I Love Regulation, But . . .

Not by government.

Regulation should be undertaken by whoever stands to lose the most money when things go wrong. This would usually be insurance companies.

Say an investment company steals customer funds to cover its liabilities. (Sound familiar?) The company’s liability insurer, after a substantial deductible, would come up with the money. 

But with its money on the line, the insurance company would impose regulations and unpredictable audits in an effort to prevent the theft from occurring in the first place.

Would those regulations and audits be better than those being done now by the government?

Why of course they would. Because the insurance company, as mentioned, would stand to lose its own money. Government (and government workers) stand to lose no money of their own. They lose only other peoples’ money.  

And if the investment company, prior to the theft, chooses not to acquire liability insurance?

It would have precious few customers, certainly not wealthy ones. Most investment-company clients would insist that the company carry liability insurance.

Onward and Upward at the Fed

The original requirement of the Federal Reserve Bank was to maintain stable prices. But in the 1970s, Congress added the requirement that the Fed ensure maximum employment.

The original requirement of maintaining stable prices was just fine all by itself. In the long run, maintaining stable prices does ensure maximum employment. But when the second mandate was added specifically, the Federal Reserve took it upon itself to ensure maximum employment even in the short run.   

Big mistake. Since high unemployment is a political live wire, the Fed has expanded the money supply much too fast.

How does the Fed do this? It buys bonds and Treasuries and pays for them, in effect, by entering numbers in the bank accounts of the sellers. Those numbers represent new money which the sellers can spend as they please.

Since 2008, the Fed has been creating new money like there’s no tomorrow. For some years prior to 2008, the Fed held about $10 billion of Treasuries and bonds. But after 2008, the number surged, if can believe it, by 160 times, to $1,600 billion.

The results? Employment has not maximized; it has fallen. The rate of unemployment has not diminished; it has soared. And the gargantuan supply of new money has created the potential for disastrous inflation.

Nice job, guys. We’re going to try to find different work for you.

Two Wrongs Make a Right, Right?

Given that the federal government guarantees bank deposits, the feds now want to force banks to stop trading with their own money in financial markets, to prevent taxpayers from paying the tab when the banks lose.  

This would pile one use of force on top of another. The government wants to force banks to stop proprietary trading, to prevent people from being forced to make good on the government guarantees.

Here’s a better idea: Forget both policies. Repeal the government guarantees and treat bank proprietary trading as none of the government’s business.

The guarantee of bank deposits requires the government to regulate banks and conduct audits (whose ongoing costs add to the federal deficit). But dear old Uncle Sam does a miserable job of it. The 2008-2009 financial disasters developed right under the government’s nose.   

Bank audits should instead be paid for by prosperous people who would be concerned about their large deposits being safe.  

With the government guarantees repealed, banks would strive to reduce their investment risks as quickly as possible, for fear the privately-paid audits would induce their depositors to flee. The clean-ups would also benefit poor people, since they use the same banks as the wealthy but wouldn’t have to pay for the audits.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Repeal the government guarantee of deposits and let the banks invest their own money in the manner their customers consider profitable but safe.  

Well, They Were Off a Little

Forty years ago, at a prestigious conference at the Smithsonian Institute, experts estimated known oil reserves at 455 billion barrels.

Funny thing happened on the way to our lights going out. Since 1972, the world has produced nearly 1 trillion barrels of oil. Current experts estimate known reserves to be 1.2 trillion barrels.

Even the current experts are wrong. Colorado and Wyoming can produce more than 1.2 trillion barrels all by their little lonesome.

Relax. The world contains oil enough for centuries.  

Insider-Trading Laws Have Unintended Consequences

New information about companies becomes available continually. Somebody benefits. The question is, who?

Insider-trading laws say that the person who first uncovers the news can’t profit by buying or selling the company’s stock. The person to whom he whispers the news? Nope, that guy can’t profit either. Until the information becomes public knowledge, which takes a while, the only people who can benefit are the ones in the brokerage industry who make the market in the stock. But those people are already prosperous.

