Tax Returns

Senator Harry Reid is still claiming that Mitt Romney has not paid taxes for ten years.  He says he has a credible source, an investor from Bain Capital.  I have some questions.  First, how would a Bain investor or even and employee know whether or not Romney had filed taxes?  The only people who should know are the Romney's, their accountant, and the IRS.  Second, why doesn't Senator Reid put this investor in touch with the IRS?  I'm sure the IRS would be eager to audit a multi-millionaire who didn't pay taxes for ten years.  If he did skip paying taxes for 10 years, how did they miss that?  Senator Reid has inadvertently made an argument for getting rid of an apparently incompetent agency that didn't notice the long gap in tax returns.

Since we are on the topic of releasing tax returns, word is out that Harry Reid became a multi-millionaire through shady land deals in Nevada while he has been Senator.  Clearly, Senator Reid needs to answer this rumor.  He has not released ANY tax returns.

Rational Immigration Reform

Years ago, I watched one of those Sunday political programs and there was a debate between two people on immigration.  This may have been during the uproar about Pat Buchanan saying something along the lines of Europeans can more easily integrate into American society than Zulus so we should give preference to Europeans.  The two guests were pitted against each other, one arguing for open immigration and the other for limited immigration.  When the debate began, I was entirely on the side of limited immigration but by the end I was mostly on the other side.  What happened there?

People are capital.  More people equal more capital and more production.  The brain drain from Europe to North America after WWII was a boost to our economy for exactly that reason.  Thus, immigration is wealth migration.  At least, it should be.  This is where we run into another side of the argument.  If immigrants had to completely support themselves, there is no question that open immigration would be the policy to choose, arguably limited only by the ability of the country to absorb and assimilate them.  However, thanks to our numerous government assistance programs, many low-skilled immigrants and even citizens do not support themselves and instead become a drag on the economy.  Instead of being assets, they are liabilities.  Why import liabilities?

Many would argue that these immigrants do jobs Americans won't do.  Even if that is so, the money they earn in these low-skill jobs often does not make up for what the immigrant costs in healthcare, education of their children, etc.  If immigrants paid these costs, I would open the floodgates.  Come on in, the water's fine.  So, it is not a matter of racism as the Democrats paint it but a matter of cost-benefit.  Who hires an employee for $20 an hour when they only produce $10 an hour of product?  That's a $10 an hour loss.  The same argument applies to immigrants who often earn less housecleaning and doing yard work than they cost in social services.

My preferred immigration policy would be to abolish government welfare programs and then allow immigrants to come in droves.  Those who make it will add to the country while those who don't can migrate back to their home country and not become a liability to us.  For those who still want an influx of non-self-supporting immigrants, I would not prevent them from writing a check to the charity of their choice and thereby privatize the safety net.

A Game of Chicken

Dan Cathy, President of Chick-fil-A, declared that he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, the traditional definition.  Chick-fil-A does not deny services to gays or refuse to hire them though Mr. Cathy does support causes that hold his values. It was no surprise that this stance provoked a backlash from those who want gay marriage.  That is not unusual and hardly newsworthy.  What made it newsworthy was when mayors across the country declared their displeasure with Mr. Cathy and announce their intent to block him from opening stores in their jurisdiction.  Mayor Emanuel of Chicago declared that Mr. Cathy did not share the values of Chicago (President Obama, himself from Chicago, agreed with Mr. Cathy until 3 months ago) and was therefore not welcome.  The mayors of Boston and San Francisco said much the same.   This is what made the story big news.  Elected politicians were discriminating on the basis of religion.

In response to attacks by government, citizens showered support on the company.  The reaction to this was puzzling.  Shepard Smith of Fox News called it the National Day of Intolerance.  Some have compared those who supported the company with those who stood against integration in the 60s.  As with the contraceptive issue that struck the churches recently, the defender has been transformed into the aggressor.  Mr. Cathy and all those who supported Chick-fil-A are being painted as hate-filled bigots because they don't embrace gay marriage.  As for the comparison with the Civil Rights movement, black pastors across the country are vocally denouncing the comparison.  Gays are not sitting in the back of the bus, being sent to separate bathrooms and water fountains, being set upon by police dogs or blasted with fire hoses, or denied voting rights.  The Civil Rights argument only works on those who don't know history.

