Topic: Government and Politics

Joe Biden’s Health Care Whopper

…is the title of my oped in today’s New York Daily News.  It seems that I am of the opinion that when it comes to Sen. John McCain’s proposed health-insurance tax credit, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  An excerpt:

…the most important part of McCain’s tax credit is something that Biden still doesn’t get: McCain would replace the current tax break with not one tax cut, but two…

…over the next 10 years McCain’s tax credit would let workers control $7 trillion of their own earnings that they otherwise would not control. This effective $7 trillion tax cut completely swamps the $3.6 trillion tax increase Barack Obama advisers claim would result from McCain’s tax credits not growing as rapidly as the current tax “break.”

The Obama-Biden campaign seems determined to deny the reality of McCain’s tax-credit proposal. Perhaps that’s because they would prefer to let the government control that $9,000 you’ve got coming to you.

It’s as full-throated a defense of McCain’s tax credit as you’ll find from someone who doesn’t even like the proposal.  Read the whole thing here.

Hot Air in the Senate Bailout

What does global warming have to do with the liquidity “crisis?” Nothing!  But not according to the Senate, whose bill includes a provision, Section 117,  directing the National Academy of Sciences to “undertake a comprehensive review of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and specific tax provisions that have the largest effect on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate the magnitude of those effects.”  For this, The National Academy  is appropriated $1.5 million.

In other words, somehow the government’s purchase of bad loans is related to global warming? This is a naked attempt by environmental extremists to use people’s fears of financial collapse as an excuse to ultimately skew the tax code in such a way that it makes energy even more expensive. Some bailout! 

Bloomberg’s Banana Republic

Michael Bloomberg has decided to run for an additional term as mayor of New York. He will do so despite a law limiting mayors to two terms in New York.

Here’s some history. The voters twice endorsed the term limits law in 1993 and 1996. In 1993, the law passed by a margin of 59 percent to 41 percent. In 1996, the City Council tried to change the law to extend term from 8 to 12 years. The initiative making that change lost.

Of course, elected officials predicted disaster. Some agreed then but not now. John Mollenkopf, a well-known political scientist at the City University of New York said: “My initial reaction to the term limits was negative, but the experience of how they have worked has changed my mind. On balance, I think this feature of government does create openings for fresh thinking and new leadership.”

Bloomberg does not plan to put the change in term limits before the voters. Instead, he will try to get the City Council to extend his term. A New York Times survey of City Council members in early September found that a majority might support changing the term limits law. Perhaps that’s not surprising: two thirds of the City Council will be turned out of office in 2009 under the current law. If the mayor’s term can be extended, it will be easier to change the law for City Council members.

New Yorkers are not rolling over for Bloomberg. Gene Russianoff, a spokesman for the New York Public Interest Research Group, said of Bloomberg’s power grab: “Sadly, the move is worthy of ‘democracy’ in a banana republic.” Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause/NY, called the mayor’s stance “profoundly undemocratic and deeply disquieting.” Even Establishment types are opposing him, according to the New York Times.

Before his ambition got the best of him, Bloomberg himself “called for the need for restraints on elected leaders, dismissed the notion that anyone is indispensable, and once called an effort to revise the limits ‘disgusting.’”

Let’s see if New Yorkers agree with the mayor.

Treasury Can Only Spend $50 Billion Per Month

So why give them $700 billion?

Representative Spencer Bachus (R-AL) is before the House Rules Committee arguing that the Treasury Department can’t even use all of the $700 billion that the bailout legislation would authorize. Congress can allow Treasury some of the money, take a look later at a couple of months of the program, and see how well it’s being used.

His colleagues are beating him up for it, but it makes simple sense. The right answer is not to bail out Wall Street at all - and for heaven’s sake do away with the government-sponsored enterprises that got us here - but a compromiser would let the program run for a few months, with the new Congress in January taking a look at how it’s working.

George Will Is on a Roll

Another great column from George Will today, on the House’s “vote against rashness.” With a conservative’s sense of history, he traces some of the policy choices that brought us to today’s crisis:

Suppose that in 1979 the government had not engineered the first bailout of Chrysler (it, Ford and GM are about to get $25 billion in subsidized loans). Might there have been a more sober approach to risk throughout corporate America?

Suppose there had never been implicit government backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Better yet, suppose those two had never existed – there was homeownership before them, just not at a level that the government thought proper. Absent Fannie and Freddie – absent government manipulation of the housing market – would there have developed the excessive diversion of capital into the housing stock?

But really, if you haven’t been reading George Will this year–on the problems with both Obama and McCain, on the automobile bailout, on local government fiscal crises–go here. And to read what he says about his new book, go here (pdf)

Cynical Senate Vote

The Senate is scheduled to vote tonight on the Wall Street bailout package, which now includes a provision to relieve taxpayers of a scheduled $60 billion or so jump in annual alternative minimum tax payments.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer noted, “there’s no doubt in my mind that the Senate added this [AMT provision] because they thought that’s the only way they could get it passed.”

Thus, despite the outpouring of public opposition to the bailout, Congress is determined to rig the vote and grab the people’s money anyway it can. The Senate is essentially saying to the public: “We won’t impose a $60 billion tax hike on you next year if you let us bailout Wall Street. And don’t worry about the $700 billion, we’ll just tack that on to the $5 trillion in public debt that your children and grandchildren already owe.”

There are too many insider experts and economists driving this debate, and too little recognition inside the Beltway about the basic injustice of a bailout. As many callers to the talk shows are saying, the government wants to take $700 billion from average hard-working families who followed the rules and give it to people who made bad, irresponsible, and even disastrous decisions.

Many economists are saying: “Well, I’m usually against intervention and subsides, but this case is special.” But that’s what they always say. The hunt for supposed “market failures” is a full-time pursuit for many modern economists, and it’s mainly nonsense. Back in January the administration and many top-flight economists created a similar crisis atmosophere, inducing Congress to pass the ridiculous “stimulus” bill. What did that achieve other that putting us $150 billion further into debt?