Democrats cannot simultaneously talk about improving America’s standing abroad while acting like a belligerent unilateralist when it comes to trade policy.
I’d been meaning to write a post saying something similar. I think this will suffice, but it probably should not be limited only to Democrats.
[link]
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., noted it was two years ago, when oil cost $55 a barrel, when Bush said oil companies need no government subsidies to pursue more oil or gas.
“With the price of oil hovering around $100 do we really believe this incentive is justified?” asked Hoyer. “Do these companies need taxpayer subsidies to look for new product? They don’t need any incentive.”
This is in reference to the House’s recent approval of new taxes on the oil industry amount to an estimated $18billion over the next 10 years. Really it isn’t so much of a new tax as roll back of previously enacted tax breaks (I try to not use the word “subsidy” when an industry is given a tax break that is minuscule compared to the overall tax burden leveled on its product).
The article continues:
But other energy industries and energy efficiency advocates have campaigned for the legislation because of the tax incentives that would be directed their way.“These incentives must be extended immediately to void significant harm to the development of clean energy industries in the United States,” said a letter to lawmakers from more than 100 businesses, electric utilities, environmental groups and energy efficiency advocates.
Ok Congressman Hoyer, let’s be consistent here. So let me ask. With the price of oil hovering around $100 do we really believe this incentive [to other energy industries] is justified? Do these companies need taxpayer subsidies to look for new product?
Although, if the legislation does get passed the Senate and the President’s veto pen, I won’t be surprised at all if the oil companies targeted in the legislation aren’t suddenly pursuing technology that will qualify them for the new subsidies.
Earlier today I found myself at my desk pouring a diet Coke into a cup of ice. When the bubbles settled, I took a sip. It tasted funny. After a very brief moment I realized the problem: no whiskey.
That’s what the news says, anyway. They go on to imply that it’s a function of the housing market, which I guess makes sense. What they failed to mention is that Home Depot has turned into an avalanche of suck. I no longer enjoy visiting their stores. And, not only that, they don’t seem to have teh foggiest idea of how to run an online store. Months ago I was thoroughly ripped off on shipping charges eBay style (i.e. draw you in with a much lower price but then charge an extra 5 bucks for shipping). Recently I looked online for grill grates. They had dozens but not a single one was available online.
I know it would hurt some feelings and cause some serious ill will, but I wish some politicians were more intent on job destruction. Instead of focusing on creating unnecessary jobs, they should tack and focus on destroying them, at least some of them anyway. I’m not opposed to the people, or even necessarily their performance. But let’s face it, if we’re paying otherwise productive people to be unproductive, then we all lose out. Here are a few professions where employment numbers should be declining:
First, an easy one: Gas pumpers. In New Jersey and Oregon it is still illegal to pump your own gas. I fail to see how these jobs are anything but wasteful.
Second, also obvious: Tax preparers. The tax code is thoroughly convoluted. To say it should be simplified is an understatement. The only argument to the contrary is that we’re used to it, we’ve already planned around it, and change is worse than a bad status quo.
Third, and finally: Teachers. Generally, in any process, we expect efficiency to improve over time. Education bucks this trend. The ongoing fad (can fads really be ongoing?) is to reduce the student:teacher ratio. The fad is based on conventional wisdom, a few studies that support the conventional wisdom, and a both huge and wrong ceteris paribus assumption. The idea to have smaller classrooms is good in theory. But the reality is that additional, affordable teachers are going to be of lower quality; so a lot of kids end up in a smaller group but with a worse teacher. So instead of focusing so much on the number of teachers we have, we should be focusing on how to actually take the best methods and actually apply them equally throughout all classrooms.
I dropped my car off this morning to have some things checked out. They just called with the run down of repairs and prices. Their implicit conclusion? Don’t bother fixing up this old thing, just buy a new car.
If you know anything about rear “strut knuckles” and why they should cost $600 each, please leave a comment.
