Recently in Economy Category

Not bloody likely. The Democrats who have blocked oil exploration, nuclear energy, and every other method of powering the country have clung to their flawed theories through thick and thin (mostly thin, as we're seeing wholesale damage to the economy as a result). Indeed, it's hard to find any type of energy they do support. Even wind power, popular with the local Joe-bag-'o-socialism class here in Delaware, meets heavy resistance from Democrat elitists at the federal level. One has to wonder what life for Americans would look like if Democrats in Washington took their distaste for all things energy to its logical conclusion and banned all energy sources they didn't like - something like this?

While Congress has been the real villain in the energy mess we find ourselves in, the executive branch could make an impact if the right approach were taken with Congress. Unfortunately, we have little to look forward to regardless of who wins in November. Obama would raise gas prices through increased taxation, and offers no hope at all that prices would decline through increased supply.

The nation wouldn't fare any better under McCain. McCain's "cap & trade" plan would be no less of a disaster than any similar plan advanced by the left, and he opposes increasing oil supplies. His only saving grace - indeed, his only dramatic difference from the Democrats - is his opposition to increased taxing of the American people through corporate surrogates (aka the oil companies).

An argument could be made that we may fare worse under McCain, as his legendary stubbornness would keep his administration stuck on stupid while the citizens suffer under an ever-worsening economy. Obama, on the other hand, is a political opportunist who might relent on some of his harmful agenda in response to negative polling. In other words, a weasel might be less harmful than someone guided by principle. That's a painful point to have to make, and shows just how bad things have been allowed to get in our political system.

*sigh*.

As I said above, though, Congress is the primary cause of the problem. This also means that they're in a position to correct it as well, if the pressure is high enough. It may not be possible, but there's nothing to be gained by not trying. Calls and letters to Congress are a start. In the same spirit, petitions and lobbying also make your opinions heard. If you're looking for a petition, start with Newt (H/T Don Surber):

While there are many important issues this election season, there are none that affect all Americans as much as this one. Regardless of political stripe, everyone should be joining in the effort to convince our government to stop obstructing energy independence and increased prosperity.

Everyone complains about the rising costs here in the US, which are rising due to decades of liberal energy policies preventing supply from keeping up with demand. But at least we don't yet have runaway inflation like Zimbabwe:

HARARE, Zimbabwe - Weary Zimbabweans are facing a new wave of price increases that will put many basic goods even further out of their reach: A loaf of bread now costs what 12 new cars did a decade ago.

Independent finance houses said in an assessment Tuesday that annual inflation rose this month to 1,063,572 percent based on prices of a basket of basic foodstuffs. Economic analysts say unless the rate of inflation is slowed, annual inflation will likely reach about 5 million percent by October.

As stores opened for business Wednesday, a small pack of locally produced coffee beans cost just short of 1 billion Zimbabwe dollars. A decade ago, that sum would have bought 60 new cars.

As bad as things are here, at least our oil-driven problems can be fixed over time - all it requires is for Republicans to stop acting like Democrats when it comes to oil policy (listening, Sen McCain?) and for Democrats to start thinking about what's best for Americans instead of bowing and scraping to environmental extremists who oppose anything resembling common sense.

I'll admit it - I like Starbucks. Not many of us righties do, mostly due to the reputation they have as a gathering place for liberals. I don't care. I like the coffee. That Starbucks is a lefty cultural phenomenon means little to me when I'm in the mood for an overly-roasted caffeine fix.

They used to have a really rich chocolate drink that TB really liked, but when they removed it from the menu she soured on Starbucks. So now I only go when I travel.

I almost always tip when I go - yes, the coffee is expensive, but that's hardly the fault of the baristas - they don't set the price. So naturally I was drawn to this headline yesterday:

Starbucks ordered to pay back tips

Could it be that the tip jars are emptied into Starbuck's coffers and the poor baristas are denied? No, it's even worse - the shift supervisor who slings venti drips and dry pastries right next to the lesser-paid baristas has been benefiting from the tip jar as well:

SAN DIEGO - A Superior Court judge on Thursday ordered Starbucks Corp. to pay its California baristas more than $100 million in back tips and interest that the coffee chain paid to shift supervisors.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett also issued an injunction that prevents Starbucks' shift supervisors from sharing in future tips, saying state law prohibits managers and supervisors from sharing in employee gratuities.

I might have a little sympathy if the supervisors sat in the back office browsing the web while the baristas slaved over a hot espresso machine, and maybe in some places they do. But the stores I usually frequent have a small staff. From the outside looking in, supervisors appear to be baristas with additional duties. If someone out there who works as Starbucks has a different perspective, please feel free to chime in. I'm by no means unpersuadable.

But we all tend to draw on personal experience when possible, so here's where I come from. While I was still active duty in the USAF, I had a string of second jobs. One was pizza delivery - a job where the employee expects that much of their income will be derived from tips. On nights when we were shorthanded on drivers (or just plain swamped), the shift supervisor (and sometimes the manager) would fire up their Corollas and deliver as well. I don't recall any of the regular drivers whining about lost tips or asking for a share, and I never heard the boss offering to forgo tips.

Now, I know that it might be a little different than having a communal tip jar, but isn't the underlying principle the same? The customer at Starbucks expects the folks serving the coffee to share the tips, if the supervisor is serving alongside the baristas, why should he/she be excluded from the spoils? Isn't it possible that some of the tips were intended to reward service provided by the supervisor?

"...state law prohibits managers and supervisors from sharing in employee gratuities." This one has me curious as well - if, during a rush, a supervisor waits tables in a restaurant, does he have to refuse tips (or give them away to the "employees")? Or does this only apply when there's a tip jar? I can understand the intent to prevent supervisors from skimming tips they didn't earn, but can't there be some circumstances where the supervisor is entitled to tips he/she has directly earned?

I expect that the real harm done to Starbucks won't be the $100 million award. It will be from the supervisors who will now warm a chair in the back room instead of helping out at the counter. Service will suffer, and the baristas may have fewer tips as a result.

