Category: Government

There’s no crying in baseball government.

Am I supposed to feel sympathy for Harford County, Maryland because it financed a baseball stadium and is now losing money?

Ripken Stadium was meant to give the city a boost. Instead, the city with an annual budget of $16 million loses hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Mayor S. Fred Simmons has talked to several potential buyers but he said the most promising involve hometown hero Cal Ripken Jr. He owns the Aberdeen Iron Birds, the team that plays in the stadium, and a youth baseball operation nearby.

The original solution was flawed. The city should not have financed the stadium. Minor league baseball stadiums are not a public good. This is not a difficult concept. Yet, here we are:

The team pays $1 a year to use the stadium and keeps almost all the money generated from games.

One dollar. The owes on almost $5 million in bonds for the stadium, with the tax shortfall costing the city up to $485,000 a year in losses. The basic proposition should be easy to see. When built, would the stadium generate the revenue necessary to pay the debt? If yes, Mr. Ripken should been forced to build the stadium if he wanted it. If not, he wouldn’t have built it because it wouldn’t be a productive use of his capital. Notice that the city is involved in no part of that. Instead, the city played central planner and sticks its citizens, both baseball attending and non-baseball attending alike, with the bill.

“The deal they made with the Ripken thing is one of the worst deals they ever made, and now they expect the taxpayers of Aberdeen to pay for their ineptness,” said state Sen. Nancy Jacobs, a Harford County Republican. “That was a terrible deal, for very little return. It could’ve been a gold mine.”

Actually, the city is suggesting a tax on hotel rooms, so it expects visitors to the city to pay for its ineptness. But the more annoying problem is Sen. Jacobs’ contention that the deal could’ve been a gold mine. Government is not in the business of earning a “gold mine”. It has essential duties, and that’s it. Instead, city officials wanted in with professional baseball (and probably a bit of interaction with Cal Riplen, Jr.). It played with taxpayer money, and in an unsurprising twist, it lost.

This would be a valuable lesson if I thought the government, any government, would learn.

Ability to Speak Does Not Validate the Opinion

Many people fought for the title of stupidest logic yesterday.

The proposed merger of the nation’s two satellite radio companies came under sharp criticism yesterday from the chairman of a Senate panel that monitors antitrust matters, who said consumers probably would suffer if the deal goes through.

“You’d be virtually unrivaled, unchallenged in this area,” said Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights. “You’d have no competition — what a business!” he told Mel Karmazin, chief executive of Sirius Satellite Radio, at a two-hour hearing.

Right, and satellite radio subscriptions are price inelastic. Whatever the merged company wants to charge me, I’ll pay. I’m a sucker and an automaton. If the merged company offered a service to take over my financial well-being and make choices for me, I’d give up control in an instant. I am beholden to the power of Mel Karmizin.

That’s pretty bad, but this is like what I expect to say after a kick in the head.

Mary Quass, chief executive of NRG Media, a radio company in Iowa, said local AM and FM stations cannot match Sirius’s and XM’s ability to send scores of channels to every corner of the country. Listeners and advertisers might abandon local stations, she said, and “consumers will be the losers.”

If listeners abandon local radio stations, they, as those consumed, will choose to “lose”. This makes sense in what understanding of reality? The government needs to step in because I might make a decision to abandon local stations. I’m unable to know that I’d lose by doing this. Thanks, but I can make up my own mind. Local stations already lost me, anyway. There are only so many Yuk Yuk D-Double-E-Jays I can suffer, and I’ve already passed my lifetime limit.

Of course, a company like Clear Channel owns lots of local stations, all over the country. Somehow this seems like radio companies send “scores of channels to every corner of the country”. Ms. Quass’ objection surely has nothing to do with being CEO of a competing radio company.

Just for fun, I like this euphemism for central planning of the essential satellite radio product:

Gigi B. Sohn, president of the advocacy group Public Knowledge, urged the government to set price caps and other restrictions on the merger. “We believe that a properly conditioned merger would be in the public interest,” she said.

Baseball gloves are “properly conditioned”. Hair is “properly conditioned”. This is plain vanilla government regulation designed to give consumers what they “should” get and to protect specific donors constituents. No doubt the latter decides the former. Goverment knows best, after all.

How bad laws happen

Through harmless good intentions:

A bill currently before Parliament could have a devastating effect on motorcycling, as Frank Melling reports

We all know that well-intentioned actions can sometimes bring unintended results. But few events in motoring history would be as spectacular as the potential fall-out from The Off-Road Vehicles Registration Bill proposed by MP Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester Blackley).

