Starbucks is the new Wal-mart

If the people really do not want a Starbucks in their neighborhood then the store will fail as residents patronize other establishments. But to force out an organization by government fiat is wrong. Even actors should have enough common sense to figure that out.

Going on the domestic offensive

Pejman lays out the case and I could not agree more.

The Bush Administration should seize on the issue of tax reform, draft a package, and push along with Congressional Republicans for approval. In doing so, the Administration and Congressional Republicans will both help their political prospects and can significantly improve the nature of tax policy.

Tax reform has the best chance of being adopted it is easier to understand a simplification of the code, than Social Security reform or how school choice would work to produce a better system. Plus Pejman is correct in pointing out the broad popular support for tax reform does cut into dem leaning voting blocks.

In theory I agree with Mr. Yousefzadeh that a consumption tax would be the optimal choice however politically it would much harder to enact. A move to a Flat tax would also greatly simplify the tax system and reams of data exist as other nations have adopted this model it seems more likely to pass the congress. I only hope the administration has the stamina to push though this reform agenda.

Personnel-wise, the current situation is a sort of perfect storm for the Bush Administration, one that may make it easier to pass a comprehensive tax reform package. The White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten, was Director of the Office of Management and Budget prior to taking the Chief of Staff position, and was a Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy before that. The Bush Administration has added a major player to its economic policy team in Hank Paulson, who left a lucrative and influential position as the CEO of Goldman Sachs to become Treasury Secretary. And the Administration now has former Congressman and Trade Representative Rob Portman heading up the Office of Management and Budget.
All three officials are heavyweights, well-versed in economic policy. They also know their way around political obstacles and pitfalls and can deal effectively and credibly with Congress on policy issues. In short, the President has in place a team that is primed to push for the successful enactment of a path-breaking and constructive economic policy package.

Gavin Becker on "Big Box" retailers

Becker has Great post on his blog about an attempt by the Chicago City council last month to impose more restrictions on Wal-Mart. Thankfully mayor Daily vetoed the bill.

To the left commerce is evil

Democratic leaders have found a new rallying cry that many of them say could prove powerful in the midterm elections and into 2008: denouncing Wal-Mart for what they say are substandard wages and health care benefits.

This is absolute insanity the ire this company engenders in people is now being used as a major campaign platform. Just further illustration how devout of serious ideas the left has become. How can any retailer offer comprehensive health care and 15 dollars an hour and stay in business? Why it is always Wall-Mart they target rather then IKEA, Target, and the Gap all retailers with comparable pay and benefits structure, all of which import manufactured goods from China.

Wall-marts sin is that it caters to lower income & rural consumers effectively giving them a raise by increasing their purchasing power. By focusing on these often neglected consumers the company has grown profitable and increased the living standards of those who shop there. The left views that success as heretical only the government is capable of providing this relief not the private sector. This is leading to a growing apostasy among an important voting block, and is forcing even “Moderate” Democrats to denounce Wal-Mart.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who was a member of Wal-Mart’s board when she lived in Arkansas, the corporation’s home state, returned a $5,000 campaign contribution from the company last year. Mrs. Clinton said she did so to protest Wal-Mart’s health care benefits, and she has continued to distance herself from the policies of a company she was close to when she was the first lady of Arkansas.

“It’s not anti-business,” said Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, a former head of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, appearing at an anti-Wal-Mart rally on Tuesday. “Wal-Mart has become emblematic of the anxiety around the country, and the middle-class squeeze.”

They should think long and hard about the short sightedness of this line of attack. The Dems really need to go back to the drawing board and come up with some sort of governing platform. I am sure executives at the company are scratching their heads at all of this. Don't expect the companies response however true to appease the critics.

Wal-Mart counters that its average wage is more than $10 an hour, and that more than 150,000 Americans who had no health insurance now have it through the company. It also says it has saved consumers billions of dollars by squeezing costs.

