by | BLOG
There has been much talk and support on the Left for the concept of a “public option” in health care. The rationale behind this, according to the federal government, is that there is not a sufficient “free market” for health insurance in some parts of our country.
Accordingly, they have deemed it their job to get consumers the best coverage at the best price, by competing with a public option, seemingly on equal footing with private insurers.
The promulgation of the Public Option was deceitful–there was never going to be an equal footing, as the Government would severely limit the range of allowable insurance and then use its financial and political muscle to gain customers, as acknowleged by Senator Schumer among others. Nevertheless, it had so much support that it was included in the health care bill passed by the House of Representatives.
My question is this: If this “public option” was viewed as a necessity in terms of competition and “free market”, why should there not be a “private option” in every area that Government – federal, state, local – has staked out an unnecessary monopoly for itself?
Other than National Defense and the Criminal Court Systems, there appears to be no reason – other than creation of a power base to enable the bloated government salaries that we see today – that the private sector should not be given an opportunity to compete on a level playing field.
There should be a Private Option in virtually every area of public service.
by | ECONOMY
In a report over at Bloomburg, Jim Tisch gets right to the heart of spending. He surmises:
[E]conomic growth will remain sluggish in part because executives lack confidence in the Obama administration’s policies….President Barack Obama’s health care reform, financial regulation and moratorium on offshore drilling are keeping businesses from spending money to expand….“The thing that business people don’t like is uncertainty. Part of the problem is that business has very little confidence in what’s been going on and very little visibility.”
I’ve been constantly saying that consumptive spending is not enough to have any real stimulus effect; it is investment spending that will make any noticeable difference. But businesses are plagued by a precarious economy, and therefore are choosing to hold off on projects and expansion that would normally pump revenue into the economy. As a result, the growth and recovery that we need is inert.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100826/FREE/100829836#
by | NEW YORK, TAXES
Bagel lovers, beware! In order to provide more tax revenue for the cash-strapped state, NY plays Goliath to the Brueggers bagel company.
Picking out some obscure tidbit in the state sales tax law, NYS has successfully forced this company to cough up additional tax revenue…on sliced bagels and items eaten in-house. A nice chunk of dough for the tax man, indeed.
Interestingly enough, the rule isn’t explicitly stated in the tax code. Some sliced items (bagels) are taxable, but others, such as sliced bread, are not. These differences are inconsistent at best. Worse, they’ve only targeted Brueggers– presumably because it owns 33 franchises.
Seems as if the State Department of Taxation doesn’t even know its own code; the WSJ reports that NYS “will provide additional guidance via our Web site and publications in the near future.“. Guess they can continue to make up the rules as they go along and as needed. In New York, what else is new?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704340504575448033463314628.html?mod=WSJ_NY_LEFTTopStories
by | ARTICLES
FHA Irony: A Lifeline to Luxury Condos
CrainsNewYork is reporting how our tax dollars are now supporting a new type of bailout—the luxury condo market in Manhattan. FHA has recently modified its rules to allow this new special financing where private lenders won’t dare to delve.
The irony exists in the very purpose of the FHA, which was created during the Depression to allow lower-income citizens achieve the dream of homeownership. The fact that commercial property managers are allowed to pursue this avenue is just another example of government run amok. Lowering the standards of lending creates more government dependency. As with all FHA loans, a mortgage default will be paid by the agency.
The facts speak for themselves: From 1998 to 2008, no building financing in Manhattan received—much less applied—for FHA financing. Today, real estate agents are pushing for this new option. Why the change?
Christopher Mayer over at Columbia’s Business School hits the nail on the head. He surmises, “It’s not an accident that the FHA is offering this — not private lenders. An unfilled condominium complex is not the kind of thing that a bank looking to rebuild its balance sheet on real estate is looking to do.” So, once again, it’s the government to the rescue.
Unfortunately, the lending rules aren’t the only alteration. It appears that the industry mentality has changed along with it. Crain’s reports that,
“The government is taking on more risk,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance. “That’s the bottom line. They really can’t say no, because that’s their purpose. It’s to support the housing market when there’s no other funding.”
So the purpose of the government is now to prop-up, support, and bailout the sectors of the economy that are floundering—with our tax dollars.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100813/REAL_ESTATE/100819896
by | HYPOCRISY
Mark Hemingway at the Washington Examiner raises an important question: Is there a double standard on ethics in Congress? I weigh in on the discussion.
————————————————————————————————————————————————
An upcoming trial for Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., on 13 charges of financial and other misconduct highlights a double standard between regular citizens and members of Congress, congressional ethics experts say.
“Generally speaking, Congress is much more deferential to their fellow members than, say, an Internal Revenue Service agent is to a member of the general public,” said Bill Allison, editorial director at the Sunlight Foundation. “Imagine if instead of the IRS, it’s your neighbors who will say, ‘You know, you’re a good guy, we’re not going to charge you for your taxes’ — that’s really the way it works.”
Allison noted that statements by at least one member of House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which brought the charges against Rangel and will conduct his trial later this year, seem to bolster the impression that members of Congress are inclined go easy on their colleagues.
“One of the most difficult tasks assigned to a member of Congress is to sit in judgment of a colleague,” Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, chairman of the subcommittee investigating Rangel, said last week. “The task is even more difficult when the subject of the investigation has befriended and mentored so many new member of Congress.”
Green also told reporters the subcommittee was recommending a reprimand by the full house — a vote by the House in which members would either approve or disapprove of Rangel’s behavior. Other than public shaming, a reprimand imposes no concrete penalty on the erring congressman.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., for example, has been previously reprimanded, but is currently chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee.
Rangel is accused of using his congressional authority to solicit donations and to enrich himself personally, but the 13 charges he now faces from the House panel do not address media reports that he failed to report income and failed to disclose assets properly on his congressional financial disclosure forms.
Last year, the Sunlight Foundation claimed to have documented 28 instances in which “Rangel omitted assets worth between $239,026 and $831,000 that were either purchased, sold, or held from his financial disclosures.”
Though evidence of Rangel’s tax evasion has been highly publicized since 2008, the IRS has taken no action against Rangel. “I help people every day fighting the IRS on circumstances much less compelling than those of Mr. Rangel,” Alan J. Dlugash, a partner in the New York accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP, recently told the Hill.
According to Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a lack of IRS action is no excuse for Congress not taking the accusations of tax evasion into account.
“Their argument is the typical argument of the ethics committee. ‘Well, we’re here to enforce House rules, not every law of the land,’ ” he said. “That is why I believe this is turning a blind eye to sweeping House rules with requirements that you conduct yourself as a member of the House, and in such a way that you obey the law.”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Is-there-a-double-standard-on-ethics-for-Congress-1007045-99888759.html#ixzz0vfMgrfAe