That Mr Stringer’s basic idea was harmless enough is beyond dispute. Annoyed by feckless youths irritating his constituents on mini-moto bikes, he felt that if all these tiny motorcycles had to carry number plates then the police could arrest the miscreants and the nuisance would stop.

The law would essentially criminalize ownership of any motorcycle not registered and licensed by the government, including race motorcycles and museum pieces that never see public roads. This is a brilliant example of careless legislating and unintended consequences, but the bigger point is obvious. We legislate things that are good, or “harmless enough beyond dispute”. Everyone says “well done” and moves on with life. Then we cry foul when the resulting impact to liberty is too great.

Careless governing may be less troublesome than malicious governing, but it’s still objectionable. Laws have consequences. This is why governments should be ruled by a constitution. List the powers of the government and what it can do. Leave everything else to the people who possess those rights. It’s not perfect, but it’s as close to perfect as mankind will ever get when implemented diligently. Freedom isn’t free.

Have free society’s really lost this much of their commitment to liberty?

Via Fark.

Carefully chosen words are not an accident.

I haven’t tracked the developing scandal involving the Bush administration’s Justice Department’s firing of eight U.S. attorneys for what appears to be little more than insufficient prosecutorial partisanship at Rolling Doughnut, but I’ve paid enough attention to figure out that something’s rotten. I have no confidence that it won’t get swept away and ignored from the viewpoint of consequences. Still, I’m stunned that those involved think we’re this stupid:

At a Justice Department news conference, [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales said he would find out why Congress was not told sooner that the White House was involved in discussions of who would be fired and when. He did not, however, back away his stance that the dismissals that did take place were appropriate.

“I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision,” Gonzales said.

The White House said President Bush retains full confidence in the attorney general. “He’s a stand-up guy,” White House counselor Dan Bartlett said in Mexico, where he was traveling with the president.

Let me know how well that investigation into the delay goes. I bet it’ll be carried out with the same expediency with which the Bush administration’s connection was revealed. Until then, we have assurances from both sides that each side is filled with nothing but upstanding statesmen. Yeah, right.

For example, a semi-skilled individual could read this statement from the Attorney General and get the impression that he feels he’s above such demeaning tasks as keeping the Congress informed.

“Obviously I am concerned about the fact that information _ incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress,” Gonzales said. “I believe very strongly in our obligation to ensure that when we provide information to the Congress, it is accurate and it is complete. And I very dismayed that that may not have occurred here.”

He’s making zero claim that he’s obligated to report such information, only that when he decides to provide it, it should be accurate and complete. Thanks for the clarification, but I’ll take a little more regularly-scheduled oversight with my Department of Justice government.

Congress legislates against fixing a problem it created.

What is the government qualified to do?

Stored in such places as the vacant land near an airfield in Hope, Ark., an industrial park in Cumberland, Md., and a warehouse in Edison, N.J., are the results of one of the federal government’s costliest stumbles in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina — tens of thousands of empty trailers.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency hurriedly bought 145,000 trailers and mobile homes just before and after Katrina hit, spending $2.7 billion largely through no-bid contracts. Now, it is selling off as many as 41,000 of the homes, netting, so far, about 40 cents on each dollar spent by taxpayers.
…

FEMA cannot sell unused mobile homes directly to the public because of legislation passed by Congress in October at the industry’s urging. Instead, the agency must now go through a time-consuming process of trying to donate them first to federal, state and local agencies and public service groups, according to the Manufactured Housing Institute’s Web site.

Remind me why I should be enthusiastic about government-managed health care or schools or . Every process becomes politicized and designed to protect he who lobbies hardest and with the most cash. This is not the fault of the money. Politicians are corrupt. They should not be allowed near any task that isn’t in the Constitution.

“While FEMA has 8,420 brand new, fully furnished, never-used mobile homes in a cow pasture in Hope, Arkansas, they refuse to provide the people from Desha, Back Gate and Dumas counties with help. This is crazy,” said Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.). “If this is the new and improved FEMA, I don’t want any part of it.”

Fair enough, but if it worked as Rep. Ross wants, I wouldn’t want any part of it. That’s the point of not having the government meddle in things it’s not capable of doing. Someone will be abused. Keep out, expect people to be responsible, and let the private market take care of those who can’t or won’t. It’s rough, but it can’t be worse than the mess we have now.

Competition Over Central Planning

Over at Cafe Hayek, Russ Roberts has an excellent commentary on FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s concerns about a Sirius-XM merger. I agree with Mr. Roberts entirely, and as a Sirius subscriber, I’ll pay more if I can get the same quality Sirius service I have now and Major League Baseball.