How NOT to win friends and influence people

A New Democratic ad for the fall has angered Hispanic groups by comparing illegal immigration to the threats of terrorism and North Korea's expanding nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately the ad was pulled before I could see it but some of the text is in the article. The ad is blatantly false, how is bush responsible for Nuclear technology that the previous administration transferred to Kim Jong Il in an attempt to broker a deal? This type of spin is just not effective anymore.

Reagan's Winds Still at Our Backs

Another excellent article about the continuing impact of the Reagan years. However I don't agree with his take on President Bush.

There has been much disgust on the right at George W. Bush's spending record. But critics should keep in mind that much of that spending was the result of trying to bait Democrats into voting for reforms with long-term benefits. It hasn't worked very well, but it's unfair to see the overall Bush record as a turning back rather than a premature effort to move forward

This excuse might apply to No Child left Behind act or Social Security reform, but certainly not the prescription drug benefit for Medicare. Regardless of the administrations intentions the net result of these programs has been to expand the power and scope of the Federal government. Excluding the tax cuts the Bush years have been devoid of any serious domestic legislation.

Spitzer: Hero or Hack?

Living in the NY, Spitzer is a familiar face; he receives copious amounts of air time on local news outlets. He castes himself as an Eliot Ness-like character crusading against the villains of Wall Street and the media eats it up.

Truth be told, he is a publicity hound and his self righteous blather is devoid of any substance. Unfortunately in New York because he has a (D) before his name he is a virtual lock to the next Governor. Even this pro Spitzer puff piece concedes the point.

Indeed, Spitzer does display an ugly side--a relish of confrontation, a lust for the spotlight--as he gropes his way towards an understanding of the potential and limits of his growing power and visibility. Here and there, Spitzer and his cavalry of legal jousters come across as power-crazed bullies. In one instance, two Spitzer lawyers give an executive 24 hours to plead guilty, threatening if he doesn't to arrest him at home in front of his child and pregnant wife. In another, an exec is sent to jail despite his bond with his severely disabled daughter.

Of course this type of behavior is not just excused but praised because the rich are inherently evil. Imagine the outcry if he was this tough on violent criminals? So what philosophy underlies his prosecutorial zeal and what would his policies as Governor look like?

As Masters points out, Spitzer himself has written that the future of the Democratic Party depends on its ability "to promote government as a supporter of free markets, not simply a check on them," and to hew to "a vision consistent with trust-busting and other progressive market measures first enunciated early in the last century by Theodore Roosevelt." Which is exactly what Spitzer has done.

What does this mean when applied to policy? If government has to "support" free market what is that but the same misguided Keynesian economic model that has animated liberal policy for the last 60 years? What trusts does Spitzer plan to take on? Standard Oil & AT&T are long gone products of the industrial age. In the information age no company no mater how large or profitable is safe from competition unless insulated by government regulations. Case in point witness the struggles of once mighty GM. Further largest most socially damaging monopoly is K-12 education. The government Education bureaucracy is an agrarian age institution that is in desperate need of competition.

Like [Teddy] Roosevelt, Spitzer doesn't see himself as an antagonist of the free market, but rather as its defender against those who would game and corrupt the system. And he is quite explicit about the fact that he sees this not just as good policy, but good politics--particularly for Democrats, and for himself.

The way to insure that no one "game & corrupt the system" is to allow producers not to be hampered by overbearing government regulation that forces them to restrict choice for consumers. Consumers in the market place respond much quicker to events than any legislative or prosecutorial act of government ever could. Spitzer may or may not understand this, but he is right that a significant constituency does exist for his anti growth view point.

The Roaring Naughts!

Brian Wesbury lays out the case for limited government. I wish the current members of congress would read this article and head its lessons to stop spending and expanding government at a torrid pace. Finally he has message for the Fed.

Lastly, strong economic growth does not cause inflation.
Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. Inflation can exist in a strong or weak
economy. However, inflation erodes living standards and undermines the
foundation of the economy. A stable currency is essential to long-term economic
success.