Who is intolerant?  Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate against gays.  Those who support traditional marriage aren't calling for Jim Crow laws against gays.  They are willing to tolerate gays though not embrace gay marriage.  On the other side, we have mayors who want to punish those who voice support for traditional marriage.  A man in Tucson, AZ, berated a Chick-fil-A employee at the drive-thru window and posted it on YouTube.  Someone painted graffiti on a Chick-fil-A that said 'Taste the Hate.'  So which of these groups tolerates differing beliefs and which doesn't?

One Baseless Claim Deserves Another

The majority leader said he was told that Romney "didn't pay any taxes for 10 years" by someone who invested with Bain Capital, Romney's former private equity firm. But Reid hasn't named names, and went so far as to admit that he didn't know if his information was accurate.

The Huffington Post

That's just great.  Harry Reid has just tossed a baseless allegation at Romney with the goal of making Romney disprove it by releasing his taxes.  In short, Romney is guilty until he proves his innocence.

Two can play that game.  I say that Obama had a GPA of only 2.2 while attending Columbia and failed Constitutional Law at Harvard.  Obviously, he's guilty unless he releases his transcripts.  The evidence for my claim is just as solid as for Reid's claim.

It is said that the first person to resort to name-calling has lost the argument.  So far, the Obama campaign or its surrogates have accused Romney of being a bully (incident where he cut a fellow student's hair when he was a teenager), a felon (supposedly misreporting when he departed Bain), a wimp (he's dodging the press and hiding his tax returns), and a tax cheat (Harry Reid's current claim).  The Obama campaign is throwing accusations and seeing what sticks.

The attacks on Romney are meant to deflect from the President's record.  Obama is not heralding the Stimulus or Obamacare.  He's not campaigning on bailouts.  The unemployment rate is worse today than when he was inaugurated.  The debt has grown by more than $5 trillion.  He did kill Osama bin Laden.  The record is not impressive.  If he can't win by positive accomplishments then he must resort to disqualifying his opponent.  Thus we have the long line of attacks.

Obama is in a very precarious position.  Europe is on the brink and could shove the world economy into recession.  The US economy is slowing down and threatening to dip back into recession.  The military cuts will provoke layoff letters the week before the election.  The most loyal Democratic constituency, African-Americans, is angry over his support for gay marriage.  Another loyal constituency, Jews, are not pleased by his relations with Israel.  In many ways, he has surprisingly little control over his fate, which should tell us something.

President Obama and the 2nd Amendment

I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a national heritage, but I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.

President Barack Obama

I beg to differ. The right to bear arms was not so that Americans could engage in the ‘national heritage’ of ‘hunting and shooting.’ President Obama paints a dichotomy that AK-47s should be with soldiers, not criminals? So, if you aren’t a soldier and have an AK, can one infer that you are probably a criminal? He has declared that only government-sanction individuals (i.e. soldiers) should have AKs. The .70 caliber flintlock musket was the military assault weapon of its day. If we had a modern militia in the sense the Founders viewed it, there would be an M-16 on the mantle of most homes. He reiterates this dichotomy by stating that AKs should be on battlefields, not our streets. So, though he claims to believe in the right to bear arms, he has a restricted view of it.

The right to bear arms was provided so that We the People and the several States could defend ourselves from powerful central government, like the one of King George III. The American Revolution would not have lasted long nor been concluded successfully if muskets were only in the hands of soldiers (that would be the Redcoats), not on the streets of our cities (e.g. Lexington, Concord, Boston, etc.). Americans were able to break free from an oppressive government because they were armed. They were armed for self-defense, not for ‘shooting.’ The purpose of an armed citizenry is to be one of the checks on government, which is why big government supporters don’t like the Second Amendment.

Crony Capitalism: A Love Story

Crony Capitalism: A description of capitalist society as being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives.