Added thoughts: What are baristas paid, anyway? Do they get 8-9 bucks an hour, or a sub-minimum "waitress wage"? Are their hours held back to a small number in order to avoid the baggage of full-time employees? And all the same questions about the supervisors as well. Would the answers change my view? Maybe - although the argument for supervisors to be less involved at the counter still gets stonger as sympathy for the baristas' claim to tips increases.

Welcome InstaPundit readers! And thanks again, Glenn. Are shift supervisors entitled to tips or just greedy? Feel free to join the conversation!

Clarification: The story specifies shift supervisors, not managers. If anyone stops by who knows otherwise, please chime in. But I assume that a shift supervisor is as I've observed - someone who's job description includes barista plus some additional duties, like locking up and putting away the money, etc. And what do you think of this kind of thing outside of California, where there may not be laws as specific? Are communal tips an entitlement for the lowest paid workers regardless of who provides the tippable service? Should a company be able to set rules regarding tips? Join in!

A whopping 6%. I blame Bush.

I spent much of my Friday morning in Toys R Us, where the checkout line wrapped around the store twice. Several things on my list were sold out, and I arrived at 6:15 AM (They opened at 5). Although I found the rest of my list fairly quickly, I didn't make it out until past 9:30.

In contrast, the K-Mart I visited next was nearly devoid of shoppers, and the shelves were full. Stores that show small gains and even a decline from last year should engage in a little introspection. I don't shop at Wal-Mart or K-Mart for upscale items, I go there for bargains. Back to the basics, guys.

Naturally I'm talking about oil, folks. Something that's cheaper and easier to get everywhere else on the planet - and as a result, domestic production is a rusting shadow of it's former self.

The good news is the Dems' regognition that given the lack of a mandate for their reign in Congress, there's a limited amount of punishment they can mete out:

Hot-button issues such as a tax on the oil industry's windfall profits or sharp increases in automobile fuel economy probably will not gain much ground given the narrow Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

The bad news is that energy independence has a different meaning to the left than it should. Indeed, their plan is to discourage it:

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an outline of priorities over the first 100 hours of the next Congress in January, promises to begin a move toward greater energy independence "by rolling back the multibillion dollar subsidies for Big Oil."

The subsidies in question are intended to encourage domestic production, something that has become excessively cumbersome and costly due to decades of liberal regulation and roadblocking:

Topping the list for repeal are:

_Tax breaks for refinery expansion and for geological studies to help oil exploration.

_A measure passed two years ago primarily to promote domestic manufacturing. It allows oil companies to take a tax credit if they chose to drill in this country instead of going abroad.

Of course, these are going to be easy targets for the Democrats, as the oil companies are none too popular with folks on the right or left after posting record profits in recent quarters. I accept that I'm in the minority on this issue.

But a little common sense should be applied here. Shouldn't any legislation pitched as promoting "energy independence" make domestic harvesting and refining of oil cheaper and easier? Seems to me this will have the exact opposite effect.

Keep an eye on the horizon, though, as there are darker views on the oil companies that if acted upon, will serve to punish the poor and middle class even further:

Last spring, Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said if the country is to reduce its addiction to oil and high energy prices it needs a "crash program" to develop more alternative energy sources, dramatically increase conservation and examine "whether or not we should break up the big oil companies."

Next year, Schumer assumes the No. 3 leadership position among Senate Democrats and will be one of the party's top strategists.

I'm tempted to quote Milton, who wrote several good passages about the petty behaviour the left's proposals demonstrate. Instead, I'm going to butcher a quote from Jean Baudrillard - originally in reference to Halloween, it easily and accurately adapts to our new Congressional majority:

There is nothing funny about the left. This sarcastic festival reflects, rather, an infernal demand for revenge by children on the adult world.

Anyone who really believed that the left would behave better that the right regarding pork and spending discipline need look no further than Nancy Pelosi over the next two years to see if that faith was deserved:

"There's a long tradition where not only can you bring back your average pork as a member of Congress, but speaker pork gives you a lot of money, a lot of influence over the purse," said Julian E. Zelizer, a congressional historian at Boston University.

Pelosi, a Democrat, will be the first Californian to hold the post, and congressional watchdogs say they'll be observing her new spending clout with great interest.

There are "a lot of peeping chicks everywhere," said Tim Ransdell, executive director of the California Institute for Federal Policy Research in Washington, D.C. "And implicitly the House speaker has a nice war chest to start with."

Aides to Pelosi don't dispute that the state will benefit from a changing of the guard at the Capitol. "From the speaker's chair to committee chairs, Californians in Congress will have additional clout to help the home state," said Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider.

While it's possible that Rep. Pelosi has indeed repaired and will become the champion of responsible budgeting, Pelosi's own aides hint at the misplaced faith of the electorate. And the history of the California Representative suggests the type of pattern that politicians rarely abandon.

As a reminder, Pelosi verbally pandered on earmark reform but was too too busy picking out drapes to study for the test. And the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste gives her a lifetime score of 13.

And with President Bush's reluctance to use his veto power... well, all I gotta say is get ready for the spending spree.

Via AP/Yahoo:

TULSA, Okla. - Some gas station owners in Oklahoma are dropping the Venezuelan state-owned Citgo brand, saying sales have dropped significantly since the Venezuelan president criticized President Bush in a speech last month.

Just to refresh your memory, Chavez called Bush "the devil". In other news, Chavez may very well be on the way out. Publius Pundit has the details. He's apparently far behind in the polls, in spite of the smiles and window-dressing at his campaign appearances.

Hopefully Chavez will soon be able to retire from evil dictatoring and settle down with a like-minded woman:

That's assuming, of course, that most of Venezuela doesn't move to Miami.

If you heard of a company:

- A large U.S. company.
- A company whose suppliers were almost all overseas.
- A company whose profit has increased at high levels for years.
- A company who, upon learning that of of it's third world supplier nations was attempting to increase wages for its impoverished workers, actively worked to block them in order to keep costs low.

What would you think? If you're on the left, you're might be thinking I'm talking about Wal-Mart. But you'd be wrong:

Starbucks, the giant US coffee chain, has used its muscle to block an attempt by Ethiopia's farmers to copyright their most famous coffee bean types, denying them potential earnings of up to £47m a year, said Oxfam.