Thankfully Bernanke understands this, and is reining in the excess expansion of the money supply after the 9/11 attacks.

Novak misses the point of the Lamont win

Lieberman's most recent ratings by the American Conservative Union were 7
percent in 2003, zero in 2004 and 8 percent in 2005. "Well deserved!" ACU
Chairman David Keene told me. "I don't see why any conservative should be overly
concerned about Joe Lieberman's plight."

Novak is befuddled by the out pouring of support from the right for Lieberman given his voting record. Speaking as someone who would cross party lines and vote for Senator Lieberman, I can say my support is not based on his posturing as "moderate" Democrat.
Lieberman represented the mythical ideal of politics stopping at waters edge. The idea that we can as Americans have fierce intellectual debates about taxes, abortion, energy policy etc, but be united when it came to issues of national security and defense. That ideal died with Lamont's rambling victory speech.
It is true that a uniform foreign policy consensus has never existed in America. However the lack of civility in the current debate with ludicrous charges being leveled by the extreme left is jarring. The Connecticut primary result is analogous to the ostracizing of the Scope Jackson Dems from the party during the 70's. Lieberman may still win the nutmeg state as an Independent, but the Dems have made clear that their party does not support the war on Islamism.

Castro lives on to terrorize another day

No one can verify if the photo below is really authentic. For the sake of the people of Cuba lets hope its not and he's dead. I do find it humors that Castro is donning a red white and blue adidas track suit.

Supply Side Tax cuts 25 years later

Larry Kudlow lays out the case for the strong American economy and the positive impact of "Reaganomics". The progress of the US economy should be self evident but in these politically charged times even the facts are in dispute. So the good news is worth repeating and few make the case better than Kudlow.

1960's redux

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page is correct in pointing out the Lamont primary victory is a blow to the war on Islamism and confirms that the Democrats are embracing a policy of defeat which could eventually preclude them from power for a generation.

In a better world, the U.S. war on terror, at its core, would be bipartisan. That world was what Joe Lieberman's politics represented. That world is dead. Democratic support for the Republican administration's plans to fight these terrorists is down to about zero. This means the Democrats must have a plan of their own to defeat terror. Every Republican running for office at every level this fall should force his opponent to describe it. And if they aren't certain about the details, they can call Ned Lamont.

However I can not bring myself to indulge in the glee that many on the right are feeling about this. As Newt Gingrich points out today we are talking about the potential loss of an American city. If a war weary electorate empowers the current radical crop of Dems this fall they will continue to place obstacles in the path of victory. Buying the precious couple years Iran needs to complete the bomb. Hopefully Lieberman can win as an independent sending a message to the moveon.org crowd that the bulk of the American people are not with them.

Liberty or Death

I thought this article was an interesting look into how Europeans view us. Much of what the author describes in not new, the perception of crudeness and bellicosity on the part of Americans.

But when the Americans speak of freedom, we should not imagine, in our
cynical and worldly-wise way, that they are merely using that word as a
cloak for realpolitik. They are not above realpolitik, but they also mean
what they say.

I always assumed old Europe's outlook and prescriptions for the worlds problems stemmed weakness, not a view of the outside world as insincere. That might explain their eagerness to appease men like Ahmadinejad.

More hassles while flying?

Some folks are all ready starting to moan about this and other new security protocols that will be implemented as result of yesterdays thwarted terrorist attempt. Frankly given what almost occurred I do not think it's unreasonable to abide by the new rules. The report of what exactly the terrorists were planning to do is chilling.

And so it begins...

Wow my first post! I basically intend to opine on a wide array of topics including politics, technology, sports, and whatever else catches my eye.

My lovely wife and I are expecting so I will post photos of my first child! In the mean time make do with my pet ferret Johannes Kepler. We call him Kepy for short and as you can see he's pretty damn cute.