Big Regs will create more Mr. Potters

I recently watched the Christmas classic It's A Wonderful Life and pondered on how people may view the villainous Mr. Potter. The character Potter is a wealthy, shrewd banker who preys upon the bottom of the income scale. He applies strict lending standards and isn't forgiving when clients struggle. The character George Bailey in contrast grants loans with a sense of charity. With little thought, it’s easy to liken Mr. Potter to those calling for an end to practices of risky lending via Fannie and Freddie and liken George Bailey to those who don’t. However, this comparison omits something very important. George Bailey’s clients loved him. They scrapped every bit of effort and money they could to make their payments. While big banks in some cases resemble Potter, borrowers of the sub-prime crisis claiming themselves victims of predatory lending do not necessarily measure up to George Bailey’s clients. They had a personal relationship with him, one that more likely stems from small, community banks opposed to big banks. This relates to Stossel’s piece in the following way. John Allison, BB&T’s founder, claims he couldn’t start his bank today with current regulations and that small banks can’t emerge into markets to compete. Mr. Allison does not strike me at all as a Mr. Potter, but his point signals that current regulations will produce more Mr. Potters and less George Baileys.

Climate Science Should Undergo Proper IV&V

Mann and Jones’ research relies on climate simulation models. Before modeling and simulation professionals trust their results, they apply a rigorous process called Independent, Verification, and Validation (IV&V). This involves third parties running benchmarks against known outcomes so as to demonstrate to stakeholders that the simulation can produce reliable results. Everyone depending on energy is a stakeholder, and refusal to make the research publicly available avoids proper IV&V. A carbon trading based economy will introduce an exponential increase of inroads for the special interest and lobbyists, as demonstrated by fraud in Denmark’s Agency of the Climate and Energy Ministry and Europe’s Emission Trading System registry. Until the public has the opportunity to conduct proper IV&V, no legislation should come to exist based on Mann and Jones’ findings. Even Canada's plans to withdraw from Kyoto, signaling their growing distrust in climate change research.

The Left's Opposition to Diversity

Diversity is a three legged stool comprising of race, culture, and ideas. Each of these legs has correlation with the others, but they are distinct attributes of diversity. The Left has historically waged war against the diversity of ideas. They vigorously oppose state autonomy of public policy as though the Tenth Amendment has no relevance. Diversity of ideas leads to diversity of values. Diversity of values leads to a diversity of governance. In America, we have fifty states for that reason. Embracing diversity means embracing the idea of eliminating a number of large federal agencies, administering entitlements at the local level far out of reach of federal powers, and sending far more tax dollars to local governments rather than federal. The Left's hostility to this reveals what they truly are with respect to diversity: a fraud.

Shouldn't regulators have to eat what they cook?

Having friends and family who own and operate small businesses, I know their workload of complying with regulations can exceed that of performing the work of their actual business, much in tune with Conn Carroll's, "Durbin fee," article.

Conn Carroll: 'Durbin fee' will cost bank customers billions

The regulations have such complexity that the same question to more than one regulator may get completely different answers, sometimes contradicting one another. Try to avoid pulling your hair out when you have to satisfy them all at once! Most Americans don't experience this first hand and hence don't have experience with how it compromises business growth, which
of course has a tight correlation with job growth. To give the regulators such a perspective, I propose the following. Before
regulators, such as employees of the EPA and administrators of Obamacare, collect each paycheck, they must complete a maze of regulatory paperwork comparable to that which they impose upon domestic industry. For once, the nanny-state advocates will have to eat what they cook.

Here's a strong indicator of how the extreme Left will react: NARAL is protesting Virginia requiring abortion clinics to meet the same safety standards of ambulatory surgical centers.

NARAL puts abortion profits ahead of women's safety

Harry Jaffe needs a reality check about cars on the road

Harry Jaffe writes a column in the Washington Examiner, and his articles frequently take unnecessary jabs at people who depend on automobiles in Washington, DC for transportation. He advocates a mandatory Car-free DC day in the following article, but he needs a serious reality check.

Car-free D.C. in your future?

Cyclists require no licensing to demonstrate knowledge road rules, carry no insurance, pay no gasoline tax to fund upkeep, and carry no visible vehicle identification. If a cyclists pops from the curb into oncoming traffic (quite commonly happens), a driver may have to make a split second decision between hitting the cyclist or the car in the next lane. In the latter scenario, the cyclist can pedal away unidentified and bear no liability. Nonetheless, DC has elevated cyclists to having the same privileges of the road as motorists.

Mandatory car-free day would effectively become work-from-home day for many. As for me, I can't take Metro every day, and it becomes I-can't-get-to-class day since I leave work for night school in Montgomery County some days.

Don't get me wrong. I like the bike lanes and use them regularly myself. However, Harry Jaffe should recognize that cyclists are getting a free ride and already have it pretty good.

Let's hold up a mirror to the advocates of regulations

The Washington Examiner recently ran the following articles about regulation.

"What will Congress do to stop Obama's red tape explosion?"

"NARAL puts abortion profits ahead of women's safety"

Having friends and family who own and operate small businesses, I know their workload of complying with regulations frequently exceeds that of performing the work of their actual business. The regulations have such complexity that the same question to more than one regulator may get completely different answers, sometimes contradicting one another. Try to avoid pulling your hair out when you have to satisfy them all at once! Most Americans don't experience this first hand and hence don't have experience with this and how it compromises business growth, which of course has a tight correlation with job growth. So that Americans gain such a perspective, I propose the following. Before government regulators, such as employees of the EPA, collect each bi-weekly paycheck and vacation day, they must complete a maze of regulatory paperwork comparable to that which they impose upon domestic industry. Shall we extend this to recipients of entitlement spending while we're at it? If this happens, excessive regulation will shrink. NARAL is protesting Virginia requiring abortion clinics to meet medical standards. If they are throwing a temper tantrum about this, then I think we know what they really think about regulations.

Keeping social security promises will require large scale sacrifice

On July 7, the Heritage Foundation published a charticle that plots defense spending versus entitlement spending against the past ~50 years.


http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/defense-entitlement-spending

On September 12, CNS news reported the ratio of 1.75 people working full time jobs in the private sector for every 1 person collecting social security,

Labor Dept. Data: Only 1.75 Full-Time Private Sector Workers Per Social Security Recipient

...and with the Baby Boomer generation soon to retire, this ratio is going to get worse. To sustain social security for the current
retirees and the Baby Boomers, politicians will have to develop a strong spine to make some very tough decisions. For that to happen, voters and taxpaying citizens must do the same. We refer to the WWII generation as the Greatest Generation for all the sacrifices they made so that we could live in the country we have today. As a member of Generation X, I propose a far lesser sacrifice: pay into social security during our working lives until every last person 55 years or older receives every social security benefit promised to them by the US government. But after that, social security, at the federal level,
must end and never exist again.