The development agency said the Ethiopian government last year filed copyright applications to trademark its most famous coffee names - Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe. Securing the rights to these names would enable the impoverished African country to control their use in the market and allow farmers to receive a greater share of the retail price.

The move would have increased its annual export earnings from coffee by 25%.

But Oxfam said Starbucks, which enjoyed a 22% rise in annual global turnover to £7.8bn in the year to October, has acted to block Ethiopia's application to the US patent and trademark office.

Starbucks claims they pay an average of $1.28 / lb for coffee worldwide, but in Ethiopia, it's as low as 60 cents. No wonder they feature an Ethiopian blend on the Starbucks website.

Hmmm. I wonder if a price increase would affect its sustainability?

Considering their target demographic here in the US, you'd think Starbucks would be more sensitive. On the other hand, considering where the money goes, do ya think the left will even notice? Next time you enter a Starbucks, if you happen to pass a couple of forty-something women with unshaved legs and "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers on the lids of their laptops discussing the evils of Wal-Mart, smile and nod as you pass.

An article about donut juggernaut Dunkin' Donuts and their expansion plans.

Kinda reminds me of the fast food wars in the 70's and 80's. For what it's worth, I don't have a preference for either Krispy Kreme or Dunkin' Donuts (we have both in my area). I'd be happy if Winchell's would expand to Delaware instead, I always thought they were better.

Alas, they seem to be determined to remain on the west coast only.

That's how the Dow closed today. I'm sure in spite of the record high market, historically low unemployment, reduced deficit, and scores of other positive indicators someone on the left is out there right now trying to figure out how to distort and twist this into a negative.

Last week, Working Families for Wal-Mart put up a new website, Paidcritics.com, the mission of which appears to be providing background and research about the money politics, and personalities behind the anti-Wal-Mart movement.

Natch, the union folks respond by putting up a rebuttal website, A Bunch of Greedy Right Wing Liars Who Work for Wal-Mart. It's mostly drivel, actually. A few insulting profiles of folks on the right, and a link to vote for your favorite make up the bulk of the site. But the veneer of caring about workers is being stripped away as the UFCW steers the rhetoric away from union vs. business toward left vs. right:

Wal-Mart’s new attack website, paidcritics.com, is an unprecedented and dangerous decision by a $300 billion dollar corporation. In fact, this may be the first time in history that a corporation has set up, directly funded, and openly managed a website whose sole purpose is to attack Democrats, and the passionate and handsome staff of our campaign, let alone all of the Americans who want Wal-Mart to become a better employer.

So in response we have launched our very own site, www.ABunchOfGreedyRightWingLiarsWhoWorkForWalMart.com which will provide a more detailed account of Wal-Mart’s right-wing conspiracy including ties to the most extreme element of the Republican Party, Tom Delay, George W. Bush, Karl Rove and John Ashcroft, a biographic summary of the key right-wing operatives involved in the Wal-Mart war room, and an accounting of Wal-Mart’s extensive political contributions to Republicans. To be honest, there is so much good stuff there that it's enough for 2 or 3 more websites (just kidding).

Indeed, at the tope of every page of abunchofgreedyrightwingliarswhoworkforwalmart are pictures of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Tom Delay - as far as I know none of them work for Wal-Mart. I wonder how their rank and file would view such open political attacks on politicians being paid for by their dues? Is this really the union's charter?

Oh, and "handsome"? Are they trolling for dates as an aside to their right bashing?

As nasty as the union thugs and their supporters are, you'd think they could take as much as they dish out. Not these weenies, though. The cornerstone of the site is a missive about how PaidCritics.com "hurt our feelings". Honest. There are lots of cards people play to redirect away from a losing argument - but seriously, folks, the "feelings" card? My four-year-old stopped using that one last year.

Nowhere on their site could I find examples of lies told on PaidCritics.com. As for greed, PaidCritics.com points out some union greed and abunchofgreedyrightwingliarswhoworkforwalmart.com doesn't dispute any it.

I hope this is the last gasp we're seeing. Certainly the union members would appreciate their dues being spent on something that actually benefits its members for a change.

Oops - forgot to add the disclaimer:

I don't work for Wal-Mart or any of its affiliates, partners, associates, neighbors, casual acquaintances, suppliers, or vendors. I don't belong to a union - but I did have an account at a credit union once. I normally don't shop at Wal-Mart, either. I did, however, get a nice email from Edelman - which I didn't act on until I saw this somewhat slanted AP story. So there.

Via Reuters/Yahoo:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Dell Inc. (Nasdaq:DELL - news) on Thursday said it planned to sharply cut the number of mail-in rebates on products and services, moving to simplify its pricing structure.

The broad decrease in promotions to U.S. consumers and small businesses, which will be implemented over the next 12 to 18 months, come as revenue growth from Dell's personal computer business has declined in recent quarters.

Dell said the "net price" that customers pay for PCs will remain the same.

If I read this correctly, that means they're going to lower prices instead of offering rebates.

Good. As far as I'm concerned, rebates are ruining the computer industry. It's never made sense to me to pay $1000 for a PC and have to wait 6 weeks to get the $100 rebate. If it was their intent to sell the damned thing for $900, let me get it at that price to start with.

Let's hope it starts a trend. Makers of networking products, please take note.

Via AP/Yahoo, in an article that tries to blunt the message as best as possible:

WASHINGTON - The federal deficit appears on track to register less than $300 billion for the budget year ending Sept. 30, as surging tax revenues continue to signal significant improvement over White House estimates released in February — though only modest gains over last year.

Modest, eh? Later in the article:

Indeed, tax collections are surging at a 13 percent growth rate, reflecting particularly strong growth in taxes paid on corporate profits and income taxes paid by wealthier people and small businessmen who pay taxes quarterly instead of having them withheld by employers.

Since when is 13 percent "modest"? For those of you in the "we can't afford tax cuts" club, please stop lying about the effect of tax cuts. Spending is the problem.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - U.S. employers added a disappointing 121,000 jobs last month, wary of bulking up payrolls with the economy slowing and energy prices rising. Wages rose sharply, fanning inflation worries.