Insider-trading laws favor the rich. Like most big-government policies, the actual results are opposite to the intended results. 

Examples of the War on Women by . . . Liberals

Our progressive tax system, favored by liberals, imposes higher tax rates against higher incomes. This hurts those women whose income piles on top of their husband’s income at high tax rates. A married woman keeps less of her income than a single person earning the same pay. The solution is a flat tax, which liberals oppose.

Women tend to move in and out of the work force. Few of them benefit from union-driven pension plans that reward long service. Liberals, in case you haven’t noticed, favor unions.

Some women on the job prefer “flex time,” which packs more hours into fewer days, giving them additional days off. This option is needed by mothers attempting to juggle work and family. Nope, the law prevents the flexibility. Liberals and their union buddies prefer to set the work arrangements, giving them the flexibility. Having power over other people’s lives is what they live for.

Who Cares About Taxes, Anyway?

Tax hikes scheduled for 2013 are as follows:

-- Income tax rates rise from a range of 10-35 percent to 15-39.6 percent.

-- Capital gains taxes rise from 15 to 23.8 percent.

-- The tax on dividends rises from 15 to 43.4 percent.

-- The profits tax for most small employers rises from 35 to 43.4 percent.

-- The death tax rises from 35 to 55 percent.

-- The death-tax standard deduction falls from $10 million to $1 million.

-- The Social Security tax for employees rises from 4.2 to 6.2 percent.

-- The number of households affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax rises from 4 to about 30 million.

-- The research and development tax credit disappears.

-- The marriage penalty returns.

-- The child tax credit falls from $1,000 to $500.

This doesn't include Obamacare tax hikes. 

When all of these tax increases take hold, President Obama’s popularity will rise even higher than it is now.

Women Should NOT Receive the Same Pay as Men

Unfavorable comments about Ann Romney call this to mind:  Without children, the human species disappears, and our cities are left to the cockroach cleanup crew.

Women, in case you haven’t noticed, are the ones who carry and nurture children. If you think it’s easy, try it.

Employers incur more costs for women than for men. It’s disruptive when woman leave the job to raise children. The training costs are also higher, because women have to catch up to the changes in technology while they’re away.

The costs for men are lower. For women to receive the same pay as men would be unfair to men.

Life isn’t fair. Trying to make it so only makes it worse.

Welfare is Racist

The poor are just as intelligent and energetic as the rest of us. To believe they can’t get themselves out of poverty is to believe they are intrinsically inferior.

This is the very essence of racism.

Medical Care: A Friend Got No Respect

A friend waited for a full hour after the appointment time for a doctor to see him. Not even a clerk came to the waiting room to apologize and explain.

Here’s why this occurred: The doctor no longer works for my friend. Most doctors no longer work for any of us. They work for the government – or for insurance companies that are agents of the government.

People try to please whoever pays them. Doctors have all they can do to comply with government requirements and fill out the paperwork. Treating patients with respect comes second.

But let’s say my friend paid the first $5,000 of his medical costs for the year. If the costs exceeded $5,000, an insurance company would pick up all of the excess. If his medical costs fell below $5,000, my friend could retain the difference for any other purpose.

He’d be in control. He’d shop for lower prices as well as good service. The doctors would work for him.

If this system applied to all of us (and if lawyers could no longer sue for million-dollar damages), healthcare costs for the entire nation would fall.

But under the current system, control doesn’t rest with the people; it rests with the government. That’s just the way the government wants it.

Unfair Share

The oil and gas industry doesn’t pay its fair share in taxes, eh? Well, in 2009, the industry paid the feds $35.7 billion in corporate income taxes - considerably more than that of any other business.

Oil and gas companies send more money to Washington and state capitals than they earn in profits for shareholders.

Not a fair share, my foot!