Investopedia

I recall back in the Bush Administration when I heard the crony capitalist label hurled with regard to Halliburton.  The Vice President had been the CEO and now the administration was giving no-bid contracts to a division of Halliburton.  There were also claims that the administration was an ally of Big Oil; would we rather have government as an enemy of Big Oil?  Regardless of the details of these cases, the question is where are all the folks who were so scandalized by crony capitalism now that the President Obama is practicing it with abandon?

Let us consider the cases:

Chrysler & GM: These two car companies would have gone bust if not for government intervention.  The free market and the rule of law were not responsible for the success of these companies.  The UAW, which was a big contributor to Obama, made out rather well thanks to the bail out.  This particular case is shared with Bush who embezzled government funds to save the companies until Obama could embezzle much more to ‘save’ them.  I say ‘embezzle’ because the Congress specifically refused to pass legislation to save the two car companies so neither president had legal authority to raid TARP.

Fisker Automotive: This car company received $528 million in loan guarantees.  This company is still in business so there is yet hope the taxpayer won’t get stuck with the tab.

Solyndra: The most infamous of the Green Energy jobs initiative, this company had investors who were big fundraisers for Obama.  The Obama Administration granted $535 million in loan guarantees to the company that folded shortly thereafter.

Abound Solar: Fortunately for the taxpayer, this company folded before it used all of the $400 million in loan guarantees.  Thus, it only cost the taxpayer $70 million.

Solar Trust: Offered $2 billion in guarantees, this company filed for chapter 11 before the taxpayer was soaked.

Energy Conversion Devices: Another solar company, it received $13.3 million in stimulus before it went bankrupt.

Ener1: This Company got $118 million in stimulus in 2009 but filed for bankruptcy in 2011.

Beacon Power Corp.: This one got only $43 million in loan guarantees before going bust in 2011.

SpectraWatt: Yet another solar company though this one didn’t even reach the $1 million mark before going under.

Raser Technologies: A geothermal company that got $33 million in stimulus but, shockingly enough, it went bust in 2011.

With the exception of Fisker, these companies would all have failed – and cost the taxpayer nothing – had they been left to the mercies of the often-maligned free market.  Instead, thanks to the president’s fascination with non-economic renewable energy and/or indebtedness to donors/fundraisers, the taxpayer was forced to support these failing models.

Government should not bail out or give loans to business.  If a company cannot convince us to voluntarily invest, why should the government coerce us to invest via our tax dollars?  That goes for ethanol, mohair, trains, airlines, flood insurance, etc.  Let the free market do its job and leave crony capitalism to the Europeans.

Unarmed Citizens are Easier to Kill

Already we hear calls for gun control in the wake of the Batman theater killings.  Why does anyone think that will solve anything?  As the famous saying goes: if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.  Let's disarm the people so they can't defend themselves and then we won't have these sorts of massacres.  Show me a US city with stringent gun control laws and I'll show you a city with a high murder rate.

As I live in Texas, I regularly hear news reports on would-be robbers and burglars getting shot by armed homeowners.  And there was the recent story where a 14 year-old in Arizona shot an intruder to protect his younger siblings.  Gun control would disarm these civilians who successfully protected themselves.  Criminals, being criminals, will not be so eager to obey the law.  Moreover, if they know the citizens are disarmed, they are more likely to harass them, not less likely.  Thought experiment: Town A has outlawed all guns while Town B is known for lots of gun owners.  Which town is a home invasion criminal more likely to target?

Whenever the gun control debate arises, I think of a Chuck Norris movie from the 80s.  A couple of hooligans with shotguns burst into a bar to rob the place only to discover this is the bar where ALL the cops go.  Every patron pulls out a gun and the would-be robbers are instantly subdued.  The scene was a bit of comedy in an otherwise serious film but it was also instructive.  When responsible people are armed, armed criminals are quickly dispatched.  When the people are disarmed, you get massacres.  Our problem is not too many criminals with guns but not enough law-abiding citizens with guns.

As always, I am distrustful of government.  Government loves to disarm the citizens because then it is much more difficult for the citizens to resist government.  A government that knows the citizens are disarmed will naturally become more tyrannical.