One bit of Mr. Roberts’ post struck an interesting thought:

Five years ago there was no satellite radio. When one company came along (I don’t know who was first, Sirius or XM), should the FCC have shut them down for daring to monopolize the market? So why is it now that there’s two going back to one we have a potential calamity that the government has to worry about?

That’s an excellent question. Sirius was formed first, but XM was the first to broadcast. For those who think the government has a legitimate function in regulating this way, the government should’ve mandated that the two companies begin broadcasting on the same day. That would’ve been the only fair way to have them compete on equal footing. It can artificially decide that two is the magic number of satellite radio providers. It should be able to dictate business conditions, too. No?

I want to see lawmakers scrutinize lawmakers.

I don’t know enough on this issue to comment in depth, although I’m probably less likely to believe the hysteria than most.

Workers are being overcharged tens of billions of dollars a year in unnecessary and often hidden fees imposed on popular, company-sponsored retirement savings plans known as 401(k)s, financial experts told a congressional committee yesterday.

Mutual funds and other professional investment firms often charge fees totaling 3 percent to 5 percent of the assets they manage, when 1.5 percent would be more appropriate, Matthew D. Hutcheson, an independent consultant on pension fees, told the House Education and Labor Committee.

I’m sure this happens, based on the company that manages my 401(k). I have no reason to believe they’re maliciously screwing me with outrageous fees, but they do waste my money. When they need to send me an amendment to my plan, they send the notification by FedEx, even when what I receive consists of two printed pages. I’d prefer they use the postal service, or even better, e-mail. I’m very close to pulling my retirement funds from them and moving them to another company.

As a business owner, I have that luxury. Employees are not so lucky. They’re generally stuck with what their employer offers. Is it possible that these “unnecessary” fees are the result a perverted federal tax structure that alters some of the normal incentive to keep costs low? Every government decision has consequences, so it’s reasonable to assess which negatives the government creates through its actions.

Would Americans be better off with a simpler, individual system not tied to employers? Would a better, fairer tax code help? I don’t know the answers, but I’d start there. When there’s a significant problem in the market, it generally results from some government action.

Motivation and method matter more.

Bill Gates is smarter than this:

[Gates] said government needs to invest more money in education and training, especially in high school math and science, as well as in job training programs.

“Our high schools are no longer a path to opportunity and success, but a barrier to both,” Gates told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, chaired by Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“While most students enter high school wanting to succeed, too many end up bored, unchallenged and disengaged from the high school curriculum — ‘digital natives’ caught up in an industrial-age learning model,” he said.

I fail to see how more money to support the same structure we now have will produce anything other than more boredom and lagging in the global market. He goes on to recommend more “No Child Left Behind” goodness, in the process. I know a teacher or two. More “No Child Left Behind” is the opposite of what we need. Reform the system by taking the government out of it. Let the private market figure out how best to educate children. Then we should discuss how to pay for it. Until then, money will solve nothing.

He makes the same mistake in requesting more federal money for basic scientific research. But I agree with his sentiments on allowing foreigners to achieve permanent resident status.

Worship on your own dime.

Consider:

An unknown number of new George Washington dollar coins were mistakenly struck with edge inscriptions, including “In God We Trust,” and made it past inspectors and into circulation, the U.S. Mint said Wednesday.

That should be a news story, right? It is, except I changed one word and removed another. Here’s the original text:

An unknown number of new George Washington dollar coins were mistakenly struck without their edge inscriptions, including “In God We Trust,” and made it past inspectors and into circulation, the U.S. Mint said Wednesday.

There is no justifiable reason for coins printed by the United States government to include the phrase “In God We Trust”. Leaving it out would show respect for the Constitution. America would not cease to believe in God, nor would we perish. We’d also lose a bright symbol of legislative activism.

Via Fark.

Rights begin at 18-years-old.

Via Hit and Run, the American Academy of Pediatrics has updated its stance on routine drug testing for students. It sides on the right side, but barely. In the body of the policy, under the heading “BENEFITS AND RISKS OF DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS AND AT HOME”, the AAP waits until almost the end to state this:

Drug testing may also be perceived by adolescents as an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

No kidding. So why not elaborate on this? Granted, the AAP is mostly approaching this from a scientific standpoint, but ethics should still be a part of science. You can’t convince me that there is no one at the AAP who is aware of ethical implications. Will the AAP bow before any government desire to invade an adolescent’s medical privacy if the science was clearer than it is with drug testing? I hope not, but this might be a better time to stand up than some point in the future.

P.S. The title of this post is sarcastically incorrect. Obviously.