We're still at near-historic lows in unemployment, and for months the complaint was that wages weren't keeping up. Now wages are increasing, and that's suddenly a bad thing?

Well, it looks like NJ's casinos are back in business.

I guess that's a bad thing here in Delaware, since the casinos here enjoyed increased business while the competition was down.

On the other hand, we have Biden shilling for 7-11 and Dunkin' Donuts to make up for it....

Earlier this month, I posted about how the arguments by the left simply don't hold water when applied to the debate about estate taxes. The repeal effort on the table at the time failed in the Senate, but the issue is back. Thursday the House passed a partial repeal - upping the exemption from its current 2 million to 5 for individuals and 10 million for couples. While this "lite" version is a mistake in that it still embraces inequality in the tax code, it's a step in the right direction and should make later efforts to repeal the death tax easier.

In my previous post, I discussed why the arguments of the left on this issue are based on deception. I saw a couple more examples raised earlier this week that further serve to illustrate my point. First, an unsigned editorial in the Washington Post gives the usual dishonest tripe so popular with many on the left:

LIKE THE GHOUL in the horror movie that refuses to die, estate tax repeal has returned from the grave to stalk the halls of Congress. Just two weeks after abolitionists failed in the Senate, they have regrouped behind a new bill that would achieve most of what they want -- not quite the elimination of the tax but its "reform" into insignificance. Like full repeal, this reform would expand the budget deficit and exacerbate inequality.

The deficit canard is the cornerstone of robotic liberal groupthink whenever government and money are discussed lately. In this case (as in most), it's being used dishonestly. The deficit does not exist because of tax cuts - the simple and irrefutable fact is that revenues have increased dramatically for the government in spite of (or more accurately, because of) the previous cuts. The deficit is a product of one thing and one thing only - irresponsible spending habits in Congress. Until this fact is recognized and addressed universally by both left and right alike, no serious deficit reduction is possible.

"Exacerbate inequality" - this one is rooted entirely in raw emotion and couldn't be more dishonest since it really doesn't have anything to do with fairness unless you're viewing it through the eyes of a six year old. "Timmy has a newer bicycle than me. It's not fair!" should not be the type of argument that mature people employ. Only a mortally flawed sense of fairness rooted in envy and greed view a progressive tax code as fair.

But what is fair? I have a friend that believes that if government costs 3 trillion to run, each of the 300 million people in the US should chip in ten grand, since all citizens benefit equally from the government's core responsibilities (common defense, domestic tranquility, etc). While it's hard not to appreciate the brutal simplicity of his argument, it's a model that doesn't take into account that a large portion of our population doesn't generate income, i.e., the very young and the very old being the largest groups to use as examples. So in recognition of this, we tax based on income. In such a system, fairness is also a simple concept if you can set aside greed and envy:

If I make 10 times more than you, I should pay 10 times the taxes.
If I make 100 times more than you, I should pay 100 times the taxes.

Seem fair? Not to the left, where childishness reigns. Add a "liberal" dose of covetousness, and "fair" suddenly becomes a grotesque caricature where an impaired syllogism views the following as just:

- You make 10 times more than I do, so you should pay 20 times more taxes.
- You make 100 times more than I do, so you should pay 400 times more taxes.

And it's just comical when applied to estate taxes:

- Your estate is worth 100 times more than mine, so I should pay no taxes, and you should pay 46%.

The truth is that fairness has nothing to do with the liberal views on taxation. Period. The Post article gives us a hint of why(emphasis mine):

The nation faces the expensive retirement of the baby boomers. It is grappling with rising inequality. Its prized social mobility may ultimately be threatened if the richest members of society are allowed to pass unlimited riches to their children.

I don't recall which part of the tax code addressed "social mobility". Can anyone help with a reference? This green-eyed phenomenon is even more plainly illustrated in a post I came across in FireDogLake yesterday. The author, Ian Welsh, should be lauded for his honesty in showing the true basis of the liberal view of taxes (I've included the bulk of the post so that context won't be an issue, only leaving out the graphs about income inequality and estate tax distribution. Please follow the link to see the graphs. Emphasis added.):

To summarize:

The top 1% pays 94.8% of all estate taxes.
The top 1/2 a percent pays 86.5% of all estate taxes
The top .1% pays 51.3% of all estate taxes

Most people will never be effected by the Estate Tax. Ever. But you will be effected if it’s repealed.

Here he shows clearly that the estate tax is unfair. Either 1% is being unfairly targeted, or 99% is skating out of their responsibilities. It's a point he misses altogether, though.

The general estimate of the cost of repeal is a trillion dollars a decade. A hundred billion a year. The government is already bleeding money, in both deficit and substantial debt. Any tax repeal - whether estate, or capital gains, or corporate taxes, wille eventually have to be made up (yes, the creditors will eventually want their money back.) Estate tax repeal will be paid for at some point, by the middle class. And by your children.

TANSTAAFL - There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. If you want a tax cut now, you pay for it later - with interest. If the rich want a tax cut now, the middle class will pay for it later, with interest.

This, as I pointed out before, is demonstrably false. Revenues have increased dramatically due to prior tax cuts, the problem is runaway spending. Fix that problem, and the middle class and children will be fine. By the way, 100 billion dollars a year, if correct (Not saying it isn't, but there are competing estimates of the effect of estate tax repeal) taken away from government control (where it would be badly mismanaged) and left in the private sector could create/sustain 3.2 million $15/hour jobs. Think the government would use the money even a fraction as well?

But I want to say something more about the estate tax.

There is no fairer tax. If it were up to me, it wouldn’t just be reinstated to it’s full 1999 level, it’d be increased to tax even more from the richest DEAD PEOPLE.

That’s right - dead people. By all means, let’s call it the death tax.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t expect to take it with me. I don’t think my money goes with me wherever it is I go when my heart stops beating. I don’t think I need money after I’m dead.

