A legislative vacuum cleaner

I find Conservatives too hard line with their unwillingness to talk and negotiate with the other side.  If I were in political office with a Libertarian agenda of More Liberty and Less Government I would make a pack with the devil along these lines;  Okay Mr. Big Government Politician I'll support your odious legislation if you include the deletion of ten laws, rules, initiatives and or whatever on a line by line basis as part of the package.

This sort of deal making could go on for a decade clearing the deadwood in the Congressional Record before a staffer may observe, "Oh my God we have run out of stupid laws to eliminate".  In the meantime looking them up and expanding upon the sheer unmitigated lunacy of many of them would be a fun activity from which to base a career as a political comedian and the effect would be like a legislative vacuum cleaner clearing the complexity of government.

The low hanging fruit has been plucked

Tom Friedman's editorial today on China makes clear that the command structure that developed the economy and brought about it's meteoric rise needs to morph into a system that crowd sources.  It appears that the leadership is resisting and clamping down on dissent more and more and if this continues I predict slower growth in China because of general mal-investment from crony capitalism.

Talk of China

Another editorial regarding tax cuts runs into a regular truism found in nature and the stock market, the the more you try one solution, tax cuts for example, the less effective it is.  This is especially true if the cuts are from 80%, a marginal tax rate prevalent before Reagan in comparison to the 35% rate now in effect.

Do Tax Cuts Lead to Economic Growth?

Regarding in-effective, we don't even want to talk about Ben Bernanke's efforts with Fed actions which are more akin to pushing a string. This gasoline he is spreading in the economy just refuses to ignite, but when it does, watch out!

Serving Constituents one at a Time is Expensive and un American

Fred Bernstein's opinion piece in today's New York Times hits the nail on the head.  I have been developing the thought for years now that Congress's attempts at micro managing is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.  The Constitution gives Congress the job of legislating and the President the job of executing what was legislated.  Constituent services tries to serve local issues with federal tools.

A prime example of Congressional over reach to a local issue is mandating toilets having a certain gallonage per flush, something more appropriate to local building codes.  A Senator or Congressman asked to vote on such a micro issue has got to sense that this sort decision making is beneath them, not in a derogatory but in a chart of responsibility sense, and if they are so focused on constituent services they forget they are not the mayor anymore.

A Congress for the Many, or the Few?

Clint Eastwood GOP performance was terrific

I appreciate the Romney team's courage for letting Clint Eastwood perform unscripted on Thursday night.  He is the example of the individual type that everyone else at the convention was lauding but not being. The convention scripted as it was down to the last cough was a bore. Clint's remarks got right to my problem with Obama, so what is handwringing go on in the Republican hierarchy as reported by today's NY Times regarding his performance?  I say that and Paul Ryan's speech on Wednesday are the best moments of the convention.

Paul Ryan supercharges the GOP ticket

 Paul Ryan is the VP candidate that changes my mind about Mitt Romney's feckless campaign.  Finally we have an articulate engaging and happy warrior weaned on Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman debating on substantial issues. It is a fantastic selection that supercharges the GOP ticket.


.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

I see Berkshire Hathway's earnings were affected by the giant derivative that Warren Buffet bought for the company a few years back.  His explanations in the annual reports of BKHT are not convincing that this instrument is other than a useless financial exercise and certainly not an example of masterful capital allocation.  I don't see the material good it provides society nor the company.  It's not remotely like buying Union Pacific, for example, which appears to be a terrific investment nor USAIR which was a terrible one but which at least was an investment and not a wager.

Investors vote to break up the banks

I feel some vindication from of all people, Charles Gasparino of Fox and the Post, ouch Murdoch properties! From his July 30th editorial  comes "the ultimate vote for any company is with investors; if they keep selling the megabanks’ shares, and only buying when it looks like they’ll be broken up, it’s only a matter of time before the breakups start.  And that would be a good thing: The vote of the investor class, as opposed to the political class in Washington or their cronies on Wall Street, offering the best hope to fix our broken banking system." 


The complete article is linked below, but the above is the real and only nugget.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/investors_vote_to_break_up_the_banks_3mxN1i4SDHkb4DNGC4t8QM