Dec 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean has already told us that his foreign policy response to 9/11 would not include going after all terrorist-sponsoring states (see Howard Dean's Anti-American Foreign Policy). He said that he would somehow "focus on terrorism." Recently this article indicated what he meant. Osama bin Laden is (or was) the head of a multi-national terrorist organization responsible for killing thousands of Americans. How would Dean treat bin Laden if caught? Why, like an American citizen!"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said. "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials. So I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system."
Dec 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
An interesting observation from Bruce Bartlett:
...Ironically, much of the move toward offshoring is the result of ill-considered efforts to keep software jobs in the United States. Previously, companies had brought Indian programmers to this country to do their work under a program established in 1990. It provided these foreign workers with H-1B visas that allowed them to work here temporarily. But under pressure to save such jobs for the native-born, the number of visas allowed under this program was reduced from 195,000 to 65,000 in October. So now, instead of having Indian workers come here, where they spent much of their earnings, companies are contracting with them to work in India, which is where they now spend their earnings...
But wait it gets worse:
...Rather than admit that they were wrong in the first place, the same people who demanded restrictions on foreign workers are trying to get new limits placed on outsourcing, as well.
Or to paraphrase Von Mises' axiom: interventions (unless repealed) bring on more interventions until full-scale socialism is reached. Comments Paul Blair "...and once the politicians ban outsourcing, that will accelerate companies moving their plants abroad, and if they manage to ban that, then capital will move to foreign companies. And if you want to see a real economic disaster, just wait till you see what happens if they try to stop capital flight."
Recommended Reading:
Restrictions on "H-1B" Visas Punish Ability and Trample the Rights of Employer and Employee by Robert W. Tracinski
Any restrictions on immigration -- large or small -- trample the rights of both employers and job-seeking immigrants. The irrational premise behind our nation's immigration laws is that a native-born American has a "right" to a particular job, not because he has earned it, but because he was born here.
Dec 29, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Regarding the recent Earthquake in Iran:
Iran took time out from dealing with its tens of thousands of earthquake casualties to spew forth more hatred towards Israel - even at the expense of its own dead, wounded, orphans and homeless. "The Islamic Republic of Iran," announced the country's official news agency IRNA, "welcomes all the humanitarian aid being offered by various countries and organizations - except for that from the Zionist entity." [Iranian Leaders to Victims: Better That You Die Than We Accept Israeli Help]
Dec 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Last month, Orson Scott Card made some good points in an op-ed about the Demorats' anti-Bush obsession: The Campaign of Hate and Fear (Hat tip Rich Chandler).We have enemies that have earned our hatred, and whom we should fear. They are fanatical terrorists who seek opportunities to kill American civilians here and Israeli civilians in Israel.
But right now, our national media and the Democratic Party are trying to get us to believe that the people we should hate and fear are George W. Bush and the Republicans. I can think of many, many reasons why the Republicans should not control both houses of Congress and the White House.
But right now, if the alternative is the Democratic Party as led in Congress and as exemplified by the current candidates for the Democratic nomination, then I can't be the only Democrat who will, with great reluctance, vote not just for George W. Bush, but also for every other candidate of the only party that seems committed to fighting abroad to destroy the enemies that seek to kill us and our friends at home.
Dec 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Skip Oliva of the Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism has filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Mountain Health Care. Writes Skip:
Last December the Justice Department forced a group of 1,200 physicians and healthcare providers in North Carolina to disband. The DOJ said the group, Mountain Health Care, illegally adopted a common fee schedule for use in negotiating contracts with managed care purchasers. The DOJ considers any fee schedule illegal because when doctors agree to set their fees in concert, the DOJ claims it harms consumers. The government said Mountain's fee schedule "artificially" raised prices and denied consumers the "benefits" of competition for physician services. The implication is clear: the government claims physicians have no real right to set their fees. Despite denying any wrongdoing, Mountain agreed to disband because they couldn't afford the cost of fighting the DOJ.
During the public comment period on this "settlement," I objected the to the total lack of factual context in the government's complaint. Basically the DOJ argued Mountain raised prices, but no outside observer knew what those prices were or what the "correct" market prices were, because the DOJ wouldn't release that information. When challenged, the DOJ said they had no obligation to provide any context, and that asking them to do so would unreasonably impair their ability to promptly settle antitrust cases. The district court overseeing the case couldn't be bothered to deal with my objections, and the judge rubber stamped the settlement without comment.
Fortunately there's a provision in the antitrust law that allows malcontents like me to intervene in the proceedings and ask for appellate review. This now brings us to the Fourth Circuit in Richmond. I've asked the Court to decide whether the DOJ must disclose Mountain's allegedly "anticompetitive" fee schedule. Seeing as it's the sole piece of evidence referred to in the DOJ's complaint, the public (and the district court) should have a chance to examine it. The antitrust laws require disclosure of any "materials or documents which the United States considered determinative" in an antitrust settlement case. The DOJ always argues that provision doesn't really mean anything. Now the Fourth Circuit will decide if that's really the case. The DOJ will file its reply to my brief in January. I can't wait to see what distortions and lies they come up with.
Dec 24, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Recommended Reading:
Peace on Earth -- and Its Price by Robert W. Tracinski
This year, more than most, many people are choosing to spend their Christmas by searching for a haven of peace and tranquility in their homes and families. But we have not been able to do so without a few reminders of the value and the cost of that peace.