This has a morbid "They're dead! Quick, take the watches and wallets! No, leave the Timex - but get the Rolex from that guy over there!" quality to it that should offend anyone's sense of morals. If you think this isn't a popular view among the left, read the comments - Mr. Welsh gets lots of praise for his canonization of this grave-robbing mindset.

And I don’t think my heirs need more than a few million dollar head start over everyone else. Sure, if I ever have kids, I’d want to give them a head start, but I don’t deceive myself that they did anything to, like, deserve it, other than with the "lucky sperm contest".

Now we get to the heart of his argument. Jealousy. Greed. Envy. We should tax estates because the heirs don't deserve their inheritance. What I can't figure out: Why they don't display this level of contempt for the Kennedys?

Taxation is a zero sum game. You can take the money from dead people - who don’t need it or you can take it from living people who do need it.

Except heirs are living people, aren't they?

You can tax it from the kids of the rich, who did nothing to deserve it and who can probably make it on a few million from Daddy and Mummy; or you can tax it from people who actually earned it by the sweat of their own brow.

Moving from envy to hatred... They don't deserve it because Ian wasn't born lucky. Does arrogance trump aristocracy?

Oh, and those stories about people losing their family farms to the estate tax? Myth - no one has ever been able to find even one.

I'll agree with that one. Farms are indeed protected as far as I know. Now, about the medium-sized privately owned businesses...

The estate tax, the death tax, is about letting people have more money when they’re alive, and only taxing it when they’re dead.

And that, to me, makes it better than every other tax in existence.

Except you'd have more money if the government didn't tax the dead. Like it or don't, even Paris Hilton will use her money for your benefit. How? She'll spend it. She'll invest it. Every dollar that stays in the private sector helps improve the economy for all of us, increasing the chances that you or I will be able to induct our children into the "lucky sperm club". And the purpose of any tax should be to fund the government - not perform social engineering.

So forget estate tax repeal - let’s turn it around and increase the estate tax. Because dead people don’t need money, and living people do, and no matter how much rich people love their kids they didn’t do anything for the money, and a head start of a few million is enough for anyone.

But we're talking about fairness. And a twisted sense of fairness borne of contempt and envy isn't fair by any rational standards. A tax policy based on some masterbatory Robin Hood-ish fantasy is neither fair nor workable.

But government needs to be funded, right? So let's talk fair. Right and wrong do not change because of scale. If Paris Hilton doesn't deserve her inheritance because she didn't earn it, then equally do my children not deserve their comparatively meager one. An inheritance, if you believe it's unearned therefore undeserved, remains so whether it's 20 grand or 20 million.

So the fair answer is once again very simple. If you want to tax estates, then tax them all equally. No exceptions and the same rate for all, or my preference - tax none. Anything in between is counter to the principles upon which our republic was founded.

I say repeal the death tax. Then get to work bringing fairness and transparency to the rest of the tax code. That means eliminating regressive taxes that unfairly target the poor (like corporate taxes), and making every earned dollar look the same to each and every American.

The senate chose lower job growth, decreased investment, and off-shoring of wealth today.

Constituents of Sen. George Voinovich and Sen. Lincoln Chafee especially should take note. The bill wouldn't have advanced anyway had they sided with the Republicans (cloture failed 57-41, 3 votes short), but folks should be aware that they sided with the politics of envy and class warfare.

I'm very disappointed.

Now that the gay marriage ban amendment has been relegated to the dust-bin of past pandering, the Senate has scheduled a vote tomorrow on a far more important issue - estate taxes.

This one has been labeled as pandering by some on the left as well, but has ramifications that belie such a guileful dismissal. Indeed, the results of this debate say much about who we are and what kind of nation we wish to be.

I do really dislike having to levy generalities on an entire group of people (in this case, the left), but in this instance I find it difficult to believe that they really buy their own line on this issue. For example, the left says that repealing estate taxes will have disatrous effects on the budget. From a United for a Fair Economy press release today:

"At a time of rising deficits and big due bills like the war in Iraq, we cannot afford either the cost of repeal-a trillion dollars over the first ten years-or the aristocracy of wealth that repeal would leave us," said Chuck Collins, senior fellow at United for a Fair Economy.

From another United for a Fair Economy press release:

Estate tax repeal would mean adding another $1 trillion to the national debt over the next 20 years.

This is from an op-ed by Peter Rothberg in The Nation:

This change in the tax code would benefit less than half of one percent of American citizens but would harm many more by creating a one trillion dollar hole in future federal reserves.

The elephant in the room that each and every person on the left knows (but will not publicly ackowledge) is that revenues have soared in the wake of the Bush tax cuts. The singular reason for continuing deficits is the lack of fiscal discipline in Congress. Sadly, this is currently across the board, and the subject is only raised as a political weapon, long on hot air and short on action. Regardless, the notion of higher deficits as a result of estate tax repeal is a provably fraudulent one. If you're one of the few who really do buy into it, please drop me a line via email with your contact information as I'd like to discuss selling you a bridge (I have a picture post card if you wish to see it).

The other reasons the left gives for "preserving" (like it's a good thing - we also preserve old buildings and pickles) the estate tax center around "fairness". And everyone values fairness, right? That's why I picked United for a Fair Economy for quotes above - the word "fair" is in their name. So lets talk about fairness.

Nearly every argument made in favor of the estate tax mentions that >99% don't pay it. But fairness is treating all Amercans equally. In other words, under current tax code, we're being unfair to either 1% or 99% of the population. To remedy this inequality, we should either expand the estate tax to the 99% who have been getting away with not paying it, or repeal the estate tax all together. No other solution save those two would be fair.

I also love the this claim, also nearly universal:

Over the last decade, 18 of the wealthiest families in the country have spent more than $200 million lobbying to repeal the estate tax, according to lobby disclosure reports analyzed by two groups that favor retaining the estate tax, United for a Fair Economy and Ralph Nader's organization, Public Citizen. The wealthy families include the Mars candy family; the Gallo wine family; the Wegman supermarket family; the Dorrance family, which controls Campbell soup; and the Waltons, who control Wal-Mart.

