-old male could buy a basic health plan in Kentucky that now sells for $960 a year, about one-sixth of the $5,880 it would cost him in New Jersey. Residents of Pennsylvania pay health premiums that are one-half to one-third as high as do Garden State policy-holders. A new study by the National Center for Policy Analysis estimates that the availability of lower cost plans would reduce by 25% the number of uninsured."

"On Women and Assets" by Don Boudreaux on Cafe Hayek [its a letter he sent to USA Today]:

"Re your editorial "One bright sign emerges in a gloomy housing market" (May 29) and the general dismay about falling real-estate prices and rising gasoline prices: What principle of economics suggests that markets are working well when the price of one asset (say, housing) rises, but not when the price of another asset (say, petroleum) rises? What principle of ethics dictates that owners of one asset (say, housing) are entitled to capital gains and to enjoy these gains however large they might be, but that owners of another asset (say, petroleum) are not so entitled to their gains?

Finally, what moral precept advises us, in the case of petroleum products, to sympathize with buyers and demonize sellers, and in the case of housing, to ignore buyers and sympathize with sellers?"

"Think Tank: iProvo's Losses at $8 Million and Counting" Reason Foundation:

"iProvo has already posted over $8 million in losses according to a new Reason Foundation policy brief that concludes that Provo is destined to join a list of cities like Ashland, Oregon, and Marietta, Georgia, that have "thrown away millions of dollars on broadband projects that, in the end, failed to deliver any of the promised benefits."...

The Reason study notes large cities like Los Angeles, Houston and Chicago have recently backed away from municipal broadband plans because it is increasingly clear that government agencies aren't equipped to compete in the fast-moving, ever-changing Internet, phone and cable television business."