Here's a variation from Barack Obama:

"Let's call this trillion-dollar giveaway what it is. This is the Paris Hilton tax break," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

Lobbying is nothing new. But when farmers lobby for more subsidies, no one villifies the farmers. Here's some reality for you - the folks most likely to benefit from a particular cause are likely to be the ones who lobby for it. Just because some rich folks are lobbying for estate tax reform doesn't automatically make tax reform a bad thing. Unless, of course, you're one of those folks who think anything having to do with Wal-Mart is automatically evil. But for everyone else, doing the right thing is still right even if people you don't like support it as well.

I'd really like to know what the "punish the rich" crowd thinks the rich does with all that money.

Just in case some of you are curious what I think they do with it, I'll tell you:

1. They spend it, creating/sustaining employment and growing wealth for others (like you and me).
2. They invest it, fueling the economy that creates jobs and grows wealth for others (like you and me).
3. They hide some of it from the tax man.

This is not overly simplistic, either. Short of stuffing their mattresses, the weathy's cash is always being put to some use.

Changing the estate tax affects all three behaviours. High taxes mean less money for 1 and 2 (very bad for you and me), and more money for number 3 (also bad for you and me, because they aren't spending or investing much of what they hide). Low (or no) taxes mean more money for nos. 1 and 2 (very good for you and me), and less reason to hide money from the tax man (which means even more money for 1 and 2, which is very, very good for you and me).

So once the usual arguments against fixing the inequalities of estate taxes don't work, what's left?

Via AP/Yahoo:

NEW YORK - Stocks dropped for the second straight session Tuesday, with the Dow Jones industrial average falling to its worst close since March 9. Global markets also sold off as inflation fears worsened.

The Dow lost more than 110 points in midday trading before narrowing its loss later in the session. The index dropped nearly 200 points Monday after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke spooked Wall Street by saying that the central bank will remain vigilant in fighting inflation.

Investors have been hoping the Fed would stop increasing short-term interest rates after 16 hikes; the nation's benchmark rate now stands at 5 percent. However, Bernanke's comments in recent weeks have repeatedly shaken investors and sent stocks tumbling.

"Bernanke came in with this reputation as a great communicator," said John Caldwell, chief investment strategist for McDonald Financial Group, part of Cleveland-based KeyCorp. "Most of us would choose to go back to the general confusion (former Fed Chairman Alan) Greenspan created."

Listen, Ben. I and lots of other folks I know would eventually like to retire. Is it possible for for you to be vigilant and at the same time keep your ^@#&%*! mouth shut? Hmmm?

You really gotta feel sorry for the poor station owner that this happened to:

HAMMOND, Ind. - When a pump at a gas station malfunctioned, opportunistic motorists were able to buy gas for 29 cents per gallon.

A Marathon station sold a gallon of fuel for less than the price of a first-class stamp for about 90 minutes Friday before the mistake was detected and and the price corrected to $2.79.

While still answering questions from customers about why the price had suddenly gone up, clerk Nida Tayyab said more than 50 people had crowded the store, likely thinking the mishap was a price promotion, and received the bargain. Normally, the station serves about 10 people per hour.

"I was really confused," she said. "It was so messed up. I can't explain here how it was."

I think the left missed an opportunity, though. The headline from the LA Times or the NYT could have been:

"Gas prices jump $2.50 in one day, motorists mob gas station"

And it would have been, too, if the gas station was in Baghdad...

Ecuador has joined it's neighbors in the "resource re-nationalization" trend.

What's worrisome about Ecuador's move is that it simply gave Oxy the boot, without engaging in further negotiations to reach a settlement. In Bolivia and Venezuela, officials remain open to negotiating new terms with foreign oil companies. In Ecuador's case, President Alfredo Palacios, who took office just a year ago after his predecessor was ousted in the country's latest bout of political instability, was being threatened by some members of congress with possible treason charges if he allowed Oxy to stay.

In my mind, this is a disturbing trend that should be more prominent in the news. And it demonstrates that the middle east isn't the only factor in energy availability and price. The third wolrd's influence on the US is derived from our dependence on their natural resources. And that's why Congress should doubly ashamed of itself for letting aesthetics determine national energy policy.

I occasionally drive over to New Jersey - one of the quaint oddities to be found there is that the state doesn't allow self-service at gas pumps. Since I'm old enough to remember when it was that way in many more places, it brings back a few memories for me. I'm sure younger visitors probably find it just odd.

Evidently the folks in the garden state like it that way:

In New Jersey, motorists who need to fill 'er up haven't pumped their own gas in 57 years. But in the face of soaring gas prices, Gov. Jon Corzine came up with a novel plan last month to try to ease the pain: allow self-service at some stations along the New Jersey Turnpike and see if prices dip. He believed prices could drop 5 to 7 cents a gallon.

Corzine retreated after about 1,400 e-mails and calls poured in from a mostly outraged public. Concern about other state issues paled in comparison. A proposal to raise the sales tax by one cent, for example, received about 200 responses from the public, says Brendan Gilfillan, a spokesman for the governor.

Only in Jersey...

Via AP/Yahoo:

LA PAZ, Bolivia - President Evo Morales ordered soldiers to occupy Bolivia's natural gas fields Monday and threatened to evict foreign companies unless they give Bolivia control over the entire chain of production.

Morales sent soldiers and engineers with Bolivia's state-owned oil company to installations and fields tapped by foreign companies — including Britain's BG Group PLC and BP PLC, Brazil's Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Spanish-Argentine Repsol YPF SA, France's Total SA and U.S.-based Exxon Mobil Corp. The companies have six months to agree to new contracts or leave Bolivia, he said.

Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera said troops were sent to 56 locations around the country.

Soldiers took over major gas fields and refineries and, in the eastern city of Santa Cruz where much of the industry is based, occupied some oil company offices, said Tuffi Are, news editor at the El Deber newspaper, one of Bolivia's largest. He said about 100 soldiers were guarding the Petrobras refinery just outside the city.

Morales, a leftist allied with Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez in seeking to blunt U.S. influence in the region, had pledged to exert greater state control over the industry since winning election in December, becoming Bolivia's first Indian president.

"The time has come, the awaited day, a historic day in which Bolivia retakes absolute control of our natural resources," Morales said in a speech from the San Alberto field in southern Bolivia operated by Petrobras in association with Repsol and Total SA.

"The looting by the foreign companies has ended," Morales declared.

I think we can consider this one gone. Taking over the gas fields comes just one day after signing a major trade agreement with Castro and Chavez.

It also looks like our government will have to start paying more attention to matters in this hemisphere.

John at Powerline asks: "Wasn't There a Time When Republicans Knew Something About Economics?"

The post looks at the "Gas Price Relief and Rebate Act of 2006", and John opines, "it's not pretty".

I think John has overstated the quality of this bill somewhat - it's a train wreck of pandernomics.

$100 tax rebate? Check.
Endless investigations into gouging (whatever that is)? Check.
Contradictory tax incentive juggling? Check.
Tax incentives to build facilities that environmentalists will never allow? Check.

Did we really elect these numbskulls? This plan is just plain dumb on several levels. The only thing that makes sense (ANWR drilling) is also the most likely item to get left out of the final version.

Not that this is original, but here is the plan for gas price relief that I'll support:

1. Allow the oil industry to drill and build refining capacity.
2. Cut both state and federal taxes on gasoline.

It's funny that the biggest argument against replacing income tax with a national sales tax has always been that consumption taxes are regressive, hitting the poor much harder than the middle or upper classes. Yet there seems to be no such noble motive in play when it comes to energy. This isn't like tobacco or alcohol - gas is a necessity. There is gas price gouging - the shame is, the FTC won't see it because congress will tell them to look at the oil industry instead of the government. How can the oil industry's measly 9 cents per gallon profit be "price gouging" when state and federal government get a combined average of 60 cents?

I can't improve on John's closing sentiment:

Look at it this way: if the oil companies agreed among themselves not to drill for oil in new locations like ANWR, and not to build new refineries, so as to limit the supply of oil and thereby drive prices higher, it would be illegal; indeed, it would be the greatest price-fixing conspiracy in American history. But it isn't the oil companies that have conspired to limit supply and thereby drive prices higher. It is our government that has foreseeably, if not intentionally, achieved this ignoble end.

Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - With gasoline hitting $3 per gallon, scientists have just found the most energy-efficient engines in the universe — black holes, those whirling super-dense centers of galaxies that suck in nearly everything.

It's nice that science makes these discoveries, but what do black holes have to do with gas prices?

Not a day goes by when I don't learn something new. Today is no exception, and I've decided to share the wealth. First, a quiz:

If you introduce 400+ new jobs into an impoverished urban blight zone with high crime rates and high unemployment, what would the result be?

A. Increased poverty, increased crime, increased urban blight.
B. Decreased poverty, lower crime, and a chance for community prosperity.

Now if you answered "B", you'd be wrong. At least according to the union uber-economists at WakeUpWalMart.com (a wholly owned subsidiary of United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, CLC). In response to this announcement from Wal Mart about plans to build 50 stores in "neighborhoods with high crime or unemployment rates, on sites that are environmentally contaminated, or in vacant buildings or malls in need of revitalization", this is what the famously anti-business union had to say:

"Of course, new Wal-Mart stores would violently exacerbate existing problems of crime, poverty, environmental contamination, and urban blight in these areas."

So by their reasoning, we can help these areas by closing businesses and creating even more unemployment. Then these urban blight zones would become leftist utopias, right? Isn't socialism wonderful?

BTW, the average hourly wage at Wal-Mart is $10.67. For you utopian Democrat supporters, that would mean $11481.60 a year more than minimum wage. In contrast to Teddy and Howie's plan, that adds up to not just one year of groceries, but a car to drive them home in. Not just over 9 months of rent, but enough income to qualify for a small mortgage. Not just a year and a half of heat and electricity, but new appliances to run with that electricity. Not just full tuition for a community college degree, but a couple of years at a decent land grant college.

With Teddy and Howie's plan, you get enough to put a new skirt and steps on the double-wide and maybe a new bowling ball. It's no wonder that "a voice for working America" has to brag on 7 out 300 employees at a Canadian store as a victory. Folks here in the States can't take the pay cut that UFCW supports.

It's not just backing the wrong horse. UFCW wants to be in back of the wrong horse as well.

Full disclosure: I received an email from Wal-Mart's PR firm about an hour after I had read the AP story linked above. Email or no, I still would have posted. I don't work for Wal-Mart, don't shop there, and don't have any family or friends that work there. I get paid nothing for pointing out the anti-business nature of UFCW's (and the left's) ridiculous war against Wal-Mart.

This is good news:

MEXICO CITY (AP) - Mexico has made a deep-water oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico that could be larger than the country's giant Cantarell offshore field, President Vicente Fox said on Monday.

The oil find is under 950 meters (3,117 feet) of water and a further 4,000 meters (13,120 feet) underground, Fox said in an interview with Dow Jones Newswires.

This is good news because every drop of oil found in a stable region offsets oil from unstable ones. Also, Mexico lacks the resources to exploit deep water oil, so there's opportunity for U.S. companies to get some work out of this.

Of course, we still have a refinery shortage problem to fix...

And it goes without saying that we'd be finding oil too if there weren't so many people getting in the way.

Via Instapundit, there's this jewel on Marquette Warrior about a NYT reporter looking into connections between bloggers and Wal-Mart:

We got an e-mail from Barbaro this past Thursday evening, saying he is working on a story and that several of the postings on the Marquette Warrior are relevant to it.

At least two other bloggers on the Wal-Mart mailing list have been similarly contacted.

Barbaro has apparently noticed that similar stories concerning Wal-Mart have appeared roughly simultaneously in recent months. In some cases, bloggers on the list simply cut and pasted information in the e-mails into their blog posts.

I may as well 'fess up - I'm part of this great conspiratorial network as well. Marshall Manson contacted me after I posted a view of the players in a scuffle at a Wal-Mart in North Lauderdale between union protesters and store personnel. Here's the email I received:

LB:

I hope you’re well. I just wanted to drop you a line and introduce myself. I’m a blogger myself (I contribute to Confirm Them and Human Events’ Right Angle among others), but for my day job - I do online public affairs for Wal-Mart, working with Mike Krempasky who runs Redstate.org.

Just wanted you to know that your post (http://dontgointothelight.com/2005/12/union_vs_walmart_a_scuffle_dur_1.php) on the anti-Wal-Mart groups incursion into Wal-Mart's Lauderdale store is making the rounds here and at heaquarters in Bentonville.

It’s always a challenge when opponents organize to attack corporations. The companies always seems to have one arm tied behind their backs when they try to respond, so it’s nice to see folks like you defending them when it’s the right thing to do .

If you're interested, I'd like to drop you the occasional update with some newsworthy info about the company. Let me know.

Sincerely,

Marshall

Marshall Manson

Edelman

Prior to this, I had already posted several stories about the left's war against Wal-Mart, so there was no sword taken up based on Marshall's offer. Since then, I've received occasional emails, many of them were mostly links to editorials and news articles - some I had already found on my own (I know how to use Google and Yahoo).

Not that I'm saying there was no value in Marshall's emails - he's saved me hours of searching, and provided me with several story ideas (some not even related to Wal-Mart). And I've passed up most of what Marshall has sent. Indeed, it's been a two-way street, as I sent him a link to my post about Hillary Clinton's involvement with Wal-Mart:

http://dontgointothelight.com/2006/02/more_walmart_fun.php

Marshall,

In case you missed this. I thought it was pretty funny.

Regards,

LB

And his reply?

That's awesome. Thanks for sending. I'm LMAO. The whole team will see this one.

M

I didn't credit Marshall in any of my posts because the opinions given were my own. That my opinions dove-tailed with others doesn't make them any less my opinion. I had specifically asked Marshall for groundrules to follow in using whatever he sent, and he provided me with none. Since I've seen several news articles parroting WakeUpWalMart's talking points without crediting the source, I believe I've conformed to the norm in posting on these topics. Indeed, John at Marquette Warrior notes:

In fact, journalists are always dependent on various sources to supply leads and information. Barbaro's article on Scott's communications with his employees was based on material leaked by Wal-Mart Watch, an anti-Wal Mart group backed by unions and leftist foundations.

I think it would be delicious to learn whether Barbaro simply "discovered" the blogging connection with Marshall as he claims, or was led to it by the same folks who had already been sourcing his stories. Of course, it was out there to find - even though Marquette Warrior and I didn't credit Marshall, others did:

"It took a while, but Lee Scott came out swinging. And of all the newspapers, the Washington Post published his piece. It's not one of my regular reads, but our friend Marshall Manson (who does PR for Wal-Mart) alerted me:"

Incidentally, I didn't post on the same story - one of many that I passed up. I would have preferred that Wal-Mart had taken a different track after the Wal-Mart bill was passed - capitulating simply encourages bad behaviour in other states.

But back to sourcing from PR folks - should I have credited Marshall for leads I received? Possibly. Although it would have been more in the form of a hat tip, as I didn't engage in the wholesale cutting and pasting of Marshall's material - instead, I used the leads to news articles to assist in researching for posts that were about my opinion. But I think Glenn Reynolds has a point in his post on the subject:

I talked to a reporter about blogs and PR -- I won't spoil the story, but the gist is that some PR people have been sending stuff to bloggers, and some bloggers have apparently reprinted some of it without attribution.

I think that's bad, but as I stressed in our interview, it's not as if this supports a "bloggers lack the standards of mainstream journalism" conclusion.

I think I'll start giving hat tips in the future for this kind of thing just to be complete. And I hope that Marshall doesn't stop sending his emails as a result of all this. I've enjoyed corresponding with him, and his leads have proven to be useful on occasion. It would be tragic if Barbaro's efforts (and by proxy those that feed him with material) silenced him.

Update: A clarification, actually. I was not contacted by any reporters regarding Marshall's emails. Apologies for any misunderstandings.

And it's still doing just fine, thank you:

Dow Jumps Past 11,000; Nasdaq Also Rises

It's going to be hard for the Democrats to continue to spin the economy as a disaster. People will eventually notice.

I almost missed this last night - a sign of continued growth in the economy:

Wal-Mart to Open About 1,500 New Stores

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. plans to open more than 1,500 stores in the United States in the coming years, on top of nearly 3,200 it already operates, the world's largest retailer said Tuesday.

I assume that most of those, along with the thousands of new jobs they'll create, will reside outside of Maryland - right, union puppets? Here's another bit of trivia about economic growth outside of the Old Line State:

Wal-Mart opened 69 new stores and Sam's Clubs in January, a company record for one month, it announced last week.

With that kind of growth, one has to wonder where UFCW and it's WakeUpWalMart appendage will find enough bodies to populate the anti-growth, anti-business picket lines. Hmmm... I wonder where a union can get minimum wage, no-benefit, stand-in-the-sun-all-day-with-only-2-minute-breaks workers to take the load off union staff so they can help workers achieve better wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions? Hmmm?

Maybe they could ask the carpenter's union for advice.

Update (3:28 PM): Maybe there's a chance that a few of those job-creating, economy-boosting new stores might eventually find their way into Maryland after all.

Well, we're used to seeing the left use Wal-Mart as a club. But using it as a club on each other....

"For those not in the know, Clinton served on Wal-Mart’s board for six years prior to her husband’s run for the presidency. She recently received $5,000 from Wal-Mart. I’ve raised the Wal-Mart relationship repeatedly in my current race against Clinton and it causes deep unease among voters. I believe it speaks to the incumbent’s close ties to abusive corporate power: her large corporate financial contributions, her support for so-called “free trade” (which is simply trade to benefit corporations) and her unwillingness to confront corporate power that denies every American, among other things, universal health insurance.

"So, I had to chuckle when I read that Clinton, having never said a bad word about the company in the past, recently said that Wal-Mart should pay more for its workers’ health benefits. And, to boot, she returned the $5,000 she had received from the company. But, when asked what she did about the company’s benefits for workers when she served on the board, she replied, “Well, you know, I, that was a long time ago ... have to rememb